Coming soon: updated terms of service

[Freedom]

As I recall, you were debating the merits of government involvement in society, and where you continued to reply with your well reasoned and articulated points, he had much shorter replies that either didn't address the points you made, but instead he simply went on about how "guvmint" is bad, and he did use that word(although I can't honestly say for sure I have the spelling right).

It was probably his obstinacy in his positions and continued alternate use for the word government that seemed to irritate the hell out you, so that may have been why you put him on ignore.

You might be right, and that would be "guvmit" since the socialists now running it don't earn the respect to be called a Government.
And since what I've seen first hand over the last 53 years doesn't line up with what the colleges are saying about it, then anyone half my age will fully disagree with me.... at least for now.

I'll EDIT this so the thread doesn't continue to get off topic,

What I said 4 years ago has now come to fruit.
The GOVERNMENT is allowing the illegals to pour in here to prop up the social(ist) security that without them will go belly up.
THat was what the disagreement was, socialism.

[phattonez]

Freedom, I say we because I recall you saying something along the lines of "you and a group of other people antagonize new members to the point where they never want to come back." Maybe I remember wrong, but it still doesn't matter, that's my opinion.

I don't know why you bring this up again, but if you want to argue again, just PM me like yesterday.

[Freedom]

Freedom, I say we because I recall you saying something along the lines of "you and a group of other people antagonize new members to the point where they never want to come back." Maybe I remember wrong, but it still doesn't matter, that's my opinion.

I don't know why you bring this up again, but if you want to argue again, just PM me like yesterday.

I bring it up again because that's what this whole conversation has been about.
The treatment of new people that come here.

[Beldaran]

I agree with Freedom about the guvmint. (libertarian here)

[Pineconn]

...Okay.

Hey, can we make sure to add that copying/stealing another's avatar is a bannable offense? Anyone remember the Pineconn_lolz incident?

[ShadowTiger]

That's the kind of issue that everyone knows really irks people and with "good" reason, but nothing can really be done about it because it's so ... all over the board decision-wise. It's like that old childing game "I'm not touching you!!" with your finger hovering millimeters over someone's epidermis.

Counter justice would generally be composed of pointing a loaded gun at him and replying with "I'm not scaring you..."

[AlexMax]

Why do we need a whole plethera of rules? You only need a couple:

Rule Zero: We reserve the right to ban anyone for any reason or even no reason.
Rule One: Don't be an idiot.
Rule Two: No warez, ROM's, illegal pornography, copyrighted content (excluding fair use and satire), other stuff that would cause AGN to get Party V&'ed by the FBI, etc.
Rule Three: Don't break the forums.

[ShadowTiger]

Yes, but who is "we?"

That depends on what "is" is.

You have no idea how tempted I am to say "are" now instead.

[Freedom]

Yes, but who is "we?"

That depends on what "is" is.

[AlexMax]

Yes, but who is "we?"

I imagine that the rules would be coming from the point of view of an administrator, so "We" would refer to the colletive administrators and moderators as a whole.

Really, writing out 10 pages worth of rules and trying to scrutinize people closely makes things more complicated than they need to be. I say keep them simple, so their intent is not lost. The more complicated the rules are, the more likely some joker is going to try and pick them apart and find a loophole.