Scratch

ElectricSparx · 2011-07-20 11:59:00

werdna123 wrote:
This may have been said before. but you were complaining about not being able to reply to all the posts. Well, why not reply to lots in 1 post? Saves time and space.

Good idea.

ElectricSparx · 2011-07-20 12:00:34

Musicstar888 wrote:
In my opinion, the 60 second rule keeps us on track. If you didn't have that rule, the forums would be overflowed with random topics, and then all the mods would have to close them. So technically, whether you like it or not, it's for spammish reasons. And it's not just you. Other people have to wait, too, and they're not complaining about this.

Not to be rude or anything, but why did you post this topic? Everyone knows that the 60 second rule is staying on Scratch.

I posted it because some people would like something like a 30 second rule.

ElectricSparx · 2011-07-20 23:39:49

Bump!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SpriteMaster · 2011-07-21 00:03:57

I think this was just resolved with those last few posts but whatever.

scimonster · 2011-07-21 00:57:39

SuperYoshiluver13 wrote:
Well its a lot better than the 180 second rule!

sci_test says: I can't WAIT for the 60 second rule!

Scimonster says: Can they just get rid of it?

Irony says:
At least 60 seconds have to pass between posts. Please wait a little while and try posting again.

ElectricSparx · 2011-07-21 18:45:25

scimonster wrote:
SuperYoshiluver13 wrote:
Well its a lot better than the 180 second rule!
sci_test says: I can't WAIT for the 60 second rule!

Scimonster says: Can they just get rid of it?

Irony says:
At least 60 seconds have to pass between posts. Please wait a little while and try posting again.

LOL tongue

ElectricSparx · 2011-07-21 18:46:47

SpriteMaster wrote:
I think this was just resolved with those last few posts but whatever.

No, it wasn't.

Vote against this!

The following errors need to be corrected before the message can be posted:

* At least 60 seconds have to pass between posts. Please wait a little while and try posting again.

imnotbob · 2011-07-21 18:49:04

the ST and the mods will NOT part with the 60 second rule. every scratcher could say they hate it, they won't budge . getting rid of it will be the death of the forums. would you LIKE that? no!

agscratcher · 2011-07-21 18:49:29

[/thread]

ElectricSparx · 2011-07-21 18:50:20

agscratcher wrote:
[/thread]

What is that supposed to mean?

imnotbob · 2011-07-21 18:50:28

agscratcher wrote:
[/thread]

this, i hope for.

lul (not that funny or ironic but who cares): At least 60 seconds have to pass between posts. Please wait a little while and try posting again.

ElectricSparx · 2011-07-21 18:51:55

imnotbob wrote:
the ST and the mods will NOT part with the 60 second rule. every scratcher could say they hate it, they won't budge . getting rid of it will be the death of the forums. would you LIKE that? no!

I'm not saying to get rid of it, I'm just saying they should change it to a 30 second rule.

ElectricSparx · 2011-07-21 18:52:56

imnotbob wrote:
agscratcher wrote:
[/thread]
this, i hope for.

lul (not that funny or ironic but who cares): At least 60 seconds have to pass between posts. Please wait a little while and try posting again.

*BOOM*

IRONIC

agscratcher · 2011-07-21 18:54:29

ElectricSparx wrote:
agscratcher wrote:
[/thread]
What is that supposed to mean?

You know you end off BBCode with [/]?

It means "end of thread."

cheddargirl · 2011-07-21 19:27:13

ElectricSparx wrote:
imnotbob wrote:
the ST and the mods will NOT part with the 60 second rule. every scratcher could say they hate it, they won't budge . getting rid of it will be the death of the forums. would you LIKE that? no!
I'm not saying to get rid of it, I'm just saying they should change it to a 30 second rule.

So this isn't a Miscellaneous thread, it's a Suggestion thread. I'll be moving it to the Suggestions forum, then.

ElectricSparx · 2011-07-21 19:52:55

cheddargirl wrote:
ElectricSparx wrote:
imnotbob wrote:
the ST and the mods will NOT part with the 60 second rule. every scratcher could say they hate it, they won't budge . getting rid of it will be the death of the forums. would you LIKE that? no!
I'm not saying to get rid of it, I'm just saying they should change it to a 30 second rule.
So this isn't a Miscellaneous thread, it's a Suggestion thread. I'll be moving it to the Suggestions forum, then.

No, I'd say it's more half-and-half.

Ace-Of-Hearts · 2011-07-21 20:30:01

Wait so what's the problem here? Your forum posts have many replies and you give 5 second replies to each post? Do you know what the Edit button is for? Use that instead of double / triple / quadruple posting. You also won't encounter the 60 second rule.

imnotbob · 2011-07-21 21:55:36

ElectricSparx wrote:
imnotbob wrote:
the ST and the mods will NOT part with the 60 second rule. every scratcher could say they hate it, they won't budge . getting rid of it will be the death of the forums. would you LIKE that? no!
I'm not saying to get rid of it, I'm just saying they should change it to a 30 second rule.

