New Forum Rules

[ScAvenger001]

Hello everyone.

In the interests of making the forums a more generally enjoyable and appealing place, we've updated the forum rules, as well as rearranged some of the forum sections (and added some new arcade games, take a look!). The updated rules will be reposted in the announcements in each forum section, as well as here:

The World at War team is keenly interested in promoting a courteous environment commensurate with how we wish to develop our game. We want to attract new individuals with a clean forum. Here are the new rules that we will be using:

1. In the general case, posts should be at a PG-13 standard. This means:
a. Profanity should be kept to a minimum.

i. No swearing in thread titles, or dancing around the use of a curse word in a thread title.
ii. No profanity in the first post to avoid it appearing in the thread highlight text, to avoid problems with site-blocking programs.
iii. No excessive swearing. Be discrete and be sensible, and don’t make us turn on the filter system.

b. Sexuality

i. Imagery: No nudity or sexually suggestive images (including sigs).
ii. Discussion: Sexuality is not off limits. However, it must be tasteful. No discussion of underage activities. No discussion of favorite pornos. No discussion of sexual escapades or masturbation. If you have something serious to discuss in these categories, it should be kept to the Advice or Firebox forums.

c. Violent imagery: no violent imagery depicting human corpses or excessive amounts of blood or gore.
d. Illegality:

i. Casual discussions of drugs and intoxicants are discouraged. If you have something important that you'd like to discuss about these topics, use the Advice or Firebox sections.
ii. Posting links to or trying to distribute copyrighted material is illegal, and very bad.
iii. Do not post instructions on how to illegally modify real-life weapons.
iv. Due to the terms of service from our host, all legalities are based on the laws of Maricopa County, Arizona, USA.

e. General nastiness: no posting imagery of things that are obviously disgusting, like human feces.
f. Racism and misogyny will not be tolerated in any form, in any forum, regardless of intent.
g. The Off-Topic Forum is our benchmark for the most that is acceptable: if it's not allowed there, it's not allowed anywhere.

2. If you have a question about the specific meaning of any of these rules, please ask a moderator first BEFORE posting something questionable.
a. Rules interpretations by the forum staff take precedence, and the interpretations of the administrators are gospel.
b. Some forums have their own set of local rules, be sure to read them.

3. Don't be a jerk to those around you. Unsupported ad hominem attacks are bad, and if you're going out of your way to be insulting we aren't going to tolerate it for very long. Also, if you're doing things that goad people into flaming you, stop.

4. COMMON SENSE:
a. Spamming is bad. This includes posts with lots of blank space, and things like spoiler ziggurats.
b. Taunting or misinforming newbies is bad. Be nice to them, they are part of the community now.
c. If a moderator tells you to stop doing something, stop doing it.
d. Reopening locked threads is bad.
e. Posting for people who've been banned is bad.
f. Recruiting for another mod using the WaW forums is just silly, and not good.

5. Do not post exploits or hacks for WaW or FA. An exploit is defined as using existing code in an unintended way to gain an unfair advantage over other players. The key words here are unintended and unfair. If you know of an exploit, please PM it to a team member or forum staffer. No hacks, cheats, or other malicious 3rd party programs will be tolerated, so don't post them and don't ask where to get them.

6. Temporary bans will occur if people are breaking these rules. If it becomes a serious problem, permanent bans will ensue. Bans are awarded in progressive levels of seriousness. Temp bans of varying length are used before permabans.
a. Forum staff can be found in #waw_admins on Gamesurge IRC if you have any questions, comments, requests or just generally want to chat. Also, if you want to point out things that we've missed or appeal a mod's decision, #waw_admins is probably the place to do it.
b. Do not register more than one account. Secondary accounts will be banned on sight, and abuse will lead to bans of the main account.
c. "Banned" means "we don't want to hear from that person on the forums any more," not "we're forcing that person to reregister because we want to be annoying."
d. If you are banned and you reregister without being given explicit permission from an administrator to do so, your chances of being unbanned are zero.

7. Sigs: Images in sigs are limited to 415x150 pixels. Filesize limit is 150KB. Please try to keep your sigs to a reasonable size. Quote tags should not be used in sigs.

8. Have fun!

Probably the most important change here is the creation of the Advice section, home to all those serious threads you always wanted to make but didn't want filled with OTF spam and didn't fit the political mold of the Firebox. Good for everything from asking for music recommendations to asking how to get (or leave) a girl.

