Rule 12?

[wayoftheleaf]

On the forum rules I have a suggestion of a rule 12, no questioning about the decisions of a mod.

The reason for this is because in all technicalities, there was no reason for the thread asking about why the sudam's hanging vid was nuked to be closed, because it broke no rules.

And also, when concerning it, rule number ten states:

No xxx stuff, disturbing pix

It says nothing about disturbing Videos, this should also be changed.

Do to rule 10 not be the reason the thread was closed, the closest rule it came to braking is rule 11.

Yet at the same time nearly every other thread containing links to sites (some actually more disturbing than this) are allowed. While one of the rules is no racism we are all equal, this is not brought over to the fact that we are all equal in our rights to post, and I ask that all these threads be nuked as well.

But that would take to much time off the mod's hands of course. There are not enough of them to take care of this, because many many threads contain links, some only about a link to a video. So either rule 11 should be altered, also since it is completley ignored when members direct others to sites for supplies, or done away with. Or part of it combined with rule 10.

Just saying, they could use an update.

Thanks.

wayoftheleaf Reviewed by wayoftheleaf on 12-31-2006. Rule 12? On the forum rules I have a suggestion of a rule 12, no questioning about the decisions of a mod. The reason for this is because in all technicalities, there was no reason for the thread asking about why the sudam's hanging vid was nuked to be closed, because it broke no rules. And also, when concerning it, rule number ten states: No xxx stuff, disturbing pix It says nothing about disturbing Videos, this should also be changed. Rating: 5

[lil josh]

i second this

if people dont want to watch the video then they shouldnt go on the thread then click the link...they know what to expect.

[Perp]

I'm surprised they didn't put a hood on him. I'm wondering if it is a fake because of it.

[wayoftheleaf]

Nah, They mentioned on CNN he didn't wear a hood, but the executioner did.

Anyhow, we don't want any mod's to nuke this or close it, or move it so let us not speak of previous offenders like that.

[birdgirl73]

This goes in Feedback, Leaf. I'm going to put it there.

Just as an FYI, we mods close threads at our discretion based on how much continuing discussion there needs to be on a topic, not based on the rules necessarily. In the case of my deletion of the Saddam execution video, I left that questioning thread closed but visible so everyone could see the reasons behind the deletion of the execution video. But I wasn't going to invite further discussion on that decision because, frankly, the deleted thread went clearly against the disturbing pics rule (video, in case you didn't know it, falls into that category) and because there was no need for further discussion on that topic since the deletion of that thread was an easy, rules-based decision.

We'll let Sundance try to decipher the rest of your rule-revision plan and act accordingly if he sees fit.

[wayoftheleaf]

okay sounds great. I am paranoid about loopholes and shit. And I guess frames can be considered pictures, yah makes sense.

Is that on the forum rules, that mods will close or nuke at their own discression?? if it isn't it should be. Might lessen a few of the threads pertaining to nuked or closed threads as well.

[Nochowderforyou]

I'm surprised they didn't put a hood on him. I'm wondering if it is a fake because of it.

Saddam, he refused a hood. I would refuse one as well. If I die like that, I'd want to see the world fade away. Not seeing the inside of black. I'll see black when I'm dead.

Anyways, I'm pretty sure "no disturbing" pictures falls in the same catagory as video. A still picture or a moving picture, it's all a picture that we see.

I think if people want to view certain things, in this case his execution, do a search and view it. I did a search on google and I just finished it. I'll just say you people aren't missing much. He just stood there on the plank, was saying something, then bam! They release the door, and down he goes. I found it funny that they didn't show the actual hanging of him. Just him before, and afterward with the noose around his neck. He looked dead to me man.

This is a cannabis site and people should know that cannabis talk is only allowed. There are sites that provide different things. That's like going into a fishing store and asking where the underwear is. 2 different things, and placing death videos in the same spot as cannabis, is hypocritical to what nost of us stand for and believe about cannabis.

Death is death, cannabis is not. :rastasmoke:

[birdgirl73]

i second this

if people dont want to watch the video then they shouldnt go on the thread then click the link...they know what to expect.

If people want to watch the video, Josh, they can go to Google or You Tube or one of the many sites that's no doubt featuring that footage--one that's not cannabis-centered or aiming to be a forum for friendly discussion--and see it there. It's as simple as that, and you know it.

[wayoftheleaf]

This thread really wasn't meant for this purpose....But okay.


But i'll say something anyhow, it is hypocritical and it isn't nochowderforyou. It is hypocritical to put death and cannabis togethor yes. but at the same time isn't cannabis and freedom of expression?

Either way doesn't change the threads intended purpose.

[Psycho4Bud]

Either way doesn't change the threads intended purpose.

So what is this threads actual intended purpose. YOU didn't start that thread, even post in it, but yet you feel the need to bust some balls over it.

Common logic, courtesy shouldn't have to be spelled out in guidelines. I do that sort of thing for LITTLE CHILDREN not adults and young adults. I really don't know what your bitch is tonight but would request you get over it!

Have a good one!:jointsmile: