Jump to content

NHB new rule addition.


Recommended Posts

Just now, crazyhole said:

You may as well complain about having to click on the topic here to be able to access information.   Its the same thing

 

 

Unsurprising, you fail to get the point.

 

Bill

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, superds77 said:

FWIW, I like this rule and have generally followed this in the past anyway.

 

It should tighten things up a bit.

 

Yes. 

 

We have more than one clown who will dump an entire web page in an OP, without even cutting out the click bait, ads, and other junk. Then the post is a mile long. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Again, you are off topic. Never have I mentioned the events on January 6. My points are quite clear. If you want to address them and not bring in something extraneous, fine. If not, find someone else to converse with. 

 

What happened here on 1/6 isn't "extraneous." FFS. But let's shift the focus to big problems, like quote lengths.

 

That will get us somewhere.

 

Bill

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SpyCar said:

 

What happened here on 1/6 isn't "extraneous." FFS. But let's shift the focus to big problems, like quote lengths.

 

That will get us somewhere.

 

Bill

 

 

My point is not on the priority. It is simply that making someone click on a link is not barring them access to information... its really that simple. 

  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kfools said:

Please check rule 1 section D

 

All mods are to enforce this rule to a T. 

 

@calguy @lucifershammer @rippy38

 

Its a priority.

 

Something else that's a little frustrating is seeing an interesting thread title, and then the OP contains nothing but a link.

 

Should there also be a policy that thread authors must state their point, either with a paragraph from the link, or preferably, in their own words? I'm not clicking every link I see, and some are behind a paywall, but then I wasted my time opening the thread.

  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SpyCar said:

LOL. There you go. Limit information with a new rule against news while ignoring the domestic terrorism that's being advanced on this website.

 

You really have your priorities straight. LOL.

 

Bill

 

Widdle cwybaby Bill still butthurt over getting fired for insubordination. LMAO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SpyCar said:

 

Off topic? Hardly think so. Serious shit went down here and we are focusing on quotation limits? FFS.

 

Bill

 

 

No "Shit" went down here.

 

All that happened was you were told not to ban members and did it anyways. 

 

No threats or posts of threats was allowed or is now. 

 

As always, you can remove the threat without removing the poster. Still,you have never countered why that is a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SixShooter said:

 

Something else that's a little frustrating is seeing an interesting thread title, and then the OP contains nothing but a link.

 

Should there also be a policy that thread authors must state their point, either with a paragraph from the link, or preferably, in their own words? I'm not clicking every link I see, and some are behind a paywall, but then I wasted my time opening the thread.

There is merit to this and I have thought about it myself. Changes must be gradual though. If we do implement such a policy it won't be right away. 

 

Slow and steady. 

 

There is other dangers in allowing links with no context besides what you mentioned. 

  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

My point is not on the priority. It is simply that making someone click on a link is not barring them access to information... its really that simple. 

 

Yeah. And my point is that focus on this miniscule rule change when we have serious problems here is an extreme failure of leadership that's surreal and mind-blowing given current circumstances.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SpyCar said:

 

Yeah. And my point is that focus on this miniscule rule change when we have serious problems here is an extreme failure of leadership that's surreal and mind-blowing given current circumstances.

 

Bill

There are no problems here. Except that you weren't allowed to ban members. 

 

Thats literally your problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SpyCar said:

 

Yeah. And my point is that focus on this miniscule rule change when we have serious problems here is an extreme failure of leadership that's surreal and mind-blowing given current circumstances.

 

Bill

I could be wrong but pretty sure no one is forcing you to keep responding to this thread which has a narrow focus. If you think this is so trivial, why do you keep wasting your time on trivial matters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, impartialobserver said:

I could be wrong but pretty sure no one is forcing you to keep responding to this thread which has a narrow focus. If you think this is so trivial, why do you keep wasting your time on trivial matters?

 

No. I'm focused on the serious matter. Our republic in under threat from violent political extremism.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SpyCar said:

Yeah. And my point is that focus on this miniscule rule change when we have serious problems here is an extreme failure of leadership that's surreal and mind-blowing given current circumstances.

 

Bill

 

You've lost your fucking mind!!

 

giphy.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SpyCar said:

 

No. I'm focused on the serious matter. Our republic in under threat from violent political extremism.

 

Bill

And you are accomplishing something by responding to this thread which focuses on such a trivial matter? At least you have a sense of humor. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SpyCar said:

 

No. I'm focused on the serious matter. Our republic in under threat from violent political extremism.

 

Bill

Our Republic is under siege from censorship guised as public safety.

 

We will have fucking none of it here. 

 

NONE EVER!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SpyCar said:

 

You know.

 

Bill

No,I dont know. Or I wouldn't be asking. 

 

Your problem us that certain posters aren't being banned. Is that not correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, kfools said:

Our Republic is under siege from censordhip guided as public safety.

 

We will have fucking none of it here. 

 

NONE EVER!

 

Translated: This website will allow death threats and the incitement of political insurrection against the republic while it cracks down on the length of citations from serious news sources.

 

Got it.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • kfools unpinned this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...