Since not all previous posts will meet the new guidelines but we don't want to have a big mess trying to sort those out, we're going to close all current OTF threads. If you think a thread still meets the new rules and you want to keep talking about it, feel free to repost it (keeping in mind it may need to be moved to a new section). We apologize for the inconvenience.

Some explanations for those of you who want the incredibly detailed set of forum policy:

1.a. In the interests of helping out people who browse the forums at work or at school, we would like people not to swear in the thread titles or first posts. Since we'd like to try and maintain a friendly atmosphere on the forums, please try not to go overboard with the profanity.

1.b. "Sexually suggestive" pretty much means anyone wearing less than something you'd want to see a close female relative wearing (yes, yes, you don't want to see any female relatives wearing anything other than huge amounts of the most opaque cloth available, but you know what I mean).

1.c. Posting your hunting trophies is still ok, but we don't need any more dead babies or things of that nature.

1.d. We don't need to know how drunk you got or what brand of cigarettes you use, and we definitely don't need to know if you're using something more heavily controlled than those.

Those are the important changes that you should be aware of. If you have any further questions on those matters, we now have an entire forum dedicated to answering them.

Thanks,
ScAvenger001 and the WaW moderator staff

[Lord Kelvin]

So, I might as well be the first to ask questions.

iii. No excessive swearing. Be discrete and be sensible, and don’t make us turn on the filter system.
I'd like some elaboration on this if possible. While I'm far from one of the people who swear every other word, I do tend to go overboard sometimes when I'm angry.


i. Imagery: No nudity or sexually suggestive images (including sigs).

How would suggestive qualify? For example, my current sig, while it involves implication of intercourse, is purely cartoonish and contains no nudity, where would it stand?

ii. Discussion: Sexuality is not off limits. However, it must be tasteful. No discussion of underage activities. No discussion of favorite pornos. No discussion of sexual escapades or masturbation. If you have something serious to discuss in these categories, it should be kept to the Advice or Firebox forums.

So, posts like the original post in the Geaorgwashingmachine thread would be illegal under these new rules then?

e. General nastiness: no posting imagery of things that are obviously disgusting, like human feces.

Again, some clarification would be gratefully accepted.

3. Don't be a jerk to those around you. Unsupported ad hominem attacks are bad, and if you're going out of your way to be insulting we aren't going to tolerate it for very long. Also, if you're doing things that goad people into flaming you, stop.

In general the OTF will be assholes to each other, though obviously in a playful fashion, which is one of the things we're known for. How will you qualify what is and isn't allowed?

b. Do not register more than one account. Secondary accounts will be banned on sight, and abuse will lead to bans of the main account.

I find this one a bit controversial. Originally we were allowed to have more than one account for whatever purpose, just that we can't use it while we're on a ban. And let's admit it, joke accounts can be funny if not used maliciously (ie. the StandingCow's Penis account as opposed to the Jcdenton or Psyche's widegaping vagina account).

d. If you are banned and you reregister without being given explicit permission from an administrator to do so, your chances of being unbanned are zero.

There's been precedence on this before, with people who apologized and were allowed back (ie. Blindsite and neko), and when the banlist was wiped under various circumstances. I'd like to know how those stand.

[neko]

Wait, I've never re-registered without explicit permission, except during the FA forums when I tried to reregister to talk to Scav because I was G-Lined on IRC.

[Lord Kelvin]

I was referring to how you got permabanned here at one point for some reason or other about a year ago, and then got amnesty from Lucky sometime in the summer.

-e- What I'm getting at is that there's ample precedent for people who've supposedly been permabanned forever, and then allowed to return at a later date (namely, Mafi, and this was on more than one occasion on WaW, after the old clean slate per RC system back with FA).

[neko]

That was back when Lucky was the chief administrator and told everyone that if they wanted to be unbanned to message him on MSN and ask, so I did. That's not re-registering, that's being unbanned by an administrator.

[Onyx]

Hopefully this won't be strict.

[ScAvenger001]

I'd like some elaboration on this if possible. While I'm far from one of the people who swear every other word, I do tend to go overboard sometimes when I'm angry. This is one of those areas where being specific isn't really possible due to the wide variety of possible situations. It's like giving a comprehensive definition of "flame."

How would suggestive qualify? For example, my current sig, while it involves implication of intercourse, is purely cartoonish and contains no nudity, where would it stand? Your sig contains no nudity, thus the nudity rule does not apply to it.

