• Last Seen: 8 yrs ago
  • Old Guild Username: The Dragon God
  • Joined: 12 yrs ago
  • Posts: 2715 (0.60 / day)
  • VMs: 0
  • Username history
    1. Drakel 12 yrs ago
  • Latest 10 profile visitors:

Status

User has no status, yet

Bio

User has no bio, yet

Most Recent Posts

Kill Bones said
Eyy gurl, is your body 9X% water or am i just making you wet


Fucking LOL
Jorick said
9X%? Nah, it ranges from 50-75% (though 65+% is really only infants) depending on gender and age and some other factors.Get your facts straight, pleb.


...

Unless you're a fetus... cause then your body IS over 90%...
HeySeuss said
Well, considering that we are setting the bar pretty high for even a warning, it's safe to say that the warning is going to have a long shelf life. How long? I have no idea because it hasn't been discussed. It'll definitely have a longer life than a few months.In most cases, if we find something that isn't that big a deal, we aren't going to be ringing people with warnings -- so far, we've only delivered less than ten so far since mahz brought NewGuild up (roughly five months). We're far more likely to just clear something out without comment and move on. But those guidelines are meant to explain where our no-go areas happen to be. And yes, if we find ourselves cleaning up after someone a lot, we're gonna shoot off a warning because that's a time-waster and thus a no-go. If Spam goes about its business as it has up to four days ago, you can safely assume we'll probably not be doing much of anything, which is precisely how we like it. This is not a shift in policy, this is a clarification in policy.


Alrighty, thank you for answering my questions. This was all I needed to know for the time being.
HeySeuss said
I can't think of a scenario where anyone has ever posted a biology textbook picture of genitalia before, but we're warning once. We're not going down the road of warning people for every item on the list once, because that's a waste of our time.As to the 'bigoted remark' thing, I think you guys need to read the standards more carefully. Advocacy of violence and repression against a group or calling them epithets is a long way from having a low opinion of them.The last guy to get banned for advocating racial violence was posting pictures of genocide and saying it was a good thing. If you're going around saying, "Gay people should be killed" or "Christians should be executed for their beliefs" then yes, goodbye. Not liking homosexuals, Christians, communists or hippies? Well, I'd personally avoid giving so much attention to the things I dislike that much. If you deal with a person from the aforementioned groups, stick to poking holes in what they say.


I understand that and just trying to bring up some scenarios for stupid things though the bigoted remark one was probably a bad one. In truth, what I'm asking is that, if someone breaks the rules once, is that once forever and then once they mess up again it's an instant ban or would members receive another warning if they messed up with minor things once in every blue moon?( A few months to a year later per say)

EDIT: I remember there being a slight issue once where there was an OT discussion about biology and one of the pictures that came up was such as a discussion starter... The OP poster was given an okay but apparently members didn't like it so he was asked to take it down and warned to not post it again.... Similar to the "Artistic nudes being okay" rule that was stated by Contra.
Now I have two questions about this zero tolerance thing and since it's on topic, I might as well add it here.

If a member breaks one rule and gets a warning, but then later on they break another completely different rule, both felonies being very minor, would these members be receiving another warning for that specific break in the rules or would they just receive a full ban for it instead?
IE: A member posts something like a biology picture about gentitles and is warned about not posting them but later on in that same day they get a little heated in an argument, nothing major but something that does need mod attention for them to stop. Second warning or full ban?
When it comes to warnings, are for all of time (or for as long as the mods remember) or after a certain/long amount of time would a member just received another warning?
IE: A member posts some small bigoted remark and is warned not to... after a few weeks to months to a year they do it again. Warning or full ban?
ActRaiserTheReturned said
I would like to rule!!


As would I.
BrobyDDark said
Pretty much what the title says. It's a strategy forum game.

The premise is that the world of RoGuilcom was once at peace, until the nation of Spam was split into four different sub-nations that had been gifted by the God Mahz to different warlords, each naming the sub-nation after themselves. Two of the warlords became greedy and attacked the other two for their nations, not expecting a defense already set up just incase such a thing were to happen. The two defending warlords formed a treaty until their enemies were defeated, the offense did the same. That is where the game will begin.

So, people who join will be sent into one of the four sub-nations to help that team defeat the others. The last sub-nation standing will be declared the winner. Now, the question here is who will own the four sub-nations? Anyone want to nominate someone for a role as warlord?


I'm game. :)
Sherlock Holmes said
Go ahead -- try to start up that rebellion, Drakel. It'll be amusing to watch... ^_^


No... Because I'm such a rebel that I'm not going to listen to you telling me to start up a rebellion now. YOU GET NOTHING!!!!
Sherlock Holmes said
I veto everything. I win, the end. <<LawfulEvil


MOD ABUSE!!! EVERYONE RUN!!! SHERLOCK IS TAKING EVERYTHING OVER!!! SHE'S GONNA BAN US ALL!!! D:

It's time to start the rebellion against this evil corruption that is Sherlock's reign of terror!

ilu <3s
Sherlock Holmes said
lolno


I NOW SEXOND THIS MOTION....
© 2007-2026
BBCode Cheatsheet