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
- 957 Views
Fuck no. Are you shitting me? There's no damn chance we can swear.
22/11/2010 05:01:48 AM
- 580 Views
You DARE presume to assault my delicate ears with your nasty coarse sailor talk???
22/11/2010 05:05:23 AM
- 614 Views
I can't think of underage users
22/11/2010 11:32:40 AM
- 664 Views
Well
22/11/2010 11:47:13 AM
- 674 Views
That's a good point of course
22/11/2010 11:58:37 AM
- 579 Views
Obviously we don't know what we don't know.</Rumsfeld>
22/11/2010 12:33:53 PM
- 691 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
- 314 Views
The difference is webbrowsers can't be set to automatically exlude the former from web searches.
22/11/2010 12:01:05 PM
- 624 Views
How many posts have there been with swear words in titles?
22/11/2010 12:45:49 PM
- 504 Views
Are you telling me monitors are THAT horribly inefficient?
22/11/2010 02:55:43 PM
- 656 Views
Scanning a CoC requires a human (or significantly improved parsing), whereas spidering can be dumb
22/11/2010 03:06:19 PM
- 583 Views
I figured,but checking for filter subroutines seems like it would be pretty easy.
22/11/2010 04:18:01 PM
- 694 Views
Subroutines such as what?
22/11/2010 04:33:05 PM
- 894 Views
Well, honestly, I don't know, but I expect language filter subroutines are pretty standardized now.
22/11/2010 08:01:07 PM
- 872 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
- 569 Views
OK, but even then preventing such posts covers the contingencies while censoring none.
23/11/2010 01:49:15 PM
- 611 Views
well...
23/11/2010 04:14:51 PM
- 619 Views
Re: well...
23/11/2010 05:26:14 PM
- 588 Views
Re: well...
23/11/2010 06:42:43 PM
- 563 Views
Yes, a lot of people don't seem to want RAFO "invaded" by new people.
23/11/2010 07:03:14 PM
- 649 Views
new people is not the same as children. *NM*
23/11/2010 08:30:43 PM
- 306 Views
True, but the same principles apply to people surfing at work or college.
23/11/2010 09:16:30 PM
- 607 Views
Please.
23/11/2010 09:40:16 PM
- 617 Views
Of course they do; who do you think creates all those time sink--er, games?
23/11/2010 11:46:09 PM
- 573 Views
I resent that.
23/11/2010 10:09:36 PM
- 476 Views
Yeah, I may have skipped a few important people, too; sorry.
23/11/2010 11:44:12 PM
- 671 Views
the whole community was younger then. It really doesn't apply to today.
24/11/2010 07:50:56 AM
- 560 Views
Unless you mean the whole internet community, it's far more applicable, but to different individuals
24/11/2010 02:26:01 PM
- 645 Views
188 f-bombs dropped in titles, $hit's used 142 times in titles
22/11/2010 05:01:02 PM
- 589 Views
Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck
22/11/2010 06:27:59 PM
- 576 Views
Yea, you're helping exclude dozens, if not hundreds of potential RAFOlk.
22/11/2010 07:42:58 PM
- 731 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
- 615 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
- 543 Views
*waves* Hi! *NM*
22/11/2010 10:17:52 PM
- 316 Views
Hey there!
22/11/2010 10:30:24 PM
- 757 Views
A great deal of us were underage, though.
23/11/2010 01:11:58 AM
- 655 Views
And look what a dirty mouth you got even without our help *NM*
23/11/2010 08:04:06 AM
- 290 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
- 553 Views
Who cares about the cursing. In other ways wotmania did probably corrupt me, though.
23/11/2010 10:25:37 PM
- 602 Views