So, posts like the original post in the Geaorgwashingmachine thread would be illegal under these new rules then? I don't remember that specific instance.

Again, some clarification would be gratefully accepted. This is a catchall rule for all kinds of things, ranging from goatse and tubgirl to people who just want to show us the poop they just vented. There are a wide variety of disgusting things in the world, so again, a comprehensive rule here would be futile.

In general the OTF will be assholes to each other, though obviously in a playful fashion, which is one of the things we're known for. How will you qualify what is and isn't allowed? The first sentence is one of the previous rules. We aren't going to go out of our way to squelch playfulness, but we do want to keep things so that people who aren't already initiated into the ways of the forums don't get scared off.

I find this one a bit controversial. Originally we were allowed to have more than one account for whatever purpose, just that we can't use it while we're on a ban. And let's admit it, joke accounts can be funny if not used maliciously (ie. the StandingCow's Penis account as opposed to the Jcdenton or Psyche's widegaping vagina account). The majority of secondary accounts are going to be abused, either to insult people or as a convenient way to evade bans. It's a gray area that I wanted to close.

There's been precedence on this before, with people who apologized and were allowed back (ie. Blindsite and neko), and when the banlist was wiped under various circumstances. I'd like to know how those stand. Those are very specific exceptions, many of them lucky-based. The general rule is as written.

Hopefully this won't be strict.
We aren't going to suddenly become nazis, banning everything that moves.

[maggie]

/me bans Scav

[StandingCow]

/me bans maggie

[ScAvenger001]

Oh, here's a change that will be strictly enforced, though:

7. Sigs: Images in sigs are limited to 415x150 pixels. Filesize limit is 150KB. Please try to keep your sigs to a reasonable size. Quote tags should not be used in sigs.

If you have quote tags in your sig, do me a favor and strip them out please.

[Noirceur]

I'm a little confused by the flame part. I get flamed all the time, but I don't think I'm doing anything to incite people to flame me...are you banning me now:lincoln:

[MeanPatrick]

Just wondering... Why are the old rules still in the OTF and not this?

[ScAvenger001]

This are the OTF-specific rules, the general rules are also there in the announcements (not the sticky).

[MeanPatrick]

Alrighty then. NEXT QUESTION!

How many kitteny kittens do I have to kitteny say to get my post kitteny de-kitten-leted? :lincoln:

Also, I'm guessing I can't use words like puppy in my first post either, right?

[Noirceur]

Just say you're talking about sticks;)

[MeanPatrick]

Just say you're talking about sticks;)

That requires too much cunning. I'm not James Joyce here. :(

[Makai Goblin]

My sig okay?

That's all. For the most part, the revised rules seem to fit what I try to do normally.

[spartan]

Woaaah, cursing's a no-no now?

Thumbs down. :(

[FaKToR]

So would this type of thread be allowed?

http://forums.worldatwarmod.com/showthread.php?t=42412

[StandingCow]

Woaaah, cursing's a no-no now?

Thumbs down. :(

Who said it was a no no? Did you even read the rules?

[Makai Goblin]

Woaaah, cursing's a no-no now?

Thumbs down. :(

Just in the 1st post of a new topic, and just not in excess.

So, if every other word that you type is "fuck" or "shit", then it's bad.

EDIT: Wow, double nanoed!

[StandingCow]

So would this type of thread be allowed?

http://forums.worldatwarmod.com/showthread.php?t=42412

No, it would not be.

[MeanPatrick]

So would this type of thread be allowed?

http://forums.worldatwarmod.com/showthread.php?t=42412

You idiot, of course not. Threads with TheUBC in them are off-limits.

[FaKToR]

Who said it was a no no? Did you even read the rules?

No excessive swearing. Be discrete and be sensible, and don’t make us turn on the filter system.

That's a very vague guideline.

[Makai Goblin]

So would this type of thread be allowed?

http://forums.worldatwarmod.com/showthread.php?t=42412

I'd guess, no.

EDIT:

ARGH! nano'ed again!

Curse you, space-time contenuem!!

[StandingCow]

That's a very vague guideline.

Well, we can't say.. hey, only 5 curses per post or anything. Just post how you guys normally do, I don't remember any cases where there was excessive swearing anyway.

[ScAvenger001]

Alrighty then. NEXT QUESTION!