(facepalm) it will make it WORSE, even 30 seconds less. then ppl will go "I HATE THE 30 SECOND RULE!!!!!"

look, 60 seconds isnt that long. its a minute. if its that annoying go play outside, watch TV, play a video game... sleep!

agscratcher · 2011-07-22 09:04:58

imnotbob wrote:
ElectricSparx wrote:
imnotbob wrote:
the ST and the mods will NOT part with the 60 second rule. every scratcher could say they hate it, they won't budge . getting rid of it will be the death of the forums. would you LIKE that? no!
I'm not saying to get rid of it, I'm just saying they should change it to a 30 second rule.
(facepalm) it will make it WORSE, even 30 seconds less. then ppl will go "I HATE THE 30 SECOND RULE!!!!!"

look, 60 seconds isnt that long. its a minute. if its that annoying go play outside, watch TV, play a video game... sleep!

This.

a1130 · 2011-07-22 13:41:55

It's used to prevent spam, so I guess it should still stay...

DANG IT!!!!

6
60
60 s
60 se
60 sec
60 seco
60 secon
60 second
60 second r
60 second ru
60 second rul
60 second rule
60 second rul
60 second ru
60 second r
60 second
60 secon
60 sec
60 se
60 s
60
6

OK, never mind. tongue

Snowdrift · 2011-07-22 15:22:00

I'm currently on another forum and It has a 30 second rule.
30 seconds is enouph time to find a thread, read it, then write a 15-60 word post.

mrdinosaur · 2011-07-22 15:27:50

I agree.

imnotbob · 2011-07-23 10:53:15

agscratcher wrote:
imnotbob wrote:
ElectricSparx wrote:
I'm not saying to get rid of it, I'm just saying they should change it to a 30 second rule.
(facepalm) it will make it WORSE, even 30 seconds less. then ppl will go "I HATE THE 30 SECOND RULE!!!!!"

look, 60 seconds isnt that long. its a minute. if its that annoying go play outside, watch TV, play a video game... sleep!
This.

THANK you for agreeing.
this isnt funny but im gonna say it the do the xD face- got the 60 second rule. xD

ElectricSparx · 2011-07-23 11:36:27

Ace-Of-Hearts wrote:
Wait so what's the problem here? Your forum posts have many replies and you give 5 second replies to each post? Do you know what the Edit button is for? Use that instead of double / triple / quadruple posting. You also won't encounter the 60 second rule.

I'm a fast typer.

ElectricSparx · 2011-07-23 11:38:21

imnotbob wrote:
ElectricSparx wrote:
imnotbob wrote:
the ST and the mods will NOT part with the 60 second rule. every scratcher could say they hate it, they won't budge . getting rid of it will be the death of the forums. would you LIKE that? no!
I'm not saying to get rid of it, I'm just saying they should change it to a 30 second rule.
(facepalm) it will make it WORSE, even 30 seconds less. then ppl will go "I HATE THE 30 SECOND RULE!!!!!"

look, 60 seconds isnt that long. its a minute. if its that annoying go play outside, watch TV, play a video game... sleep!

No, people will not hate it if it's a 30 second rule. 30 seconds is long enough to type up a post 1-2 sentences long.

Scratch

archived forums

#101 2011-07-20 11:59:00

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

werdna123 wrote:

#102 2011-07-20 12:00:34

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

Musicstar888 wrote:

#103 2011-07-20 23:39:49

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

#104 2011-07-21 00:03:57

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

#105 2011-07-21 00:57:39

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

SuperYoshiluver13 wrote:

#106 2011-07-21 18:45:25

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

scimonster wrote:

SuperYoshiluver13 wrote:

#107 2011-07-21 18:46:47

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

SpriteMaster wrote:

#108 2011-07-21 18:49:04

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

#109 2011-07-21 18:49:29

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

#110 2011-07-21 18:50:20

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

agscratcher wrote:

#111 2011-07-21 18:50:28

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

agscratcher wrote:

#112 2011-07-21 18:51:55

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

imnotbob wrote:

#113 2011-07-21 18:52:56

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

imnotbob wrote:

agscratcher wrote:

#114 2011-07-21 18:54:29

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

ElectricSparx wrote:

agscratcher wrote:

#115 2011-07-21 19:27:13

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

ElectricSparx wrote:

imnotbob wrote:

#116 2011-07-21 19:52:55

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

cheddargirl wrote:

ElectricSparx wrote:

imnotbob wrote:

#117 2011-07-21 20:30:01

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

#118 2011-07-21 21:55:36

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

ElectricSparx wrote:

imnotbob wrote:

#119 2011-07-22 09:04:58

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

imnotbob wrote:

ElectricSparx wrote:

imnotbob wrote:

#120 2011-07-22 13:41:55

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

#121 2011-07-22 15:22:00

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

#122 2011-07-22 15:27:50

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

#123 2011-07-23 10:53:15

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

agscratcher wrote:

imnotbob wrote:

ElectricSparx wrote:

#124 2011-07-23 11:36:27

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

Ace-Of-Hearts wrote:

#125 2011-07-23 11:38:21

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

imnotbob wrote: