GAMEchief is the greatest hacker ever!
942 views · started by iGawd ·
Coak reporting in.
Negative Sergeant, Zeth has left the building.
a;ldkfjalskdfjalskdjflkasjdf
edit: code for here
edit: code for here
SDS be hur.
I kid, I kid.
I was just sitting in the corner, silly!
-creepy smile-
I was just sitting in the corner, silly!
-creepy smile-
THIS... IS... not crack.
It's merely flour... mixed with acid.
It's merely flour... mixed with acid.
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
Flareboy323 wrote: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.
The Unintelligible wrote: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.
Flareboy323 wrote: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.
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.
To Give You This Gun wrote: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.
>
grr
Grrrrrrrrrr!!!! (are you being sarcastic?)To Give You This Gun wrote:
Yes. I don't care that he bumped this. I think it counteractively proved my point that no harm was done.
Charles Stover wrote: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.
The Unintelligible wrote: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.
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.
Charles Stover wrote:Which would fall under a no spam rule, which we already have.
Which I already said.
But if you're grave digging to grave dig, that's spam and you should be infracted as such.
Charles Stover wrote: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.
Charles Stover wrote: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.
The Unintelligible wrote: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?
C0FFINCASE wrote: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.
This is why I love LG.
Flareboy323 wrote: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.