How many fucking fucks do I have to fucking say to get my post fucking de-fucking-leted? :lincoln: You are allowed no more than two per sentence, with an additional one allowed every other paragraph. Seriously though, there's no hard limit, but try not to be gratuitous about it.

Btw, I meant to mention earlier, this forum section is going to be kind of fast and loose with the rules, because I don't want to be punishing people who want to know what the rules are and break them in the process. Just so you know :) Don't abuse that, though :fier:

Also, I'm guessing I can't use words like faggot in my first post either, right? Yeah.

My sig okay? Yeah, it's ok. Nothing's showing more than you might see on a beach.

Woaaah, cursing's a no-no now?

Thumbs down. :( See above.

[FaKToR]

No, it would not be.

What about this thread?

http://forums.worldatwarmod.com/showthread.php?t=42993

[MeanPatrick]

-e- gangbang nano.

Man, I'm seriously thinking about posting some porn or something. That would be like me putting a gun to my head and firing, or something...

[StandingCow]

What about this thread?

http://forums.worldatwarmod.com/showthread.php?t=42993

Looks like no:

ii. Discussion: Sexuality is not off limits. However, it must be tasteful.

I am still getting used to these new rules as well.

[Makai Goblin]

Yeah, it's ok. Nothing's showing more than you might see on a beach.

What beaches do you go to, where the women are wearing almost-nipple-showing bikinis?!?!?

;)

[ScAvenger001]

Looks like no:

ii. Discussion: Sexuality is not off limits. However, it must be tasteful.

I am still getting used to these new rules as well.

I tend to agree. It doesn't get really, y'know, graphic, but while it's fairly close to the line I'd say that it's on the removal side of it.

[StandingCow]

I tend to agree. It doesn't get really, y'know, graphic, but while it's fairly close to the line I'd say that it's on the removal side of it.

Yea, that one is not an easy call.. I thought about it a bit and had to run back to the rules page...

Like I said guys, we have to get used to this as well, that is why I said before this happens... I think our intial response is going to be strict, then over time us and the forum users would reach a middle ground.

[nojmaster]

What beaches do you go to, where the women are wearing almost-nipple-showing bikinis?!?!?

;)

You've never been to a European beach... :D

On the reregistering after getting banned thing; I fell foul of this one back on the FA boards. Thing was I didn't realise I was banned and thought my account was borked. Is there gonna be some kind of notification, either as a message when you try to log into the forums or an email? Not that I plan on getting banned, it would just go a little to avoid confusion in the future.

[StandingCow]

You've never been to a European beach... :D

On the reregistering after getting banned thing; I fell foul of this one back on the FA boards. Thing was I didn't realise I was banned and thought my account was borked. Is there gonna be some kind of notification, either as a message when you try to log into the forums or an email? Not that I plan on getting banned, it would just go a little to avoid confusion in the future.

I think it actually informs you that you have been banned and you can contact the admin...

[RoommateRiot]

Quote tags should not be used in sigs.

If you have quote tags in your sig, do me a favor and strip them out please.

I took mine out to be safe, but what's the significance of this rule?

Also, I'm glad misogyny is right up there with racism.

[Prowl]

the quote tags take up loads of space for no good reason, that's why.

[StandingCow]

I took mine out to be safe, but what's the significance of this rule?

Also, I'm glad misogyny is right up there with racism.

the quote tags take up loads of space for no good reason, that's why.

Yea, its much more efficient to just put the quote in.. huge sigs really clutter forums up. I really think small sigs, like mine look better than huge ones anyway.

[CaptCommy]

The only thing that kinda bothers me is that Seanobi's thread is now disallowed. That was hilariously epic. What if you took some of the nastier bits and replaced them with [Censored]? Like bleeping curse words on TV? Does that work, or does that count as evading the rule? And would that work for like, first posts and thread titles? So instead of Fuck everyone, I could just do [Censored] everyone? I don't mean to like, try to outsmart the rules, but I think it would be a fair compromise. And like I said, it works on public TV, it should work here.

[StandingCow]

The only thing that kinda bothers me is that Seanobi's thread is now disallowed. That was hilariously epic. What if you took some of the nastier bits and replaced them with [Censored]? Like bleeping curse words on TV? Does that work, or does that count as evading the rule? And would that work for like, first posts and thread titles? So instead of Fuck everyone, I could just do [Censored] everyone? I don't mean to like, try to outsmart the rules, but I think it would be a fair compromise. And like I said, it works on public TV, it should work here.

