Home | Community | Message Board


High Mountain Compost
Please support our sponsors.

Feedback and Administration >> Website Announcements and Feature Feedback

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Adminstrative Rules not applied
    #4693180 - 09/22/05 01:13 AM (11 years, 2 months ago)

On Banning:

Banning will be enforced on any user who violates any Shroomery policy. In the event a user violates such policy, they are to be processed in the following manner:

Warning by moderator/administrator via Private Message including notice of temporary ban upon next infraction. Immediate bans may be issued in severe circumstances.


No such warning was given. No PM can be produced by an mod.

Temporary ban of 5-10 days with: (1) explanation of the reason behind the ban and (2) the duration of said ban; both to be stated in the ban?s Reason field, which administrators, moderators, and the banned user will receive notice of via PM.

No such reason nor any direct communication from a mod nor an admin was given. No PM can be produced by any Mod. Nor has there been a length of time given for my ban from S&P.

Following the previous two measures, if a user continues to violate policy, they will be permanently banned after a consensus has been reached amongst the administration. If no consensus can be reached, the user will be temporarily banned for a period twice as long in duration as their first ban.

There were NO previous two measures. No PM from any Mod can be produced. Seems the mods cannot follow their own rules. This procedure is a joke.

Naturally, my penalty will be all the worse for pointing this out and this thread will be conveniently deleted. Not sure why these rules exist if they are only for some people some of the time.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.


Edited by Swami (09/22/05 01:25 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleOneMoreRobot3021
Male

Registered: 06/06/03
Posts: 60,932
Loc: the sky
Re: Adminsitrative Rules not applied [Re: Swami]
    #4693240 - 09/22/05 01:22 AM (11 years, 2 months ago)



--------------------
Acid doesn't give you truths; it builds machines that push the envelope of perception. Whatever revelations came to me then have dissolved like skywriting. All I really know is that those few years saddled me with a faith in the redemptive potential of the imagination which, however flat, stale and unprofitable the world seems to me now, I cannot for the life of me shake.

-Erik Davis


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,174
Last seen: 3 months, 19 days
Re: Adminsitrative Rules not applied [Re: Swami]
    #4693259 - 09/22/05 01:25 AM (11 years, 2 months ago)

You were warned in that thread.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,849
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 12 days, 23 hours
Re: Adminsitrative Rules not applied [Re: OneMoreRobot3021]
    #4693274 - 09/22/05 01:28 AM (11 years, 2 months ago)

Duh, Swami, you aren't suspossed to post website feedback in the Website Announcements and Feedback forum. :rolleyes:

You seem to forget that you aren't allowed to question these things in public even though there was a forum created specifically for that purpose. :lol:

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :satansmoking:
Peace. :mushroom2:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: Adminsitrative Rules not applied [Re: OneMoreRobot3021]
    #4693276 - 09/22/05 01:28 AM (11 years, 2 months ago)

The warnings are explicitly to come BEFORE any such action is taken with a SPECIFIC reason along with MULTIPLE warnings before a perma-ban.

No procedeure was followed at all.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,174
Last seen: 3 months, 19 days
Re: Adminsitrative Rules not applied [Re: Swami]
    #4693302 - 09/22/05 01:31 AM (11 years, 2 months ago)

Guess what? At the end of the day, this website is privately owned, and the administrators' say is final.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,849
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 12 days, 23 hours
Re: Adminsitrative Rules not applied [Re: Redstorm]
    #4693311 - 09/22/05 01:33 AM (11 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Redstorm said:
Guess what? At the end of the day, this website is privately owned, and the administrators' say is final.




If they will flip flop on what exactly their say is so frequently, then why codify what their say is with a declaration of rules and policy? :smirk:

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :satansmoking:
Peace. :mushroom2:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,849
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 12 days, 23 hours
Re: Adminsitrative Rules not applied [Re: fireworks_god]
    #4693337 - 09/22/05 01:37 AM (11 years, 2 months ago)

By the way, what did you do this time, Swami? Make a suggestion on some interesting reading material, or something? Maybe someone got hit in the head with that book as a young child and the mention of its title hurt their feelings... you should have known better than to so blatantly flame someone! :nonono:

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :satansmoking:
Peace. :mushroom2:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinegeokillsA
∙∙∙∙☼ º¿° ☼∙∙∙∙
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/08/01
Posts: 19,098
Loc: city of angels Flag
Last seen: 1 day, 23 hours
Re: Adminsitrative Rules not applied [Re: Swami]
    #4693344 - 09/22/05 01:38 AM (11 years, 2 months ago)

I would consider myself to be a fairly easy-going person who is always open to constructive criticism (as may be evidenced by those members who have had to deal with me in relation to past disciplinary actions). However, given the recurring nature of your complaints, it seems to me that you are in large part aiming to fulfill a personal egoic justification rather than an honest attempt at trying to understand why the administration here acts in the ways we do. The fact that you consistently bring such issues into the public light rather than attempt to resolve them through direct communication with those responsible only reinforces my belief that you are not looking for an efficient resolution to your concerns, but that you would rather parade yourself as a spectacle in front of the community for some internal motive that I cannot myself comprehend.

You should realize that though we do provide rules & guidelines for the public to grasp the concept of our administrative tendencies, these rules are never absolute and are always subject to interpretation. Even in the document you have quoted, it clearly states that "immediate bans may be issued in severe circumstances." Admittedly, the word severe can be left open to a wide range of interpretation, but I will also note that the administrators of this website are the ones solely responsible for this interpretation and that your right to participate on this server is entirely conditional upon your ability to coexist in harmony with the rest of our members and staff. Contrary to your desire, this is a privately held server and the administration reserves the right to disallow access to anyone, at any time, and for any reason. While we will work with our members to discuss matters of serious concern, your nitpicking approach to specific wording in our policy does not light my fire.


--------------------

--------------------
··∙   long live the shroomery  ∙··
...π╥ ╥π...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinegeokillsA
∙∙∙∙☼ º¿° ☼∙∙∙∙
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/08/01
Posts: 19,098
Loc: city of angels Flag
Last seen: 1 day, 23 hours
Re: Adminstrative Rules not applied [Re: Swami]
    #4693345 - 09/22/05 01:39 AM (11 years, 2 months ago)

Upon reconsideration, I will leave this thread open in efforts to prevent your style of discontent from manifesting itself in yet a newer thread. Understand that I will be going over our Administrative Rules & Guidelines document in the near future in efforts to clarify some things related and unrelated to the matter at hand. I just want you to know, Swami, that it will not behove your ability to participate openly in our community if you continue your methods of public antagony directed towards the administrators, moderators, or members of this community. You may interpret that in any manner you care to, and the administration will do likewise.


--------------------

--------------------
··∙   long live the shroomery  ∙··
...π╥ ╥π...


Edited by geokills (09/22/05 01:49 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,265
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 5 days, 17 hours
Re: Adminstrative Rules not applied [Re: Swami]
    #4693403 - 09/22/05 01:55 AM (11 years, 2 months ago)

Sorry Swam, you've been warned in S&P in the past, and a warning's a warning.

You don't get a new warning every time you (arguably) break a rule (although it would be nice). It is no secret here; you KNOW the rules to S&P. You know what trolling is; you know what off-topic posts are. Depending on how you look at it, you were trolling and/or posting off-topic, and you have been warned/banned in the past.

Past warnings stand.

Look at the bright side, it looks like the Admins didn't hold your holiday bans against you... and send you away for a month; you DIDN'T EVEN SERVE 24 hours for THIS ban. NO ban should be less than 24... Shroomery protocol.

You ARE getting special treatment.

We've banned paying sponsors for longer periods; for committing lesser crimes.

Seems to me you made out better than you may have elsewhere, for such behavior.

I wouldn't make too big a deal out of this.

Save that support ticket for when it will actually help you out.

