JadenxAtemYAOI Posted January 24, 2011 Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 Since we see a lot of stupidity in different sections, I'm thinking that we need the No Jack Witt clause in more sections. Video games section is good for a start as well as Debates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catterjune Posted January 24, 2011 Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 [quote]9. The Jack Witt Clause All deck topics are treated as rate and fix topics. This means that, when you post your deck, you will receive comments and evaluations of the deck's quality from other members and suggestions as to how to improve it. If you cannot deal with this, then do not post your deck. If you post your deck and then show that you cannot or will not accept constructive criticism, you will not only appear childish but also run the risk of having your topics closed. [/quote] So... all Video games and Debates should be rate and fix topics, and if you can't deal with someone rate/fixing your... video game topic and debate you should stop being childish? >_> ...What exactly are you suggesting here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadenxAtemYAOI Posted January 24, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 [quote name='PikaPerson01' timestamp='1295829869' post='4955935'] So... all Video games and Debates should be rate and fix topics, and if you can't deal with someone rate/fixing your... video game topic and debate you should stop being childish? >_> ...What exactly are you suggesting here? [/quote] No, not like that. Like in pokemon, some person says torkoal is better than infernape and they firmly believe it, obviously an idiot. Some person firmly believes heracross would stand a better chance against darkrai than primeape, etc. Same with video game debates like the Star Wars the Force Unleashed. Starkiler being alive vs dead. idiot in the thread right now is a good example. Debates, just look in the marijuana thread. Edit: video game debates, debates, and mainly idiots that think they know what they're talking about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catterjune Posted January 24, 2011 Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 ... What about those debates? If someone can argue their case better, that's all well and good. If idiots are gonna just storm off in a huff after getting their asses handed to them... good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadenxAtemYAOI Posted January 24, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 [quote name='PikaPerson01' timestamp='1295830435' post='4955956'] ... What about those debates? If someone can argue their case better, that's all well and good. If idiots are gonna just storm off in a huff after getting their asses handed to them... good? [/quote] No, in debates like the marijuana thread, I recall a post saying being atheist means your a devout preacher or something along the lines. Stupidity like that as well as people that argue their point without proper proof. Right now, in the Force Unleashed thread, an idiot is firmly believing there isn't a Force Unleashed 2 and any pokemon person remembers the time I thought two exact charmanders couldn't have the same stats dpending on the game they were raised in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icy Posted January 24, 2011 Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 [quote name='JadenxAtemYAOI' timestamp='1295830632' post='4955967'] No, in debates like the marijuana thread, I recall a post saying being atheist means your a devout preacher or something along the lines. Stupidity like that as well as people that argue their point without proper proof. Right now, in the Force Unleashed thread, an idiot is firmly believing there isn't a Force Unleashed 2 and any pokemon person remembers the time I thought two exact charmanders couldn't have the same stats dpending on the game they were raised in. [/quote] Your examples only state spammers and fools. Nothing to do with your suggestion at hand. (Save for your Charmander thing, which is more a general lack of knowledge). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadenxAtemYAOI Posted January 24, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 [quote name='JoshIcy' timestamp='1295830777' post='4955976'] Your examples only state spammers and fools. Nothing to do with your suggestion at hand. (Save for your Charmander thing, which is more a general lack of knowledge). [/quote] Yes and that's why we need a debates version of a no Jack Witt clause. And the charmander thing. Don't EV train one and EV/IV train the other lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catterjune Posted January 24, 2011 Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 If you take obvious troll bait, that's your fault. A quick enough wiki search or whatever should shut them up. No need to go "LAWL! YOU ARE REALLY DUMB! FO' REAL!". Just prove your argument and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icy Posted January 25, 2011 Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 [quote name='JadenxAtemYAOI' timestamp='1295831026' post='4955989'] Yes and that's why we need a debates version of a no Jack Witt clause. And the charmander thing. Don't EV train one and EV/IV train the other lol [/quote] So... Instead of just enforcing these rules as they already are, we must write them in a way that insults the member and takes it completely out of context? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.