Twilight-kun
Pokémon World Champion
- 5,456
- Posts
- 14
- Years
- Seen Jul 27, 2023
434
Growing
Like a cancer
What fun
Growing
Like a cancer
What fun
-
Our friends from the Johto Times are hosting a favorite Pokémon poll - and we'd love for you to participate! Click here for information on how to vote for your favorites!
[dLtMs0 v 5.4] ITT SHINJI IS CONFIRMED FOR GROSSEST; Days till Pokestick Day: check new thread
- Thread starter Pokestick good times.
- Start date
- Status
Weeaboo Name
Banned
- 7,461
- Posts
- 14
- Years
- Age 33
- The Wired
- Seen Apr 27, 2016
435
Spooky.
Spooky.
Pokestick good times.
[i]cheeky[/i]
- 7,406
- Posts
- 16
- Years
- Age 29
- he/they
- Stockholm, Sweden
- Seen Oct 31, 2022
436
All good things grow.
And all things that grow are good.
All good things grow.
And all things that grow are good.
Weeaboo Name
Banned
- 7,461
- Posts
- 14
- Years
- Age 33
- The Wired
- Seen Apr 27, 2016
437
Nah.
Nah.
Weeaboo Name
Banned
- 7,461
- Posts
- 14
- Years
- Age 33
- The Wired
- Seen Apr 27, 2016
439
Okay.
Okay.
Netto Azure
Kiel
- 9,405
- Posts
- 16
- Years
- Alistel, Vainqueur
- Seen Dec 21, 2023
440
More stuff to do everyday.
More stuff to do everyday.
Weeaboo Name
Banned
- 7,461
- Posts
- 14
- Years
- Age 33
- The Wired
- Seen Apr 27, 2016
441
lol
lol
Pokestick good times.
[i]cheeky[/i]
- 7,406
- Posts
- 16
- Years
- Age 29
- he/they
- Stockholm, Sweden
- Seen Oct 31, 2022
442
Oh, we're here again.
Oh, we're here again.
jombii
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][SIZE=4][COLOR=#00b05
- 3,416
- Posts
- 10
- Years
- Philippines
- Seen Jun 28, 2019
444
repeated numbers yeah
repeated numbers yeah
Twilight-kun
Pokémon World Champion
- 5,456
- Posts
- 14
- Years
- Seen Jul 27, 2023
445
Last edited by a moderator:
Pokestick good times.
[i]cheeky[/i]
- 7,406
- Posts
- 16
- Years
- Age 29
- he/they
- Stockholm, Sweden
- Seen Oct 31, 2022
446
Last edited by a moderator:
- 22,931
- Posts
- 20
- Years
- Age 34
- 'cause it get cold like Minnesota
- Seen May 14, 2025
447. No discussing banned members, please. It's in the rules.
Pokestick good times.
[i]cheeky[/i]
- 7,406
- Posts
- 16
- Years
- Age 29
- he/they
- Stockholm, Sweden
- Seen Oct 31, 2022
448
...Now that I think about it, those are some weird-ass rules. I wonder what kind of drama the staff wanted to get rid of when they established that.
I'd love to have that rule set if I owned a forum, though. I could ban people I didn't like or agree with and get away with it without question!
...Now that I think about it, those are some weird-ass rules. I wonder what kind of drama the staff wanted to get rid of when they established that.
I'd love to have that rule set if I owned a forum, though. I could ban people I didn't like or agree with and get away with it without question!
Last edited:
- 22,931
- Posts
- 20
- Years
- Age 34
- 'cause it get cold like Minnesota
- Seen May 14, 2025
449. There are plenty of valid reasons I can see for such a rule, chief among them that a user's ban reason is between the member and the forum staff.
It also gives another tool to combat brigading.
It also gives another tool to combat brigading.
Pokestick good times.
[i]cheeky[/i]
- 7,406
- Posts
- 16
- Years
- Age 29
- he/they
- Stockholm, Sweden
- Seen Oct 31, 2022
450
I might just be overly critical, but I've read enough forum staff horror stories (and dystopian novels, for that matter) to instantly be concerned when there's a clear lack of transparency and hush-hush and the need to expurgate conversations.
...Actually, after a curious visit to the Rules section, I can find a rule that prohibits asking staff why members have been banned (as I remembered from the last time I read these), but from what I can see there's nothing to stop users from simply "discussing banned members", as you put it. I found that deleted posts in the DCC were tagged "banned member discussion", too. So there's clearly a well set in stone idea about this amongst the staff, but unless there's some insinuation in the rules somewhere and I'm terrible at reading comprehension (which of course could be very possible), this does not operate from any public, central decree. This is actually getting really interesting. My detective senses are tingling.
I might just be overly critical, but I've read enough forum staff horror stories (and dystopian novels, for that matter) to instantly be concerned when there's a clear lack of transparency and hush-hush and the need to expurgate conversations.
...Actually, after a curious visit to the Rules section, I can find a rule that prohibits asking staff why members have been banned (as I remembered from the last time I read these), but from what I can see there's nothing to stop users from simply "discussing banned members", as you put it. I found that deleted posts in the DCC were tagged "banned member discussion", too. So there's clearly a well set in stone idea about this amongst the staff, but unless there's some insinuation in the rules somewhere and I'm terrible at reading comprehension (which of course could be very possible), this does not operate from any public, central decree. This is actually getting really interesting. My detective senses are tingling.
Netto Azure
Kiel
- 9,405
- Posts
- 16
- Years
- Alistel, Vainqueur
- Seen Dec 21, 2023
451
Its obviously to hide the stock options we're getting.
Oops.
Its obviously to hide the stock options we're getting.
Oops.
Pokestick good times.
[i]cheeky[/i]
- 7,406
- Posts
- 16
- Years
- Age 29
- he/they
- Stockholm, Sweden
- Seen Oct 31, 2022
452
I KNEW IT.
I KNEW IT.
- 22,931
- Posts
- 20
- Years
- Age 34
- 'cause it get cold like Minnesota
- Seen May 14, 2025
453. Excerpt from the infraction section of the rules:
It doesn't specifically refer to the receiver of the infraction or ban.
Functionally, I assume part of the goal is to keep non-banned members from deliberately antagonizing a banned member, which just makes more long term headaches for all involved and makes the community unnecessarily toxic for something that's supposed to be a non-stressing experience. Other communities I've been around in the past have had problems with this.
It doesn't specifically refer to the receiver of the infraction or ban.
Functionally, I assume part of the goal is to keep non-banned members from deliberately antagonizing a banned member, which just makes more long term headaches for all involved and makes the community unnecessarily toxic for something that's supposed to be a non-stressing experience. Other communities I've been around in the past have had problems with this.
- Status