To be fair, if you're just going to post "nope" and not follow up with anything,  you're going to get ridiculed in a debate.

I only see Chally "egging him on" by actually trying to encourage Kinder to back his shit up (ignoring the Kinder egg picture of course <. <)

Do what I do and only sleep four hours a day.

Sorry Das, but I actually care about my body.

*he says as he drinks an energy drink*

EDIT

energy-efficient drink

Fuck you phone , you don't speak for me.

I hate being unemployed

Git a job ya lazy f00k.

Quote from: Kupo on January 10, 2015, 06:01:57 PM

The only Republican I'd ever vote for is Rand Paul.

Romney's too busy disavowing his own health care legislation so he can get elected. Rubio's a shill. Ted Cruz is a shill (not to mention an unrepentant hypocrite on the most inane issues *coughCanadacough*). Jeb sounds like a nice guy but he gives me a very ominous feeling.

I don't know much about Jeb, but I know a lot of Floridians liked him. I think he's mostly tainted by Bush 2's legacy...

Who gives a fuck what Floridians think?  They elected Rick Scott as their Governor, and he's a fucking slime.

Halo 5 multiplayer isn't as bad as people are making it out to be (especially since it's well, y'know, a beta) and 343 still has a few long months ahead of them to sort out any problems and patch up the important stuff before release.  I actually like the stuff they're doing, even though one of my gripes so far is that I can shoot somebody first (sometimes even fire off a second round before they have a chance to react) and even if we have the same weapon I end up getting killed.

H5's multiplayer seems to be going in the right direction, at least for me, compared to H4's.  It just needs some polishing up and it could be something great.

(っ◕‿◕)っ PENETRATE ROCKETMAN'S URANUS (っ◕‿◕)っ

(っ◕‿◕)っ PENETRATE ROCKETMAN'S ROCKET. (っ◕‿◕)っ

It's awesome, it's like Cherry Dr. Pepper but tastes so much better.

My store and the nearby gas station stopped selling them for some fucktarded reason.

Quote from: ʕっ•ᴥ•ʔっ Nick Mc ʕっ•ᴥ•ʔっ on January 09, 2015, 05:02:06 AM

I hope the fate of Arbiter's new helmet is death.

But idk, I have a feeling they'll put up a fight against the Covenant but I can't see Arbiter living past the end of 5 at least, or making it through 6.  If 343 plans on keeping Jul 'Mdama, then having him kill off the Arbiter could solidify him as a legit threat (sorry but he just looked like a bitch in Spartan Ops).

Quote from: Kinder Graham on January 08, 2015, 04:15:40 PM

Considering the UNSC's plan failed with the rise of a new Covenant, I'd expect them to give them as much aid as they possibly can dish out along with using the Infinity to help in important battles to help the Arbiter win

Didn't ONI want Arbiter assassinated, or at least egg on the Storm Covenant to fight long enough to drive both factions into the ground because they still are xenophobic about the Sangheili?  I haven't read the last Kilo-Five book, so let me know if I missed something <___<

Wasn't the Storm, it was the Servants of Abiding Truth. And they didn't want to assassinate Thel.

My mistake.  But yeah, isn't ONI still wanting to have the Sangheili wipe themselves out?

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on January 09, 2015, 04:02:57 PM

Quote from: Ingloriouswho98 on January 09, 2015, 03:16:19 PM

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on January 09, 2015, 03:09:14 PM

Quote from: Ingloriouswho98 on January 09, 2015, 02:39:35 PM

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on January 09, 2015, 06:29:34 AM

Apparently you are short on reading comprehension.

I said, refrain from doing those things until the rules get clarified.

As it has been said ITT by the other guys, the rules are being worked on and NSFW stuff is going to be more relaxed with some basic courtesy rules like tagging and spoilers.

But sure, any chance to hop on the bandwagon eh?

I don't see why you're trying to be so professional and act like you're such a big deal

There are no practical applications for new stricter rules

And what fucking bandwagon are you talking about?

