Message Turncoat in a DM to get moderator attention

Users Online(? lurkers):
10 / 115 posts
0 votes

Meta, Sturm, Inq, Tony and TC


Posts: 2653

Have we agreed upon dox rules? Was anything settled? Do we have something that we all have agreed upon and can reference in out time of doxing?

What did you guys eat today? 

How many birds did you see today?

Posts: 3137
0 votes RE: Meta, Sturm, Inq, Tony and TC

That stuff TC was saying. That was fake news.

Posts: 2653
0 votes RE: Meta, Sturm, Inq, Tony and TC

That stuff TC was saying. That was fake news.

 It seems we all had some different understanding of the rule and therefore I would like for it to be put out clear for all to seeeeeee and refer to as that topic feels unfinished

Posts: 141
0 votes RE: Meta, Sturm, Inq, Tony and TC

That stuff TC was saying. That was fake news.

 *Fake mews

Posts: 141
0 votes RE: Meta, Sturm, Inq, Tony and TC

Have we agreed upon dox rules? Was anything settled? Do we have something that we all have agreed upon and can reference in out time of doxing?

What did you guys eat today? 

How many birds did you see today?

 Honestly, it’s not been discussed in the mod group since TC made his post. We switched to sharing cat stories instead.. and general chit chat. Purrorities and all. 


I ate goulash, Cheerios and a spoon of chocolate icing. I bird watched with the cats... we saw about 12 birds. 

Dox rule wise, I haven’t read his thread yet to see the general consensus. I don’t think any of us other than TC are wanting to change the rule from what we’ve believed it is. Ultimately, it’s whatever the userbase wants though. It’s your asses. 

 

Posts: 33390
0 votes RE: Meta, Sturm, Inq, Tony and TC

This is what I'm working with. 

Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
Posts: 33390
0 votes RE: Meta, Sturm, Inq, Tony and TC
Sturm88 said: 

I don’t think any of us other than TC are wanting to change the rule from what we’ve believed it is. 

Posted Image

How is it the people who paid the least attention about older policy that are the ones talking about how "it's always been"? I'm the one arguing the older ruling, you weren't even there. I'm not trying to change anything, you guys are trying to unintentionally change things from the lack of attention paid to the past discussions however many years ago. 

So basically right now it is "Mods will do what they want". 

Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
last edit on 10/11/2019 4:55:25 AM
Posts: 3137
0 votes RE: Meta, Sturm, Inq, Tony and TC

That stuff TC was saying. That was fake news.

 It seems we all had some different understanding of the rule and therefore I would like for it to be put out clear for all to seeeeeee and refer to as that topic feels unfinished

 No CP.

Doxxing is allowed and taking down doxes is available upon request by the doxxed. This includes family, friends, school, social media and work that's tied to the individual. The reason for this is because failure to do so can be more of a liability at the expense of the owner, which also ensures a more stable platform. 

Posts: 33390
0 votes RE: Meta, Sturm, Inq, Tony and TC

That stuff TC was saying. That was fake news.

 It seems we all had some different understanding of the rule and therefore I would like for it to be put out clear for all to seeeeeee and refer to as that topic feels unfinished

Doxxing is allowed and taking down doxes is available upon request by the doxxed. This includes family, friends, school, social media and work that's tied to the individual. The reason for this is because failure to do so can be more of a liability at the expense of the owner, which also ensures a more stable platform. 

So in other words we're throwing out the vanity clause and a bunch of other shit we spent ages debating over because they just "forgot it". 

FFS I question why I'm even here if my work at recalling the history is just "fake news" when they don't like it. With this it's just going to be that much closer to a hugbox, which is something we ought to be working against, not towards. How do you figure much of our past conflicts would have even happened if we didn't have rules to protect against the removal of too much content? 

Past a point the name here might as well change too, as all that'll be left of it is people waxing nostalgia over a dead age and questioning why their safety measures made the place become boring and sterile. 

Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
last edit on 10/11/2019 5:05:59 AM
Posts: 3137
0 votes RE: Meta, Sturm, Inq, Tony and TC
Sturm88 said: 

I don’t think any of us other than TC are wanting to change the rule from what we’ve believed it is. 

Posted Image

How is it the people who paid the least attention about older policy that are the ones talking about how "it's always been"? I'm the one arguing the older ruling, you weren't even there. I'm not trying to change anything, you guys are trying to unintentionally change things from the lack of attention paid to the past discussions however many years ago. 

So basically right now it is "Mods will do what they want". 

 Nonsense. 

10 / 115 posts
This site contains NSFW material. To view and use this site, you must be 18+ years of age.