4. Common Sense:

[Placeb0]

4. COMMON SENSE:
a. Spamming is bad. This includes posts with lots of blank space, and things like spoiler ziggurats.


why? if you're such a hardass that you can't put up with something so harmless that doesn't even waste space until you foolishly click it sixty-eight times, why not just skip over it? if the poster is doing it in the firstplace, how worthwhile can you expect whatever your clicking yields? lighten up, let it slide, or just hit "quote" to quickly reveal it. is a rule against this really necessary? what does it actually accomplish?

[Lord Kelvin]

IMO it's annoying, doesn't contribute anything, and it's somewhat childish to make them. I for one am glad that they're not allowed anymore.

And yes, I'm too lazy to click "Quote" to see whatever the hell you decided to put inside those quotes.

[StandingCow]

Yep, its very annoying.

It is necessary, and it prevents people from having to click 50 times to get a message.

[Somedude]

More to the practical aspect of it, it can mess up the thread so the rest of the thread looks off.

[Placeb0]

but if the poster put it behind 50 spoilers why not just read on? whatever the message is, it's obviously not worth your time, and if it was, it wouldn't be underneath a ziggurat.

kelvin- contribute to what? what do we have to contribute to in the threads where this is typically used? if there's ever a thread with anything actually worthwhile or serious, they rarely if ever get used.



edit

More to the practical aspect of it, it can mess up the thread so the rest of the thread looks off.

ok, that i can understand. you other two are just babies.

[Steadman]

More to the practical aspect of it, it can mess up the thread so the rest of the thread looks off.

:D

3char

[StandingCow]

ok, that i can understand. you other two are just babies.

:rolleyes:

[Placeb0]

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

[Lord Kelvin]

ok, that i can understand. you other two are just babies.

Or, maybe I don't want to deal with childish bullshit, and just want to read the Goddamn thread without being bothered by annoying shit like spoiler ziggurats.

[Afro Joe]

Kelvin you sure are professional. You should be a doctor or something.

[Modest Genius]

but if the poster put it behind 50 spoilers why not just read on?because you dont know it's behind that many when you click the first one or two, which is enough time to get annoyed

[Placeb0]

if that annoys you, and you think putting rules into place to quell your every minor nuisance is necessary, you need to grow some thicker skin and some bigger balls

[StandingCow]

if that annoys you, and you think putting rules into place to quell your every minor nuisance is necessary, you need to grow some thicker skin and some bigger balls

No, you just need to not put 50 spoilers in a post.

[SWATJester_os]

It's pointless to argue this. Spoiler ziggurats fuck up the rest of the thread.

[Steadman]

And I have the warnings to prove it.

[StandingCow]

And I have the warnings to prove it.

O rly? Lucky warnings do not count. Where is this proof?

Get BJ, Receive Prison February 5th, 2007 08:33 PM February 15th, 2007 08:33 PM 0 Insulted Other Member(s) StandingCow
28 weeks later footage January 24th, 2007 06:51 AM Expired 0 Insulted Other Member(s) StandingCow
Dear Lucky... September 3rd, 2006 07:41 PM Expired 10 trolling lucky644
Forums performance and... June 28th, 2006 07:45 PM Expired 6 Spamming lucky644
Forums performance and... June 28th, 2006 06:03 PM Expired 4 Discovered bug; did not disclose directly to admins. CT

[ScAvenger001]

but if the poster put it behind 50 spoilers why not just read on? whatever the message is, it's obviously not worth your time, and if it was, it wouldn't be underneath a ziggurat.

Goatse.

Like so. See, the mods have a compelling reason to read everything that gets posted, and that's why. Plus, yes, they can screw up threads.

[Lord Kelvin]

I must admit, I laughed at that one for some reason.

[maggie]

I was kind of disappointed that it wasn't real goatse.
Scavbant?

[GusButts]

Oh my eyes!!!!!

Why did I have to click on the spoiler ziggurat!!

[Steadman]

O rly? Lucky warnings do not count. Where is this proof?

Get BJ, Receive Prison February 5th, 2007 08:33 PM February 15th, 2007 08:33 PM 0 Insulted Other Member(s) StandingCow
28 weeks later footage January 24th, 2007 06:51 AM Expired 0 Insulted Other Member(s) StandingCow
Dear Lucky... September 3rd, 2006 07:41 PM Expired 10 trolling lucky644
Forums performance and... June 28th, 2006 07:45 PM Expired 6 Spamming lucky644
Forums performance and... June 28th, 2006 06:03 PM Expired 4 Discovered bug; did not disclose directly to admins. CT

Last...one...

It says right on the fuckin' warning. "Discovered bug; did not disclose directly to admins."

[Glock23]

Also, if I'm not mistaken, due to the use of JavaScript in the spoilers and the way firefox handles said protocols, it can cause a massive memory leak and make it unstable.

[StandingCow]

Last...one...

It says right on the fuckin' warning. "Discovered bug; did not disclose directly to admins."

There there was a bug due to spoilers, not a warning because you spammed spoilers.

[Steadman]

More to the practical aspect of it, it can mess up the thread so the rest of the thread looks off.
It's pointless to argue this. Spoiler ziggurats fuck up the rest of the thread.

That took 2 seconds longer than it should've.

[Modest Genius]

Also, if I'm not mistaken, due to the use of JavaScript in the spoilers and the way firefox handles said protocols, it can cause a massive memory leak and make it unstable.just like to point out that changing the rules cos of a bug in a browser would be silly

[Steadman]

just like to point out that changing the rules cos of a bug in a browser would be silly

Not when we want to attract new members.

[Prowl]

just like to point out that changing the rules cos of a bug in a browser would be silly

are we defending peoples basic internet freedoms to create spoiler ziggarauts now?

[killerfluffy]

Spoiler ziggarauts are a bannable offense on lots of forums. It's stupid. Don't do it.

[Modest Genius]

are we defending peoples basic internet freedoms to create spoiler ziggarauts now?of course not, see my other posts in this thread

[Scraps]

I really see no problem with them and will continue to use them when the time comes.

[maggie]

You rebel, you.

[Somedude]

just like to point out that changing the rules cos of a bug in a browser would be silly

It's not really a change... We've never allowed them.

Also, you're right, it's crazy that we'd want to ever discourage people from using KNOWN browser exploits. I'll start putting IE crash scripts in all my posts! ;)

[Scraps]

You rebel, you.

:fier: :panda:

[StandingCow]

:fier: :panda:

Amazingly the panda did not burn due to a genetic flaw, its fur was fireproof. Who woulda thought!? ;)

[Tunnel Rat]

so at what point does the spoiler within a spoiler become a ziggurat? when there's nothing inside the outter one? when there's nothing "of merit" inside the outter one?

i'm not playing devil's advocate here. but as someone that's dropped a spoiler inside a spoiler containing material, i'd like to know prior to being bant where the line is.

[SWATJester_os]

Why would you need a second spoiler tag within a first spoiler tag?

Regardless, if you have something like this: blah blah 20 lines of text subspoiler with a few lines blah blah blah blah another point you are making a line or two of conclusion , that should be fine (assuming you're not filling it up with spam to get around the rules). Just ask a mod if you aren't sure.

[ScAvenger001]

Yeah, and it doesn't seem unreasonable that we'd see something like this:

Let's talk about <game>'s plot. This will contain spoilers.
No, really, this is a spoiler. Don't just click it because you always click spoilers by force of habit.<text>

I'd be ok with that.