It's to clear things up for the people who aren't baiting with their OP, but will no doubt read yours.

There are, and I would have thought you'd have liked the idea of being able to do NSFW roleplays in a tagged thread.

The mods are incompetent/corrupt/nazis/lazy etc bandwagon.

Why the fuck are you looking down on me?
Think you're the shit because you have an orange username?

Stop trying to evolve this site so much
Look what happened when they tried that shit on b.net
Keep it simple
Stop the porn, spam, and harassment
That's it

Quit the strict formal rules bullshit
You aren't running a corporation

This site isn't how professional you are or how much structure you put to it
It's the words that are exchanged between friends
But you seem to be above that just because you have power

I'm not, you are the one calling out the moderators and I'm pointing out the incorrect or misinformed parts of your post. You then seem to take offence at me speaking too politely or formally to you which was rather amusing. And no, not really.

Bnet's evolution was akin to a fish growing hands. Completely unnecessary. This place has to grow and change as we figure things out so that it doesn't either A) Stagnate and die, or B) Fester and die.
'Keep it simple' is easy to say, but trying to keep this place from falling apart with flamewars and idiocy is not just some simple black and white task. And again, that's your opinion on the site not the one that everyone else shares.

No, it has to be worded clearly and properly to allow for simpler application of those rules further down the line. If we put the rules as 'Ayy lmao do X and we might kick your ass' people will complain about the rules being unfair/unclear when their ass gets kicked for it.

Well obviously, and if this was just a handful of friends it wouldn't be necessary to have moderators doing their jobs all the bloody time. But this place is for the flood, not just a special few for a circlejerk. People don't get along, they fight and argue and we have to keep the peace.

And I'm not, I come here primarily to talk to the friends and aquaintances of the last 4 years of my life online. You seem rather bitter and fixated about the power though, which is understandable. But it's really not as glamorous as you might think it is. It's more like being the only janitor for a 1000 miles with a plunger and a hundred blocked toilets to clean everyday.

What the fuck is up with all this evolve or die shit?
What's wrong with where we are now
Well actually, we're pretty fucked up but we're happy

What the fuck are we going to evolve into?

And yes, I'd rather you call me a bitch rather than that bullshit politeness

Quote

if this was just a handful of friends it wouldn't be necessary to have moderators doing their jobs all the bloody time

Make me a mod for a week
You'll see how easy it is to do this job without some false sense of superiority

Thank God we have some mods that don't have that kind of sense.  Cheat chooses well.

Quote from: Tackelberry on December 22, 2014, 01:32:24 PM

Quote from: Kupo on December 21, 2014, 05:20:33 PM

Quote from: Tackelberry on December 21, 2014, 05:20:05 PM

only 4 people tho...

nah.

8 for multiplayer.

Still insanely small. Call me when you buy better games.

Can't you have more? I played a few weeks ago in a match with at least 32 people, it was carnage. I don't know how many were bots though.

Is it a mod?  If so, someone needs to find it and implement it.  This would be fucking AWESOME.

Quote from: Kiyohime on January 08, 2015, 08:37:07 PM

It wouldn't be so tempting to call it freedom of speech if Muslims didn't riot/shoot-up a place when a cartoon is published.

Just let that fact detonate in your brain for a minute: at least 13 people are dead because a satirical magazine published a cartoon.

In saying that, I don't know of any cartoon published about Jews which genuinely isn't anti-Semitic, and I don't know of anybody actually calling out non-anti-Semitic cartoons as anti-Semitic.

I think that cartoon could also be representing it as The West=United States, which makes sense.  Plus our Muslims seem to be at least more tolerant than yours in the U.K.

....why is that actually?

Quote from: Nick McIntyre on January 08, 2015, 09:41:15 AM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on January 08, 2015, 09:20:34 AM

Quote from: Nick McIntyre on January 08, 2015, 08:34:44 AM

The "Freedom of Speech" thing is blown out of so many proportions.  If I recall correctly (I'll look it up later, I've got morning chores to do) it was initially installed in our Government so that a person could freely express themselves in council chambers without the wrath of the Government falling on them.

