Scratch

My opinion on the should be allowed...
1. I'll remove it right after it's added.

2. If a project is flagged, it's put in not for everybody? That means some idiot could just flag every front page project until theirs was on the front page.

3. Look at #2.

EDIT: blood thing: blood gets banned, I will spam the server until it lags and crashes.

Last edited by juststickman (2010-08-05 09:07:06)

juststickman wrote:

My opinion on the should be allowed...
1. I'll remove it right after it's added.

2. If a project is flagged, it's put in not for everybody? That means some idiot could just flag every front page project until theirs was on the front page.

3. Look at #2.

EDIT: blood thing: blood gets banned, I will spam the server until it lags and crashes.

#2- And then you realize that a lot of people have to flag it.

juststickman wrote:

ihaveamac wrote:

juststickman wrote:

My opinion on the should be allowed...
1. I'll remove it right after it's added.

2. If a project is flagged, it's put in not for everybody? That means some idiot could just flag every front page project until theirs was on the front page.

3. Look at #2.

EDIT: blood thing: blood gets banned, I will spam the server until it lags and crashes.

#2- And then you realize that a lot of people have to flag it.

"2. If the project is flagged, it is put in the "not for everyone" category."

If a project is flagged. Not if a project is flagged over 10 times. Not over 5 times. Once.

See my post about your post.

juststickman wrote:

sanddude wrote:

juststickman wrote:

My opinion on the should be allowed...
1. I'll remove it right after it's added.

2. If a project is flagged, it's put in not for everybody? That means some idiot could just flag every front page project until theirs was on the front page.

3. Look at #2.

No, if it's flagged and has h**l or c**p, it's put in not for everybody.

How do we know if it has hell or *, we can't search the project without playing it. And people could lie.

It will be the same as current. Mod will look at project, but if it has h**l or c**p it's not for everybody. Get it?

Blade-Edge wrote:

Why do we need this system if it's exactly the same as the current one

THIS.

dude, read over this thread twice.

you'll see how stupid it sounds 

Oooh, I like this! I would be able to post a few more of my pictures, and put different songs in. And anyway, if crāp is censored, why isn't hell? It my opinion,  hell is a worse swear than crāp. If you can call them swears.

sanddude wrote:

Now, I think since the forums are more accessible than projects to 5-year-old's, h**l and c**p SHOULD be censored on the forums, but a bit more obviously (I mean instead of [removed] replace it with "c**p").

I don't think hell should be censored.

Blade-Edge wrote:

Hell isn't censored. And you can use it all you want, unless it starts an argument involving religion or you use it after what the.

I know it isn't censored, but sanddude suggested that it should be.

Blade-Edge wrote:

Hell isn't censored. And you can use it all you want, unless it starts an argument involving religion or you use it after what the.

You can use it all you want with 2 exceptions:

- Religious fights
- Insulting other users

I think I'm correct in saying that you are allowed to say "what the hell."

coolstuff wrote:

Blade-Edge wrote:

Hell isn't censored. And you can use it all you want, unless it starts an argument involving religion or you use it after what the.

You can use it all you want with 2 exceptions:

- Religious fights
- Insulting other users

I think I'm correct in saying that you are allowed to say "what the hell."

Actually, what the hell would be a bad one, as would who where how when and why
I think the only acceptable way to use it is when you say a certain religion believes in hell

You keep using the "every parent has a different view what's inappropriate. We are only using one view" argument. Well, yes, because...

Ok, sorry, but the logic to that is so loose that I can't think of a way to directly explain why it's wrong. So here's a parable:

"Once there was a city called Terphitron. In it lived many people. There were three kinds of common deadly viral diseases in Terphitron; Pseudoplasmic Anemia, Eschrosyndrome, and AIDS. Every day, all three would plague the city, unless a ward against it is being placed, and everyone who isn't naturally immune would be infected.

"Regarding natural immunities against these diseases, there were five genetic possibilities. A person could either:
1. Be immune against all of them (85 percent of the population)
2. Be immune against only Pseudoplasmic Anemia (5 percent of the population)
3. Be immune against only AIDS (4 percent of the population)
4. Be immune against Pseudoplasmic Anemia and Eschrosyndrome (5 percent of the population)
5. Or be immune against none of the three. (1 percent of the population)

"The city has an infinite amount of wards, so each day they place all three kinds, to ensure that no one gets any of the diseases.

"But one day, some kids go up to the government and say, 'But only one percent of the population is vulnerable to all three diseases. Since most of the people are immune to all of them, why should we just go with the ones who are vulnerable to all, and place all the wards, since that would only be using the "vulnerable to all" view?'"

Now. Is the kids' argument valid?

Last edited by antimonyarsenide (2010-08-05 14:30:48)