True, but the same principles apply to people surfing at work or college.
Joel Send a noteboard - 23/11/2010 09:16:30 PM
Mainly I'm just very leery of anything that even slightly complicates adding new members. If you recall the "taking five minutes to dl and install a small piece of software and then register a SN is too HARD111 *stamps foot*" discussions you should understand why.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think RAFO can endure as a primarily wotmaniac site. Ignoring those who've left and will never return, there's too much bad blood and bitterness still, and too many people with too many real world responsibilities to spend the time online they did when they were pillars of the community. The ranks of the latter will grow, and unless there's a substantial influx of people who never knew about wotmania the site will stagnate and die: Those pillars are needed lest the whole thing collapse. Consequently, ANYTHING that prejudices that influx even slightly requires a great deal of justification to seem wise to me.
Yet, once again, I have neither the qualifications, the access nor the desire to make those kinds of decisions, and I've stated my position quite clearly, at great length, so, as noted in my Journal Entry, continuing to do feels ungrateful, disloyal and even hypocritical. The issue is settled, whether I like it or not. Anyway, I LIKE being a user free of any responsibilities save to a Code of Conduct I can't even be ACCUSED of violating since it's unstated (which will make the first siteban hard to explain... ).

Yet, once again, I have neither the qualifications, the access nor the desire to make those kinds of decisions, and I've stated my position quite clearly, at great length, so, as noted in my Journal Entry, continuing to do feels ungrateful, disloyal and even hypocritical. The issue is settled, whether I like it or not. Anyway, I LIKE being a user free of any responsibilities save to a Code of Conduct I can't even be ACCUSED of violating since it's unstated (which will make the first siteban hard to explain... ).

Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Can we swear at RAFO?
22/11/2010 04:57:59 AM
- 1026 Views
Fuck no. Are you shitting me? There's no damn chance we can swear.
22/11/2010 05:01:48 AM
- 646 Views
You DARE presume to assault my delicate ears with your nasty coarse sailor talk???
22/11/2010 05:05:23 AM
- 676 Views
I can't think of underage users
22/11/2010 11:32:40 AM
- 733 Views
Well
22/11/2010 11:47:13 AM
- 730 Views
That's a good point of course
22/11/2010 11:58:37 AM
- 649 Views
Obviously we don't know what we don't know.</Rumsfeld>
22/11/2010 12:33:53 PM
- 757 Views
Apparently it's not high on Ben's priority list, so we seem to be fine for now. *NM*
22/11/2010 12:38:42 PM
- 336 Views
The difference is webbrowsers can't be set to automatically exlude the former from web searches.
22/11/2010 12:01:05 PM
- 717 Views
How many posts have there been with swear words in titles?
22/11/2010 12:45:49 PM
- 568 Views
Are you telling me monitors are THAT horribly inefficient?
22/11/2010 02:55:43 PM
- 725 Views
Scanning a CoC requires a human (or significantly improved parsing), whereas spidering can be dumb
22/11/2010 03:06:19 PM
- 652 Views
I figured,but checking for filter subroutines seems like it would be pretty easy.
22/11/2010 04:18:01 PM
- 759 Views
Subroutines such as what?
22/11/2010 04:33:05 PM
- 975 Views
Well, honestly, I don't know, but I expect language filter subroutines are pretty standardized now.
22/11/2010 08:01:07 PM
- 955 Views
The point is that there is nothing that a browser* will see of such a filter unless...
23/11/2010 08:56:37 AM
- 631 Views
OK, but even then preventing such posts covers the contingencies while censoring none.
23/11/2010 01:49:15 PM
- 676 Views
well...
23/11/2010 04:14:51 PM
- 684 Views
Re: well...
23/11/2010 05:26:14 PM
- 661 Views
Re: well...
23/11/2010 06:42:43 PM
- 635 Views
Yes, a lot of people don't seem to want RAFO "invaded" by new people.
23/11/2010 07:03:14 PM
- 709 Views
new people is not the same as children.
*NM*
23/11/2010 08:30:43 PM
- 330 Views

True, but the same principles apply to people surfing at work or college.
23/11/2010 09:16:30 PM
- 669 Views
Please.
23/11/2010 09:40:16 PM
- 680 Views
Of course they do; who do you think creates all those time sink--er, games?
23/11/2010 11:46:09 PM
- 642 Views

I resent that.
23/11/2010 10:09:36 PM
- 557 Views

Yeah, I may have skipped a few important people, too; sorry.
23/11/2010 11:44:12 PM
- 740 Views

the whole community was younger then. It really doesn't apply to today.
24/11/2010 07:50:56 AM
- 626 Views
Unless you mean the whole internet community, it's far more applicable, but to different individuals
24/11/2010 02:26:01 PM
- 718 Views
188 f-bombs dropped in titles, $hit's used 142 times in titles
22/11/2010 05:01:02 PM
- 655 Views
Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck
22/11/2010 06:27:59 PM
- 642 Views
Yea, you're helping exclude dozens, if not hundreds of potential RAFOlk.
22/11/2010 07:42:58 PM
- 800 Views

Watch out. The CIA is watching you post that. And then they're going to arrest EVERYONE.
22/11/2010 08:09:07 PM
- 685 Views
I used the search function, it was just the number of post that had those in their title
22/11/2010 07:45:18 PM
- 615 Views
*waves* Hi! *NM*
22/11/2010 10:17:52 PM
- 345 Views
Hey there!
22/11/2010 10:30:24 PM
- 834 Views
A great deal of us were underage, though.
23/11/2010 01:11:58 AM
- 727 Views
And look what a dirty mouth you got even without our help
*NM*
23/11/2010 08:04:06 AM
- 321 Views

All I can say to that is that people who think cursing on RAFO/WoTmania corrupts the youth
23/11/2010 10:13:26 PM
- 617 Views
Who cares about the cursing. In other ways wotmania did probably corrupt me, though.
23/11/2010 10:25:37 PM
- 657 Views
