Suggestions for Improvement

[[ohgodpleasedelete]]

Here's my opinion on the matter. 30 days is a bit too short of a time period in my opinion; 60 days seems more fitting. It gives that subject 2 months to be revived, so long as it is a useful post.

That's what the rule is now.

 

[[ohgodpleasedelete]]

Well, 60 days would certainly be an improvement, but I would like it if we were one of the forums that "didn't care".

No.

 

[Stooben]

Here's my opinion on the matter. 30 days is a bit too short of a time period in my opinion; 60 days seems more fitting. It gives that subject 2 months to be revived, so long as it is a useful post.

That's what the rule is now.

No it's not. :| 30 days, set in stone. If someone posts beyond that point, no matter what, 9 times out of 10 that topic will be locked. Only on rare occasions have we made exceptions. (Like the Mega Man 9 topic that was bumped by SolarBlaze.) The mods agreed that that bump was fine, but some of our members became upset because it was as if we weren't really enforcing a set-in-stone rule.

 

[[ohgodpleasedelete]]

Here's my opinion on the matter. 30 days is a bit too short of a time period in my opinion; 60 days seems more fitting. It gives that subject 2 months to be revived, so long as it is a useful post.

That's what the rule is now.

No it's not. :| 30 days, set in stone. If someone posts beyond that point, no matter what, 9 times out of 10 that topic will be locked. Only on rare occasions have we made exceptions. (Like the Mega Man 9 topic that was bumped by SolarBlaze.) The mods agreed that that bump was fine, but some of our members became upset because it was as if we weren't really enforcing a set-in-stone rule.

Lies.

If it adds something to the topic, it's allowed to be at most 60 days old. If it doesn't, it's closed after 30. I've said this before.

 

[ShyGuy27]

Here's my opinion on the matter. 30 days is a bit too short of a time period in my opinion; 60 days seems more fitting. It gives that subject 2 months to be revived, so long as it is a useful post.

That's what the rule is now.

No it's not. :| 30 days, set in stone. If someone posts beyond that point, no matter what, 9 times out of 10 that topic will be locked. Only on rare occasions have we made exceptions. (Like the Mega Man 9 topic that was bumped by SolarBlaze.) The mods agreed that that bump was fine, but some of our members became upset because it was as if we weren't really enforcing a set-in-stone rule.

Lies.

If it adds something to the topic, it's allowed to be at most 60 days old. If it doesn't, it's closed after 30. I've said this before.

Another instance of making up rules on the spot? To anticipate your next comment, I present to you the rule, quoted straight from the rules:

14. Do not bump threads a month or more old, what's done is done.

Important parts bolded for your convenience.

Also, nice double post back there.

 

[Stooben]

Here's my opinion on the matter. 30 days is a bit too short of a time period in my opinion; 60 days seems more fitting. It gives that subject 2 months to be revived, so long as it is a useful post.

That's what the rule is now.

No it's not. :| 30 days, set in stone. If someone posts beyond that point, no matter what, 9 times out of 10 that topic will be locked. Only on rare occasions have we made exceptions. (Like the Mega Man 9 topic that was bumped by SolarBlaze.) The mods agreed that that bump was fine, but some of our members became upset because it was as if we weren't really enforcing a set-in-stone rule.

Lies.

If it adds something to the topic, it's allowed to be at most 60 days old. If it doesn't, it's closed after 30. I've said this before.

Then let's make it an official rule. =)

 

[ShyGuy27]

Nooooo, my entire argument destroyed. >.<

I'll be back, just you wait.

 

[[ohgodpleasedelete]]

Another instance of making up rules on the spot? To anticipate your next comment, I present to you the rule, quoted straight from the rules:

14. Do not bump threads a month or more old, what's done is done.

Important parts bolded for your convenience.

Way to be a total jackass.

We're still rewriting the rules, remember?

Also, nice double post back there.

Nobody gives a damn.

Then let's make it an official rule. =)

We're rewriting all of the rules, remember? The ones that are up are horribly outdated.

 

[ShyGuy27]

Another instance of making up rules on the spot? To anticipate your next comment, I present to you the rule, quoted straight from the rules:

14. Do not bump threads a month or more old, what's done is done.

Important parts bolded for your convenience.

Way to be a total jackass.

We're still rewriting the rules, remember?

Also, nice double post back there.

Nobody gives a damn.

Then let's make it an official rule. =)

We're rewriting all of the rules, remember? The ones that are up are horribly outdated.

1) How long does it take to rerwite like 16 rules? You can't use that as an excuse to just make stuff up. Also, way to be incognito with the flame there.

2) You're a f***ing mod, you should give a damn. Or not and we can all just double post. Remember:

I'm not God.

3) <see #1 minus the flaming part>

 

[Stooben]

We're rewriting all of the rules, remember? The ones that are up are horribly outdated.

Well, duh. That's why we mods have that nice 'modify' button -- so we can update things. :D

Also, keep it cool, guys. Don't make me lock you all up in the dungeon.

 

[ShyGuy27]

We're rewriting all of the rules, remember? The ones that are up are horribly outdated.

Well, duh. That's why we mods have that nice 'modify' button -- so we can update things. :D

Also, keep it cool, guys. Don't make me lock you all up in the dungeon.

Hey, he's the one double posting and flaming. I'm just pointing out rules. This place is so unfair...