If you don't want to get caught, don't troll a Mod. :wink:


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Edited by Rose (09/22/05 02:11 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,849
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 12 days, 23 hours
Re: Adminstrative Rules not applied [Re: Rose]
    #4693492 - 09/22/05 02:14 AM (11 years, 2 months ago)

Perhaps he is making a big deal out of this because he is still banned from S&P, and he doesn't know for how long? Maybe he is no longer banned from that one particular forum, but I was under the impression that he was, as was him, as is apparent from his initial post. :wink:

I think it is a little fucked up to participate in a community, but when certain issues come up that involve decisions, it suddenly cannot be discussed as a community and can only be resolved through mediums that do not appear to the community.

It is also amazing to think that if any issue is brought up wherein there will be disagreement or opposition, it is labeled as "antagonism". I wonder if we can label politicial protesters supporting marijuana legalization as solely acting out of antagonism. :rolleyes:

Apparently discussion on issues where a large amount of the community will have opinions they wish to express are to be discouraged, if these opinions will conflict with each other or will call into question the actions of others. Should we change the name of this forum to "New Emoticon Suggestions"? :smirk:

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :satansmoking:
Peace. :mushroom2:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,265
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 5 days, 17 hours
Re: Adminstrative Rules not applied [Re: fireworks_god]
    #4693542 - 09/22/05 02:24 AM (11 years, 2 months ago)

Now, as for being banned from the forum?

He has a case... but it hasn't even been 24 hours yet. He's hardly served ANY sentence.

He's (Arguably) only broken one rule in his tenure in S&P... although he's recieved his share of warnings.

It is no secret the S&P Mods have had their hands full with Swami for some time, but, until today, he's stayed (roughly) within the rules. Unless the Mods change the S&P rules, and add yet another Swami clause, they are on interesting ground (if not thin ice). A permaban from S&P would be unjust retribution. I wonder what they'll have to say for themselves.

Of course, if they're smart, they'll keep that info private.

Nothing creates drama like a Swami ban... hence the relative silence from our end.

Swami's a love/hate type of guy. Very few just, kinda' like Swami.

He did troll a Mod. Not smart. Forum bans, and their duration, are a Mod's call.. unless the Admin steps in. I doubt it will be a permaban, rather a severe spanking.

Again kids, don't troll a Mod. You'll ALWAYS get caught.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,849
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 12 days, 23 hours
Re: Adminstrative Rules not applied [Re: Rose]
    #4693621 - 09/22/05 02:43 AM (11 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Cervantes said:
He did troll a Mod. Not smart. Forum bans, and their duration, are a Mod's call.. unless the Admin steps in.




What constitutes trolling a moderator? I know you keep asserting this, and I'm sure you have reason to do so, but, I mean, man, like...  where? how? I realize that his comments have been deleted from the original thread, in respects of the wishes and intentions of the thread, but this is not that thread, and will it really disrupt trendal's dream experiment if the comments he made that apparently broke the rules are reproduced here?

I mean, I know ya'll are concerned about controversy and arguement erupting over decisions being made, particuarily when it involves Swami in some degree... perhaps one way to lessen such an effect is to demonstrate how exactly it was that he broke these rules? I know it must suck to have to deal with all of this when you make a simple decision to ban someone, but if you are also expecting that others do not make a big deal out of this... :grin: I guess you could just ban everyone that mentions it, though, or establish a mechanism that will lock any thread that has the word "Swami" in it.. :wink:

Quote:


It is no secret the S&P Mods have had their hands full with Swami for some time, but, until today, he's stayed (roughly) within the rules. Unless the Mods change the S&P rules, and add yet another Swami clause, they are on interesting ground (if not thin ice). I wonder what they'll have to say for themselves




On a related note, why do we need two threads of rules in S&P? One is entitled "Spirituality Forum Rules"... do those rules only apply to Spirituality discussions, and not Philosophy-orientated ones? How do we differentiate? Who is the mysterious stranger that posted those rules, since it says "Anonymous"? Multiple rules in multiple threads that seem to apply to only certain topics... if Swami is breaking the rules, perhaps it is because he is confused. :lol:

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :satansmoking:
Peace. :mushroom2:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,265
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 5 days, 17 hours
Re: Adminstrative Rules not applied [Re: fireworks_god]
    #4693675 - 09/22/05 02:57 AM (11 years, 2 months ago)

The comments are gone, I can't reproduce them, so I won't even try.