That does not mean, however, you can shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater and cause a panic.

Same goes for hate speech.  What "muh free speeches" people fail to realize is the emotional trauma, harm, and social discord that comes from people like the WBC.  As you probably saw in that thread, a man attacked a church member during his soldier brother's funeral because the protestor was mocking his brother, discrediting his service, and saying, "I'm glad the stupid faggot is dead."  The soldier got soundly punished while the protestor got to walk away laughing.

This article is a nice thing to read through, especially the parts from the Fordham Law Professor:  While free speech protects people from harm, it allows unlimited emotional harm.

So basically what your argument boils down to is "delicate sensibilities take precedence over what you can and cannot say"

Yeah no. I personally do not give two shits if you become "emotionally traumatised " as a result of what I said. I do not, and never will recognise it as a justification to curtail mine, or anyone else's speech.

Yelling fire in a crowded vicinity isn't even a relevant analogy either.

So basically your argument is "I can laugh at people freely and say how excited I am to see that their family member is dead because I am a huge cunt."

Again, read the article I posted.  It gives a nice intake at both sides of this kind of discussion.  I'm all for "speaking your mind", but if your purpose is to do nothing but entrap people into a "fight or flight" mentality by jeering a close one's demise, then that's stepping over the line.

No, my argument is anti censorship. When I get down to the crux of your argument, all it really espouses is silencing the dissenting point of view because muh feelings and appeal to emotions. It's subconscious fascism really.

I'm on my phone at work, but I'll give your article a read when I get home.

Nice strawman by the way.

Is it a "dissenting" point of view when a person from the Westroll Baptist Church goes to a funeral for the purpose of starting a social fire, or is it shit being stirred up to intentionally cause trouble, entrap people, and wait for them to retaliate?

Alright, I myself am growing tired of the dead soldier argument since you're resorting to only calling it a strawman.  Let's use a different example:

Decimator Omega.

Yes.  Him.  Remember that sperglord?  A few weeks ago, a few members strolled onto one of his sites and began to harass him there.  They knew how emotionally unstable Decimator was, yet continued to harass him until he finally exploded and went into a borderline-suicide mode.  Icy eventually managed to get him to calm down.

Now let's look at this from a real-life point of view, but leave someone like Icy out of the situation.  People harass a mentally unstable person, then said person ends up either taking their own life or causes a violent incident due being mentally harassed.  Is your precious free speech still protected, or is it a mental assault?

Like I said in my previous post:  I have nothing against speaking your mind, but when you intentionally egg people on at funerals, laughing and mocking someone's deceased family member or causing emotional trauma via my Decimator example, then that's where your free speech ends.  It's no longer free speech, it's asking for a fight and a public incident to take place, which ends up being costly on society in general.

Quote from: Nick McIntyre on January 08, 2015, 08:34:44 AM

The "Freedom of Speech" thing is blown out of so many proportions.  If I recall correctly (I'll look it up later, I've got morning chores to do) it was initially installed in our Government so that a person could freely express themselves in council chambers without the wrath of the Government falling on them.

That does not mean, however, you can shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater and cause a panic.

Same goes for hate speech.  What "muh free speeches" people fail to realize is the emotional trauma, harm, and social discord that comes from people like the WBC.  As you probably saw in that thread, a man attacked a church member during his soldier brother's funeral because the protestor was mocking his brother, discrediting his service, and saying, "I'm glad the stupid faggot is dead."  The soldier got soundly punished while the protestor got to walk away laughing.

This article is a nice thing to read through, especially the parts from the Fordham Law Professor:  While free speech protects people from harm, it allows unlimited emotional harm.

Yelling "FIRE" or "BOMB" in a heavily crowded place is SEVERLY different than saying "God hates fags". One of the two will lead to people getting trampled and hurt and the the other is just some guy waving a sign around

...while that same protestor is mentally assaulting grieving friends and family by gleefully cheering a soldier's death.

That's totally supposed to be an eclair.