Steelpoint wrote:Since I do not know what NSFW site was linked I can't comment on that, unless someone sends me a link.

Offending site was Encyclopedia Dramatic, which while not itself a porn site, does have a large ammount of pornographic content and shock images, hence why I removed the link.

Vexification wrote: take it from the majoritys point of view.

mfw, my side's.

Daymn, shizz be goin down here.

Yeah, i agree on the no pornography rule, i dont want to be scrolling down a page in college only to have a massive pair of jugs appear on the screen, it probably wouldnt go down well if a tutor saw it.

2. The rule was instituted to help people with slower internet connection speeds

My internet speed is 10KB (Not to be confused with MB) but I dont mind.

Lets review glitch's logic.

Vexification linked to a site that contained porn, but according to him the page that was linked to did not necessarily contain porn.

Lets say we were to ban ponies (which would most likely not happen, but would be a good example for this argument)

Now lets say somebody were to post a link to Youtube, which goes to a non-pony related video.

According to Glitch's logic, the fact that somewhere else in the website there will contain ponies, the link would be an offense to the rule.

So I'll have to side with Vexification on this argument.

Meanwhile at, The Topic:

I think that it the poll was a bit faulty seeing how there wasn't an option for any kind of animated signature, but it doesn't really bother me that much really, even though it took away the only signature I really ever used.

Awesomeguy147 wrote:Lets review glitch's logic.
Vexification linked to a site that contained porn, but according to him the page that was linked to did not necessarily contain porn.
Lets say we were to ban ponies (which would most likely not happen, but would be a good example for this argument)
Now lets say somebody were to post a link to Youtube, which goes to a non-pony related video.
According to Glitch's logic, the fact that somewhere else in the website there will contain ponies, the link would be an offense to the rule.
So I'll have to side with Vexification on this argument.

Are you high?

Okay first off, the page did contain porn, pretty much every single page on ED has porn and shock images, that is why I removed the link.
Youtube on the other hand is a work safe site which has a large amount of content that ponies only make a small percentage of, if ponies were banned, youtube would be allowed because Youtube is not a pony oriented site. Also Ponies are not considered a vulgarity by people who are not closed minded jerks.

And why did you think Ponies were a good example for this argument? Are you just siding with him because he hates ponies?
This isn't even an argument about ponies, I'm stuck in a waterfall of IQ scores here.

Glitch wrote:

Awesomeguy147 wrote:Lets review glitch's logic.
Vexification linked to a site that contained porn, but according to him the page that was linked to did not necessarily contain porn.
Lets say we were to ban ponies (which would most likely not happen, but would be a good example for this argument)
Now lets say somebody were to post a link to Youtube, which goes to a non-pony related video.
According to Glitch's logic, the fact that somewhere else in the website there will contain ponies, the link would be an offense to the rule.
So I'll have to side with Vexification on this argument.

Are you high?

Okay first off, the page did contain porn, pretty much every single page on ED has porn and shock images, that is why I removed the link.
Youtube on the other hand is a work safe site which has a large amount of content that ponies only make a small percentage of, if ponies were banned, youtube would be allowed because Youtube is not a pony oriented site. Also Ponies are not considered a vulgarity by people who are not closed minded jerks.

And why did you think Ponies were a good example for this argument? Are you just siding with him because he hates ponies?
This isn't even an argument about ponies, I'm stuck in a waterfall of IQ scores here.

I said, according to vexification, do you really expect me to know what the hell is on those kind of websites. I thought ponies was a good example as it seems to be what speaks to most of the people here, it was just a switch of object. And how dare you accuse me a being high, I'm not that idiot Soulzareth

That's according to Vexification, if he was telling the truth and the site was not covered in pornography and shock images, then your "review" of my logic may have actually been valid.

And, I guess saying you were high was a bit too far, how about, "Go home Awesomeguy, you're drunk"?

Glitch wrote:That's according to Vexification, if he was telling the truth and the site was not covered in pornography and shock images, then your "review" of my logic may have actually been valid.

And, I guess saying you were high was a bit too far, how about, "Go home Awesomeguy, you're drunk"?

................ I guess that's better.

How about a reanalysis of this situation.

Vexification probably didn't even really need to post a link to that site at all to express his opinion, in fact all that did was actually downgrade the credibility of his opinion in the argument.Glitch did give a notice before the warning that counted, which was given after posting a different link to the same highly NSFW website.

On the other hand, He linked it to the page that talked of his opinion, not necessarily a NSFW oriented page, in which he labeled NSFW as to warn others that there may be NSFW content that may or may not be out of his control on whether it is there or not. At that point any one that followed the link did so at their own risk.(Also it's just porn, not the end of the world)

At this point it is a bit hard to pick a side, so I say we compromise. 1/2 a warning to Vexification. (yes I know that's stupid, but it's an Idea if you people can't settle this)

Why can't we keep a single thread on topic without everyone going off on tangents?

Also if a mod gives a user a clear warning to not repeat an action, then the mod has every right to issue a warning.

helo thred

r u okei

thred

wat hpend 2 u