(Instead, let me be vague...)

If anyone starts a thread, and ASK SPECIFICALLY FOR PEOPLE TO FOLLOW THE RULES OF AN EXPERIMENT, and someone else INTENTIONALLY BREAKS THE RULES OF THE THREAD'S EXPERIMENT MULTIPLE TIMES...

(... and now, let me be specific...)

... THAT'S TROLLING.

If he had trolled a regular user, there's a chance a Mod wouldn't notice... BUT HE TROLLED A MOD... and MORE THAN ONE MOD NOTICED.

He was trolling.

Keep in mind, catching a troll is a subjective art. Each Mod defines trolling a little differently... and let's different things slide. Let's face it, any time you post something to get a response, your trolling at least a little bit.

We're politely trolling each other right now.

As the S&P rules stand today, Mods get to choose what is trolling, and what is not. Their trolling rule allows for that. They practically get to redefine the word, "Troll" on a case by case basis.

When a Mod feels they are being trolled, I imagine their definition of "Troll" could narrow a bit. 'Tis human nature, and Ythan still hasn't been able to get the Modbots working.'Till then, you're stuck with human moderation. :wink:

Moderation is an Art rather than a science. We try to define things as clearly as possible. Sometimes though, we must be subjective. And with subjectivity, comes questions... and threads like this.

Flames are easy to spot. So are puppets.

Trolls are different. One person may see a troll, and someone else may see a devil's advocate. :wink:

If more than one S&P Mod says Swami was trolling, and banned him; it doesn't matter what Swami said, and it doesn't matter what you or I think... because it is not our decision to make. It is the S&P Mod's job, to make those subjective decisions. Someone will always disagree with a subjective decision... usually the one who gets punnished. People rarely do things for malicious reasons, and to be called a troll is often shocking to the people who do it. People do things for positive reasons, even trolls.

There is little doubt Swami trolled. He did all he had to do, to be banned from S&P.

He posted something for the sole purpose of pissing someone off, and getting a heated reply. Then, he did it again and again.

It matter's little what he said exactly, because he was obviously trying to ruin the thread's experiment.

Classic troll.

You must look at a person's actions and words to declare a troll. The S&P Mods did just that. It is a subjective art. But, they saw, and banned a troll.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,389
Loc: USA
Re: Adminstrative Rules not applied [Re: Swami]
    #4693679 - 09/22/05 02:59 AM (11 years, 2 months ago)

people awlays make the mistake of being a dick in the wrong places. you were being a dick to trendal, but ya cant do that in s&p. otd is a perfect place to blow off steam, be a dick or really voice what you want to say without editing. you should have taken your argument or whatever there. then no one could have banned you. you could have even grossed out your opponent with a horrible scat pic.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,849
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 12 days, 23 hours
Re: Adminstrative Rules not applied [Re: Rose]
    #4693729 - 09/22/05 03:17 AM (11 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Cervantes said:
If anyone starts a thread, and ASK SPECIFICALLY FOR PEOPLE TO FOLLOW THE RULES OF AN EXPERIMENT, and someone INTENTIONALLY BREAKS THE RULES OF THE THREAD'S EXPERIMENT MULTIPLE TIMES...

(and now, let me be specific)

... THAT'S TROLLING.




