| TalkingCarlton http://talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/ |
|
| New TC Guidelines http://talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13560 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | AGRO [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 8:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | New TC Guidelines |
This thread might get lost in the current Boardroom Drama. But what I want to know is since when did Talking Carlton engage Adrian "Chester" Anderson as a consultant to draft up the new Talking Carlton Guidelines. 
I also feel sooooo naked without my warning. 
|
|
| Author: | mjonc [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 8:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I can't believe there are no warnings for bad humour. I'll never get a warning now 
|
|
| Author: | Mrs Caz [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 10:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
There's always hope boys...never give up. |
|
| Author: | The Tyrant [ Wed Nov 22, 2006 9:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
A priest and a rabbi walk into a bar, and the bartender says "is this some kind of joke"? |
|
| Author: | bluehotel [ Wed Nov 22, 2006 9:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
A horse walks into a bar and the bartender says "Why the long face... |
|
| Author: | AGRO [ Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
bluehotel wrote: A horse walks into a bar and the bartender says "Why the long face...
I thought it was Celine Dion. |
|
| Author: | bluehotel [ Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Celine Dion walks into a bar and the Bartender says "for flowers (edited by mods) sake dont sing.. |
|
| Author: | bluechucky [ Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
interesting that in a thread for the new guidelines, point 7.a was broken. Quote: 7.a. "Hidden" Swearing
Please also note that swearing which is contextually understandable, e.g removing a letter or changing the spelling slightly, will also be moderated. Please note that swearing in another language is also unacceptable - regardless of how many people you think might understand it. here is the guidelines people. http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB2/vi ... php?t=2919 We'll be a little more tight with enforcing these guidelines soon. |
|
| Author: | mjonc [ Wed Nov 22, 2006 11:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Interesting how the F word is changed to Flower. 
|
|
| Author: | womack [ Wed Nov 22, 2006 11:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Remember when Icehouse were The flowers |
|
| Author: | kingkerna [ Wed Nov 22, 2006 11:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
womack wrote: Remember when Icehouse were The flower
I think you will find they were called Flowers - big hit with Walls (who put the writing on the walls.........) |
|
| Author: | showbag [ Wed Nov 22, 2006 11:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
kingkerna wrote: womack wrote: Remember when Icehouse were The flower I think you will find they were called Flowers - big hit with Walls (who put the writing on the walls.........) rock band kk?
|
|
| Author: | Amanda [ Wed Nov 22, 2006 11:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
showbag wrote: kingkerna wrote: womack wrote: Remember when Icehouse were The flower I think you will find they were called Flowers - big hit with Walls (who put the writing on the walls.........) rock band kk? They were the green thumbs of rock. |
|
| Author: | bluehotel [ Wed Nov 22, 2006 11:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
as opposed to Peter Garrett who is the Green tool of rock. |
|
| Author: | JackWorrall [ Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
kingkerna wrote: womack wrote: Remember when Icehouse were The flower I think you will find they were called Flowers - big hit with Walls (who put the writing on the walls.........) The best song before they changed their name to Icehouse was "We Can Get Together". |
|
| Author: | womack [ Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
kingkerna wrote: womack wrote: Remember when Icehouse were The flower I think you will find they were called Flowers - big hit with Walls (who put the writing on the walls.........) I know that but if i type in The flowers it doesn't pluralise it.... |
|
| Author: | The Vet [ Wed Nov 22, 2006 1:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
2 points 1. defamatory content is only a grade 4 offence? I think that to prevent obvious liability to the operators/publishers of this site, such an offence ought be a ban, grade 2 or 1 at least. I say this because the effect of such conduct could be devastating to the individual defamed, and may lead to this site being sanctioned (the Hawk Headquarters incident was different but an example). Anything less than a severe ban seems inapropriate. if your concern is to do with freedom of speech and integrity of the site, then perhaps you should have a sliding scale. As it stands, the moderators cannot ban for defamation. That doesn't seem sensible. 2. the links to the rmit site don't operate. p.s. sorry i didn't raise this earlier, only just became aware of the new rules. |
|
| Author: | dannyboy [ Wed Nov 22, 2006 1:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
so no warnings just penalties (with 9 being used as a warning?)? How come I still have 2 warnings? |
|
| Author: | Blue Vain [ Wed Nov 22, 2006 2:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Because we hate you. |
|
| Author: | jimmae [ Wed Nov 22, 2006 2:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
What he said! Send bluechucky a PM if it isn't fixed up by later today. |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC + 10 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|