Yea, it wasn't so much what he started with, it was what transpired, all the sex talk.. So, that is why both I and scav sorta were hazy about a yes/no answer... had it been posted under the new rules then we would have just deleted/edited some of the following posts, and the thread would have been fine.

Hope that makes sense, I am about to go to bed.

[MeanPatrick]

The only thing that kinda bothers me is that Seanobi's thread is now disallowed. That was hilariously epic. What if you took some of the nastier bits and replaced them with [Censored]? Like bleeping curse words on TV? Does that work, or does that count as evading the rule? And would that work for like, first posts and thread titles? So instead of Fuck everyone, I could just do [Censored] everyone? I don't mean to like, try to outsmart the rules, but I think it would be a fair compromise. And like I said, it works on public TV, it should work here.

Don't worry, this won't last long. The admins will eventually go back to being lazy and inconstant. :kak:

I hope. :(

[Modest Genius]

well, that all looks pretty sensible, except for the absolutely stupid swearing rules

I've made my position clear on this one before, but I'll just summarise by saying that

a) I see no reason to ban swearing

b) there's no clear definition of what is and isn't swearing (bastard? bloody hell? crap?)

c) there is inconsistency as to what is allowed where, which just confuses things for no good reason

d) as has been discussed in length, there is no way we should be going out of our way to make people less likely to be caught when browsing at work. if they do, that's their problem, they shouldn't have been doing it at work.

otherwise, I like the new layout and the way the rules are written (though the copyright and substance abuse rules might need a bit of clarifying)

[CaptCommy]

Don't worry, this won't last long. The admins will eventually go back to being lazy and inconstant. :kak:

I hope. :(

Why not work on reaching a compromise instead of waiting for something that may never come and bitching the whole long while?

[MeanPatrick]

Why not work on reaching a compromise instead of waiting for something that may never come and bitching the whole long while?

How 'bout No? That wouldn't have nearly as funny results. :kak:

[Prowl]

FFS, THERE IS NO BAN ON SWEARING, ONLY SWEARING IN THREAD TITLE AND FIRST POSTS.

AFTER THE FIRST POST WE ASK ONLY THAT YOUR THREADS DON'T READ ALONG THE LINES OF "FUCK YOU FUCKING CUNTS, I SAID YOU ONLY NEED TO BLOW THE FUCKING DOORS OFF YOU CUNT"

why is this so hard for you to understand. do your mummys and daddys not let you swear at home so you have to come to the forums to do your weeks worth of swearing instead?

[MeanPatrick]

FFS, THERE IS NO BAN ON SWEARING, ONLY SWEARING IN THREAD TITLE AND FIRST POSTS.

AFTER THE FIRST POST WE ASK ONLY THAT YOUR THREADS DON'T READ ALONG THE LINES OF "FUCK YOU FUCKING CUNTS, I SAID YOU ONLY NEED TO BLOW THE FUCKING DOORS OFF YOU CUNT"

why is this so hard for you to understand. do your mummys and daddys not let you swear at home so you have to come to the forums to do your weeks worth of swearing instead?

You could certainly be a little more adult about this. :lincoln:

[Noirceur]

AFTER THE FIRST POST WE ASK ONLY THAT YOUR THREADS DON'T READ ALONG THE LINES OF "FUCK YOU FUCKING CUNTS, I SAID YOU ONLY NEED TO BLOW THE FUCKING DOORS OFF YOU CUNT"
I'm pretty sure that was a test of the new rules;)

[Steadman]

Shouldn't it just be the paragraph of the first post that should be censored or devoid of cursing?

Or does VB use the entire post

[StandingCow]

Shouldn't it just be the paragraph of the first post that should be censored or devoid of cursing?

Or does VB use the entire post

I think it only catches the first sentence. I do not know where you guys are getting the, "Ban on swearing" idea from, did we ever say swearing was not allowed?

[Lord Kelvin]

When I used IE, it would show about a paragraph of the first post. It's Firefox that only shows a single sentence.

[StandingCow]

When I used IE, it would show about a paragraph of the first post. It's Firefox that only shows a single sentence.

Ok, so, thats why its the entire first post. :)

[Steadman]

I think it only catches the first sentence. I do not know where you guys are getting the, "Ban on swearing" idea from, did we ever say swearing was not allowed?

I'm not arguing. I'm trying to help you further define the instructions as to prevent further incident.

