There are no GreekChat rules
 

I just wanted to let you all know that you can violate all rules in GC without worrying about getting banned. Nobody ever technically gets banned...it's just called "churning" because you come up with a new username each time.

Oh and if you say anything about said people your post might get deleted even if the post is true. So hey can we all just seriously sit around on greekchat all day and make up fake stories about our loser lives, say incredibly annoying and not-funny sexual crap, and not worry anymore? I think so.

-Rudey
--Some people on here are 10 cent losers you can buy and sell 400 times over under the bridges in Chelsea.

Re: There are no GreekChat rules
 

--Some people on here are 10 cent losers you can buy and sell 400 times over under the bridges in Chelsea. [/B][/QUOTE]



LMAO!

Rudey sometimes your posts annoy me.




This one makes me wanna hug you (and feel on your booty).

Librasoul, I guess you just about said it in a nut shell!:cool:

The envelope is being pushed and the gauntlet being thrown down by Mr. Ego Tripper!:)

You Go Rudolpho, your doing a great job!;)

Egotism is a State Of Mind! What state are you in?:o

LOL, I was here first Tom...get your hands off his booty.

Damn killer, sign me up!

- First i gotta pop some roids!

Only if you're like 7 feet tall, ok? Because unless you've got the figure of Yao Ming you don't have the genetics to feel up on my booty.

-Rudey

is 6'8 too short?

Sorry I'm majoring in eugenics and according to my textbook you don't qualify.

-Rudey
--But then again, I can't quite seem to graduate and stuff. Reading is hard.

damn... i'm going to go cry in the corner now..

Rudey, I'm not for sure I know what brought this on (but I can guess) but ---- I think you're on to something!!

<Round of applause for Rudey's AWESOME post>

Way to go Rudey. Tell is like it is boy.

Rudey is the man.





This time. ;)

i wonder who deleted the posts last nite. they were pretty funny.

Au contraire. There are Rules and they are implemented. That's mainly why threads get removed, edited, etc (either because in themselves they break the rules or they're deleted to prevent the thread degenerating further). I wonder with regret how much of your post is honest frustration and how much is a pointed effort to 'stir things up'?

To make a comment (opinion), I do have a idea who you're talking about as you started this thread; as you've mentioned him vendetta style in multiple threads. I can't help but think this if mentioned at all should be kept off the board via PMs toward the powers that be and also (believing I know whom you're talking about) I haven't seen ANY posts from this screenname any more objectionable than posts a massive list of other GC'ers might (and do) make. But you do not bay for their blood nor call for action against other current users who have perhaps been banned (I can think of a few) :(.
I see many posts which are questionable... by many users. Often those users complain vehemently at other users for their posts; it does make me think 'people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'.

As John Hammell once said, re the site rules 'The site rules are not that difficult to understand, and we don't even enforce some of the rules strictly since this is a site for adults which is taken into consideration'. Contrary to what some people think the members (as opposed to moderators/administrators) do not call all the shots and John is not "at their mercy". :rolleyes:
There are bans by username, email address, even IP address/range. Each has advantages & disadvantages. There are even add-ons (hacks) for the bulletin board software which will add a member to everyone's ignore list so s/he'll post away invisible to all others except him/her plus admins and mods and no one will see him/her. To the best of my knowledge, this forum doesn't use an add-on code hacks but even without those there's a lot that can be done. So... don't push the powers that be too much, they might just have an arsenal at their disposal. :)

As an aside (purely in interests of debate), in the case of genuine trolls (which I wouldn't really say this person is). Some forums do this - First time: they ban 'em. Second Time: They mass delete their posts. They'll get a simple email explaining that, while it may have taken them several hours to generate their 96 posts, it took the system 30 seconds to delete every word they ever typed. This tends to take the wind out of their sails. This conveys to the problem member that dealing with trolls is a simple exercise in the normal admin duties.

In the ChitChat forum the Rules on the first page do suggest putting someone on ignore whom you dislike. I still think this is the best idea. I have one or two people on ignore myself. Think back to when you'd "Ring and Run" on someone's door. If no one came to the door, you wouldn't hit that house again. But when someone came to the door and started screaming at you.... well, 'Hey, that was fun, let's do it again' ?

That'll be the Rules being implemented. ;)

holy cow...someone ban this clown ASAP.

hell has officially frozen over. I agree 100% with Rudey on something :)

Rudey...
 

best. post. ever. :D

Can somebody do a SparkNotes on decadence's post for me?

I don't think there's any need to be nasty GeekyPenguin :(

Not only am I lost, but I am miles from the next exit...

I have no idea what any of y'all are talking about. I will just be happy in my ignorant bliss :)

is that like Cliffs Notes?

I presumed that was what she meant in her uncalled for attack, yes mu_agd.

Wow!

Kath, I just have to give you props for the most non-insulting attack ever.

She was just saying you are long-winded :confused:

if that's an attack, i'd hate to see what other things that are said that are much more nasty would be called......

