GAMEchief is the greatest hacker ever!

I R Here. Anyone Else?

Coak reporting in.

Negative Sergeant, Zeth has left the building.

a;ldkfjalskdfjalskdjflkasjdf

edit: code for here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zeth

Negative Sergeant, Zeth has left the building.

---

Aww So Sad D:

SDS be hur.

I kid, I kid.
I was just sitting in the corner, silly!
-creepy smile-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zeth

I kid, I kid.
I was just sitting in the corner, silly!
-creepy smile-

---

Woah....
Er Lay Off The Crack...

THIS... IS... not crack.
It's merely flour... mixed with acid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zeth

THIS... IS... not crack.
It's merely flour... mixed with acid.

---

Nice.... 10'

Acid puts holes in your brain...
>_>

So do bullets.

im over there >>>>

k guise bumping this old thread because it is funny and relevant and gravedigging is no longer against the rules Xdddddddd

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flareboy323

k guise bumping this old thread because it is funny and relevant and gravedigging is no longer against the rules Xdddddddd

---

When is your moderator status being stripped away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unintelligible

When is your moderator status being stripped away.

---

I was just making a point because I thought that having grave digging be within the rules is a bad idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flareboy323

I was just making a point because I thought that having grave digging be within the rules is a bad idea.

---

Do you mean good idea? Threads this far back shouldn't be posted in. Period.

Anyone deliberately grave digging threads like this will be warned. I want that to be known.

I don't see how bumping this hurt anything.

It stimulated discussion about a lack of a grave digging rule. I disagree that it's harmful, as I disagree that this bump was harmful. If someone did it as spam, they can be warned as spam. If someone is contributing to discussion, why would you make a rule against that?

Also per moderator discretion, you can totally just lock old topics if you don't want people fucking with them. Using the inline moderation tools is a good way to select a lot of old topics fast and lock them all at once. But I really can't approve of a rule that says you can't post in an unlocked topic.

First of GameChief don't hack (said in signature) so don't ask for him to hack stuff . Second off this thread is like over 3years old and gamechief don't want to be know as a hacker he probally will not to to happy to see that you grave dug this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by To Give You This Gun

First of GameChief don't hack (said in signature) so don't ask for him to hack stuff . Second off this thread is like over 3years old and gamechief don't want to be know as a hacker he probally will not to to happy to see that you grave dug this.

---

I'm so super duper not happy.

>:B grr

>:( Grrrrrrrrrr!!!! (are you being sarcastic?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by To Give You This Gun

>:( Grrrrrrrrrr!!!! (are you being sarcastic?)

---

Yes. I don't care that he bumped this. I think it counteractively proved my point that no harm was done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Stover

I don't see how bumping this hurt anything.

It stimulated discussion about a lack of a grave digging rule. I disagree that it's harmful, as I disagree that this bump was harmful. If someone did it as spam, they can be warned as spam. If someone is contributing to discussion, why would you make a rule against that?

Also per moderator discretion, you can totally just lock old topics if you don't want people fucking with them. Using the inline moderation tools is a good way to select a lot of old topics fast and lock them all at once. But I really can't approve of a rule that says you can't post in an unlocked topic.

---

I have no problem with contributory grave digging. There wasn't a particular problem with Flare grave digging given the byproduct of his action (the lack of grave digging rule). But if you're grave digging to grave dig, that's spam and you should be infracted as such.

And I would lock topics like this, but I don't think I have that option outside of the Sell/Trade section. But basically, harmless grave digging isn't bad. But if you bump a 2 year old topic with a post like "MAN THIS THREAD SUCKS" I think that's wholly infraction-worthy.

The harm done is that it was pointless and unnecessary. It's only congesting the current threads. Deliberate grave digging like this shouldn't be excused in the way you're excusing it. I wouldn't mind at all though if I were able to lock topics like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unintelligible

And I would lock topics like this, but I don't think I have that option outside of the Sell/Trade section. But basically, harmless grave digging isn't bad. But if you bump a 2 year old topic with a post like "MAN THIS THREAD SUCKS" I think that's wholly infraction-worthy.