Which is why, if anyone responds to my current post in S&P, and their reply consists of the letter "a", they will be banned in the exact same manner, correct? Will I myself be banned for trolling because I made the post itself (even though it specifically addresses points that are spiritual or philosophical in nature, dealing with conscious/subconscious procedures), although it is impossible to distinguish whether or not trendal made his post to troll? :grin:

Also, how do we distiniguish whether or not Swami originally, intentionally broke the rules of the thread? Perhaps he misunderstood the intentions of the thread and posted his book title? Sure, you might say Swami is smarter than that, but if he was indeed smarter than that, then why would he intentionally break rules and get banned? Obviously it wouldn't be for reasons as simple as to stir up controversy, as all that does is get him in more trouble. :grin:

What if someone participating in trendal's dream experiment falsified data by sending trendal the name of a book that they did not actually dream? They would, in fact, be trolling as well, since they were not respecting the intentions of the thread. Obviously, its not the same, posting the name of a book in a thread which asked for that not to be done (even though it might not have been done intentionally :smirk:) can be determined; however, it does reveal the fact that a word like "trolling" is basically an excuse for any moderator to ban anyone at any time for any reason they feel like.

Swami isn't a troll; he's a communist! :shocked:

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :satansmoking:
Peace. :mushroom2:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: Adminstrative Rules not applied [Re: Rose]
    #4693733 - 09/22/05 03:18 AM (11 years, 2 months ago)

He posted something for the sole purpose of pissing someone off...

Wrong.  :thumbdown:


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,265
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 5 days, 17 hours
Re: Adminstrative Rules not applied [Re: fireworks_god]
    #4693736 - 09/22/05 03:20 AM (11 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

fireworks_god said:

Which is why, if anyone responds to my current post in S&P, and their reply consists of the letter "a", they will be banned in the exact same manner, correct? Will I myself be banned for trolling because I made the post itself (even though it specifically addresses points that are spiritual or philosophical in nature, dealing with conscious/subconscious procedures), although it is impossible to distinguish whether or not trendal made his post to troll? :grin:





To be at the most risk, you must troll a Mod. In your current trap, the troll might be safe. Unless, of course, it was Swami. :wink:

Have a good one f_g! :smile:


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,265
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 5 days, 17 hours
Re: Adminstrative Rules not applied [Re: Swami]
    #4693746 - 09/22/05 03:25 AM (11 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Swami said:
He posted something for the sole purpose of pissing someone off...

Wrong.  :thumbdown:




As I said in the post you quoted, trolls always troll for positive reasons... but others interpret those reasons differently.

I could go into The Pub and make a thread saying, "The Pub is a Cunt hole" right now, and I wouldn't do it to piss them off, instead I'd be trying to make a point. OTHERS though, logically, would think I was trying to piss them off. If a Mod saw it, I could be warned... unlike you, my record's clear... I wouldn't get banned. :tongue:

Should I try it?

Better yet, you try.

Mods look at what you write, and decide weather or not it is trolling. It is a subjective decision, and it is not yours or mine to make. They (MORE THAN ONE) say you trolled (and you were given two warnings by my count, and THOSE warning posts still exist). You got to sin three times before you were banned, End of story.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

Feedback and Administration >> Website Announcements and Feature Feedback

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Rule change in P&S. Mr. Mushrooms 1,003 14 04/29/09 07:29 AM
by fireworks_god
* "Trolling"
( 1 2 3 all )
Silversoul 2,421 44 09/29/05 11:05 PM
by MAIA
* Re: Deleting the accounts of trolls Captain Jack 1,188 10 07/19/00 11:36 PM
by Aphex
* irc rules
( 1 2 3 all )
LosAngelesGraff 3,583 40 11/02/12 09:50 PM
by automan
* OTD Rules
cb9fl
572 3 05/19/05 02:15 PM
by Thor
* Clarification on the no flaming rule
( 1 2 all )
gettinjiggywithit 1,508 21 10/23/05 10:58 PM
by gettinjiggywithit
* Inconsistent application of forum rules SeussA 1,253 10 04/30/03 09:21 AM
by Ripple
* the "rule" .. Gomp 756 8 10/17/05 12:28 PM
by afoaf

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Ythan, Thor, Seuss, geokills
3,467 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Lil Shop Of Spores
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.125 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 16 queries.