Achtung achtung!

[Cymro]

Fair enough. "I agree" posts were shunned enough in the first place, so the rule should go down well.

 

[Redcoat-Mic]

The main problem I have with it is the suggestions thread. If I recall correctly, Instag0 made a suggestion so perfect everyone was just saying "Great idea" for the first pages.
There's not much as to say when they've done something so well and it'd be a shame for them to sink.
For example: http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,29897.0.html. Some had a change to make, but it's a perfectly fine suggestion with nothing to add to it

 

[fisheye]

The main problem I have with it is the suggestions thread. If I recall correctly, Instag0 made a suggestion so perfect everyone was just saying "Great idea" for the first pages.
There's not much as to say when they've done something so well and it'd be a shame for them to sink.
For example: http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,29897.0.html. Some had a change to make, but it's a perfectly fine suggestion with nothing to add to it

I agree.





Err, with the sociopolitical ramifications of the extramunicipal interordinal geofunctionality of idea.

Well, I think the man's got a point. ****....




Oh! AND I think sometimes the "I agree" posts bump good suggestions which is very important.

EDIT: Aha, more content: I think you better delete this whole "I love Armagan and Ikisoft" thread based on your new criteria.
http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,30482.msg783704.html

 

[Merentha]

Naturally, there are exceptions, and they are rather obvious.  It is solely up to admin discretion, and I will, in all likelihood, be following the current US law regarding pornography:  "I can't define it easily, but I can recognize it when I see it."

 

[Seff]

Naturally, there are exceptions, and they are rather obvious.  It is solely up to admin discretion, and I will, in all likelihood, be following the current US law regarding pornography:  "I can't define it easily, but I can recognize it when I see it."

Because you've spent so much time watching it?

 

[Yeyinde]

You're one to talk.

 

[bugman]

Naturally, there are exceptions, and they are rather obvious.  It is solely up to admin discretion, and I will, in all likelihood, be following the current US law regarding pornography:  "I can't define it easily, but I can recognize it when I see it."

Because you've spent so much time watching starring in it?

 

[Yeyinde]

Heh, I was considering posting the exact same thing, but thought "... Oh, no, repect the admins".

 

[Redcoat-Mic]

Naturally, there are exceptions, and they are rather obvious.  It is solely up to admin discretion, and I will, in all likelihood, be following the current US law regarding pornography:  "I can't define it easily, but I can recognize it when I see it."

That's even worse.
You don't know if it'll get you punished or not if you do it, so no one will do it.
This is a respectful grumble, I'm not going to make a big deal over it but I think these rules are getting a bit down to personal interests. Sure going simply agreeing with something and adding nothing is a bad quality post but then why not just delete posts are bad quality altogether then? Seems to me like it's the same principle.
Same with the /b/ pictures really, I was a bit iffy with the flooding but then banning someone over just one. It's clear you guys don't like it, I don't either, but banning people over it seems harsh.
I know it's not free speech and I could leave and we're lucky to have it and all those chips. This is an entirely respectful complaint, just my two pence.

 

[Janus]

Let me put it this way. To me, a reply like this would be fine, particularly in a suggestion thread:

I agree. All of the ideas above would be good.

While one like this would not be fine anywhere:
[quote author=person C]
[quote author=person B]
[quote author=person A]
I think you're rather annoying, personally.
[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

 

[Redcoat-Mic]

That's fair enough.

 

[Lost-Lamb]

Same with the /b/ pictures really, I was a bit iffy with the flooding but then banning someone over just one. It's clear you guys don't like it, I don't either, but banning people over it seems harsh.

Notice how he's the only one that got banned for it that time? This is due to him being specifically warned about it several times, him persisting and netting a ban for it, yet he for some unfathomable reason saw the need to give himself a /b/ Avatar & Signature AND continue spewing /b/ **** around.

Besides, he agrees that he had it coming

 

[Archonsod]

You don't know if it'll get you punished or not if you do it, so no one will do it.

As I said before, if you suspect something might get you into trouble, it's generally a good idea to either not post it or ask first. If you can't tell whether a post is close to the line then I'd worry about your education.

Basically if you argue with the admins you are an idiot who deserves what's coming to you.

Not really, more "Those on the ****list can expect to be hit by a flying book at the first opportunity"

 

[Redcoat-Mic]

You don't know if it'll get you punished or not if you do it, so no one will do it.

As I said before, if you suspect something might get you into trouble, it's generally a good idea to either not post it or ask first. If you can't tell whether a post is close to the line then I'd worry about your education.

That's not practical. No ones going to say "is it alright if I agree with this suggestion?".
The original rule was no just straight out agreeing which would be ridiculous but I don't mind Janus's view on it, that's fine.

 

[Archonsod]

That's not practical. No ones going to say "is it alright if I agree with this suggestion?".
The original rule was no just straight out agreeing which would be ridiculous but I don't mind Janus's view on it, that's fine.

Probably not, but then I don't know why you'd think agreeing with a suggestion would get you in trouble (assuming you weren't simply using that stupid arrow anyway). Point being, if you feel the post could get you in trouble then you already know there's a problem somewhere, so either redo the post and remove the problem, or ask.

Problem is, Janus' example isn't that great either. Stating you agree is nice, but it's a lot more useful to the discussion to add why you agree, and what points particularly interest you or stand out in the suggestion. Contributing to the discussion keeps the thread nice and prominent, adds a little more fat to chew and shows the devs why people think an idea is fun/good, which is a lot more useful (from a design view) than someone simply saying "this sounds good". In other words, everyone wins, and it only costs you the effort of perhaps one or two more sentences.

 

[Cleaning agent]

What I'd like to know is why you guys didn't simply remove the little arrow from the list of available emotes...

 

[Lost-Lamb]

Because making things retard proof breeds retards. Natural selection baby.

 

[Cleaning agent]

Damn we need that right now! Also make the html code for it "Anyone know where I can get a crack" Save some bother to the admins.

 

[calandale]

What I'd like to know is why you guys didn't simply remove the little arrow from the list of available emotes...

Never even understood WHAT it was
there for.

 

[Yoshiboy]

Pointing at stuff?

e.g

Stuff