The harm done is that it was pointless and unnecessary. It's only congesting the current threads.

---

Which would fall under a no spam rule, which we already have.

Quote:

---

Deliberate grave digging like this shouldn't be excused in the way you're excusing it. I wouldn't mind at all though if I were able to lock topics like this.

---

In this particular instance, I don't see it as grave digging for the sake of it. I see it as a discussion of the rules. Ethan, for instance, gravedug for the sake of grave digging, and that was not allowed and thus deleted. I'll let this one slide as I think the purpose was to bring up the topic of grave digging, not to say "because it is funny and relevant xddddddd." Or I'm giving him too much credit, but benefit of the doubt. If someone did the latter at any point henceforth, yeah, it would be a problem. Contextually, I don't see it as such. He made a (political?) statement, and I'm open to criticism and people attempting to illustrate points however they want. In this case, I think I justified the rule well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Stover

Which would fall under a no spam rule, which we already have.

---

Which I already said.

Quote:

---

But if you're grave digging to grave dig, that's spam and you should be infracted as such.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Stover

In this particular instance, I don't see it as grave digging for the sake of it. I see it as a discussion of the rules. Ethan, for instance, gravedug for the sake of grave digging, and that was not allowed and thus deleted. I'll let this one slide as I think the purpose was to bring up the topic of grave digging, not to say "because it is funny and relevant xddddddd." Or I'm giving him too much credit, but benefit of the doubt. If someone did the latter at any point henceforth, yeah, it would be a problem. Contextually, I don't see it as such. He made a (political?) statement, and I'm open to criticism and people attempting to illustrate points however they want. In this case, I think I justified the rule well.

---

Yeah, that's basically what I tried to explain. We can't give users this much leeway. That would only backfire in the future if/when activity picks up.

Contextual grave digging is fine. Blatant, frivolous grave digging, however, is not. I think we're pretty much on the same page, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Stover

Which would fall under a no spam rule, which we already have.


In this particular instance, I don't see it as grave digging for the sake of it. I see it as a discussion of the rules. Ethan, for instance, gravedug for the sake of grave digging, and that was not allowed and thus deleted. I'll let this one slide as I think the purpose was to bring up the topic of grave digging, not to say "because it is funny and relevant xddddddd." Or I'm giving him too much credit, but benefit of the doubt. If someone did the latter at any point henceforth, yeah, it would be a problem. Contextually, I don't see it as such. He made a (political?) statement, and I'm open to criticism and people attempting to illustrate points however they want. In this case, I think I justified the rule well.

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unintelligible

Yeah, that's basically what I tried to explain. We can't give users this much leeway. That would only backfire in the future if/when activity picks up.

Contextual grave digging is fine. Blatant, frivolous grave digging, however, is not. I think we're pretty much on the same page, though.

---

This wouldn't be okay in the future. It is only contextually relevant now. The same post at a different time would result in an infraction.

Don't we have like fifty of these if you go back far enough?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C0FFINCASE

Don't we have like fifty of these if you go back far enough?

---

Yep, it confused me. Seemed like every topic made on the day of this thread was called the same thing lol. I think that would actually be a pretty funny thing to do, we should do that again in two days or tomorrow or something. First topic of the day picks the title for the day.

Yes. The last page of the JY. There are a few random pages in between, but no way I memorized those post numbers. Also this, which I've just locked.

This is why I love LG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flareboy323

Yep, it confused me. Seemed like every topic made on the day of this thread was called the same thing lol. I think that would actually be a pretty funny thing to do, we should do that again in two days or tomorrow or something. First topic of the day picks the title for the day.

---

lol. No. This happened because whenever I, umm, commandeered Artificial's account for logistical and consensual reasons, I renamed every topic on the last page of the Junkyard.