Geez. :rolleyes:

[StandingCow]

I'm not arguing. I'm trying to help you further define the instructions as to prevent further incident.

Geez. :rolleyes:

What..? I wasn't angry, I was just trying to explain it. :p

[FaKToR]

I think it only catches the first sentence. I do not know where you guys are getting the, "Ban on swearing" idea from, did we ever say swearing was not allowed?

Because you wouldn't have made a rule unless you thought there was something to enforce.

[StandingCow]

Because you wouldn't have made a rule unless you thought there was something to enforce.

The rule is FIRST post and thread titles... how is that a ban on swearing?

[Steadman]

The rule is FIRST post and thread titles... how is that a ban on swearing?

Hence
Shouldn't it just be the first paragraph of the first post that should be censored or devoid of cursing?

[FaKToR]

The rule is FIRST post and thread titles... how is that a ban on swearing?
Might wanna double check that:
iii. No excessive swearing. Be discrete and be sensible, and don’t make us turn on the filter system.

[StandingCow]

Might wanna double check that:

# i. No swearing in thread titles, or dancing around the use of a curse word in a thread title.
# ii. No profanity in the first post to avoid it appearing in the thread highlight text, to avoid problems with site-blocking programs.

[StandingCow]

Might wanna double check that:

# i. No swearing in thread titles, or dancing around the use of a curse word in a thread title.
# ii. No profanity in the first post to avoid it appearing in the thread highlight text, to avoid problems with site-blocking programs.

iii. No excessive swearing. Be discrete and be sensible, and don’t make us turn on the filter system.

[FaKToR]

# i. No swearing in thread titles, or dancing around the use of a curse word in a thread title.
# ii. No profanity in the first post to avoid it appearing in the thread highlight text, to avoid problems with site-blocking programs.

a. Profanity should be kept to a minimum.

* i. No swearing in thread titles, or dancing around the use of a curse word in a thread title.
* ii. No profanity in the first post to avoid it appearing in the thread highlight text, to avoid problems with site-blocking programs.
* iii. No excessive swearing. Be discrete and be sensible, and don’t make us turn on the filter system.

Yeah I have no fucking clue what excessive means in this case. What could be excessive in real life could be normal for the otf. What I would conclude based on the fact that you bothered to articulate such a rule was that there was excessive swearing in how the otf conducted itself which would mean there would have to be less swearing than we've been having, otherwise I don't understand why you'd even bother articulating such a rule.

[Modest Genius]

still doesn't change the fact that there is no need for a no-swearing rule of any description, whether in thread titles or elsewhere

[StandingCow]

a. Profanity should be kept to a minimum.

* i. No swearing in thread titles, or dancing around the use of a curse word in a thread title.
* ii. No profanity in the first post to avoid it appearing in the thread highlight text, to avoid problems with site-blocking programs.
* iii. No excessive swearing. Be discrete and be sensible, and don’t make us turn on the filter system.

you missed my edit.

still doesn't change the fact that there is no need for a no-swearing rule of any description, whether in thread titles or elsewhere


Scav and alex disagree.

[Prowl]

don't forget me, I disagree strongly, and hold myself up as a target for anyone who wants do defend their fundamental human right to swear continusously and without censorship on a gaming forum.

[MeanPatrick]

don't forget me, I disagree strongly, and hold myself up as a target for anyone who wants do defend their fundamental human right to swear continusously and without censorship on a gaming forum.

Fuck you? :D

That seems to be the only response that will you'll listen to.

[FaKToR]

Fuck you? :D

That seems to be the only response that will listen to.

That was my first inclination as well.

[Modest Genius]

That was my first inclination as well.same (and a quick search will show you I don't tend to go around swearing much)

[Prowl]

same (and a quick search will show you I don't tend to go around swearing much)

then why the fuck are you fucking going round wasting your own fucking time protesting this fucking rule we fucking made?

(thats excessive swearing btw)

[Modest Genius]

because of the fucking principle you fucking idiot. fuck.

and because I don't want to see other people punished for it

[maggie]

do you guys want to go fight in the schoolyard at recess?
jeez.

[MeanPatrick]

do you guys want to go fight in the schoolyard at recess?
jeez.

Well, that would be a lot more interesting. :D

[Steadman]

I want to fight Neko.

Is it possible to step on people? Because if not that would kinda screw up my plan...

[imatard]

if you want to see a school yard fight you should hit break.com or something along those lines.

there are some pretty funny ones.