CHAPTER ONE: "the erudition"

Richard sucks up, by making the most salient point possible: there are, in fact, rules to the site! and they're even enforced!!! Never mind that this ignores the actual point; strawmanning has always been an effective way of throwing an argument.

CHAPTER TWO: "the sermon"

Richard proceeds to ask Rudey to keep the dirty laundry behind closed doors - which is exactly the opposite of how a mature community handles things - and then accuses the vast majority of members of being hypocritical in their attacks on certain posters, using a tired cliche and setting the irony meter into the red zone.

CHAPTER THREE: "the false prophet"

We then move into the "solutions that wouldn't really work" portion of the presentation. Here he discusses things that work at other sites, but doesn't apply them to the situation at hand (which, in Richard's defense, was never made clear for the masses).

----

Hope that helps - and can we please stop speaking in generalities, and just address the topic at hand? That'd be sweet.

thanks for the link, Lady Pi Phi. I hadn't heard of those before.

and wait, how was that an attack?

eta: thanks ksig rc! definitely saved some reading time...

Cluey, she could've asked me via PM for me to clarify or even posted in the thread asking me about it. I would have very happily responded.
But to post a message "Can somebody do a SparkNotes on decadence's post for me? " which suggests my postings = impenetrable without being "translated" :confused: is rude and personally insulting.:( :(

Can somebody do a SparkNotes on decadence's post for me?

Greek Chat is just like life. When it comes to the rules, all people are created equal. Some, are just a little more equal than others.

Maybe that means something else on the other side of the pond??? :confused:

And KSig RC: that was great! You should go into SparkNoting. ;)

ummmm...... yeah..... like you've never made an "attack" uncalled for. What was said was certainly less insulting than your last post in the Random thread:

Sigh.

Originally said by KisgRCL: CHAPTER ONE: "the erudition"
Richard sucks up, by making the most salient point possible: there are, in fact, rules to the site! and they're even enforced!!! Never mind that this ignores the actual point; strawmanning has always been an effective way of throwing an argument.
Lost me a little. The actual point IS rules/bans etc. the thread title IS a sarcastic "There are no GreekChat rules". The 1st post IS about breaking of rules and bans. As my post said "... <Administrator quote> we don't even enforce some of the rules strictly since this is a site for adults which is taken into consideration", which I posted to explain my point not every rule must be enforced to the nth degree at all times to make for a happy community when it's mainly adults there.

CHAPTER TWO: "the sermon"
Richard proceeds to ask Rudey to keep the dirty laundry behind closed doors - which is exactly the opposite of how a mature community handles things
No KsigRC, a mature community brings it up at the appropriate opportunity and place. As opposed to a thinly veiled post in this thread, another post in the Random thread etc etc. It's been said by the GC admin staff (mods etc) that contacting them directly is most appropriate for this sorta thing. Even if it was brought up here though it could have been done without: describing specific people so we could all tell who the thread had been started about?

- and then accuses the vast majority of members of being hypocritical in their attacks on certain posters, using a tired cliche and setting the irony meter into the red zone.
No 'he' does not accuse the vast majority of members of anything. I used the word many to just state that no doubt lots of members at one point or another post stuff which could be technically against a rule. No doubt I do/have. I also used the word many as I was being vague since I didn't want to go listing names as I didn't want to single people out unkindly and unecessarily.

CHAPTER THREE: "the false prophet"
We then move into the "solutions that wouldn't really work" portion of the presentation. Here he discusses things that work at other sites, but doesn't apply them to the situation at hand (which, in Richard's defense, was never made clear for the masses).
Hmm, you have missed the point I was making there (another reason why such a supposed translation offends me - that & that it's a mildly hurtful thing to do). I was commenting on the WIDER point made by the thread that all the GC "staff" can do is ban a user - for that user to just re-register (referred to as churning in 1st post). There's all sorts of options for the site administrators and I was just pointing something out and suggesting that the first post was flawed in its suggestion "churning" was the only option; and that getting cocky would not do people any favors.

---
P.S GeekyPenguin, I got what you meant just fine first time :(.

how many times does it friggin' need to be said that the only person who can ban anyone is JOHN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mods have no power such as that. Yeah, we can suggest it, but doesn't mean that he'll do it. Don't try to put the blame on the mods.

decadence,

I mean this is the politest manner possible. Just because you have more words in your argument, does not mean that you are right.

Would you rather have people just ignore your replies or ask for a synopsis in order to reply to your argument?

It's also really, really true.

ETA: They are not incomprehensible, but just long winded and far from concise. You could say the same things with half the words.

Amen! If I was allowed to ban people, we'd be missing most of the Republican sector of GC. ;)

On topic of Rudey's original post, here's something you won't often hear me say:

He is ABSOLUTELY right. People who are banned just come back again and again and again. SO what is the point of the banning in the first place? The only thing that works is for them to be completely ignored, and that's not something that GCers seem to be any good at (yours truly included).