Brittney Spears, dead at age 26
 

... Wow, I didn't expect it this early.



www.cnn.com/newsreport.spears1246.html

i jus got trojaned omg hacks hlep

Don't make fun, she was a great singer at one point.


Here's a tribute video for her.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo3xX03nvwo

Fake link and rickroll without even clicking on them.

If she had died, it would be all over every TV station in the world.

The funny thing is, just how many people probably rely on only internet forums for their news.

It wasn't a rickroll, but better. All it did was play a flash of people getting owned.

Yeah, and apparently this is another bannable offense. What the fuck.

It's the "posting a misleading link" rule. WW actually got on my as for it a few years ago.

That's stupid. Ever been 'rickrolled' ? KA and even MJ did it a couple of weeks ago and nothing happened to them.

I'm not sticking up for D3V, but the double standards are pretty hilarious.

It's not exactly a double standard. Like I said, I got warned for it a while back. It's just that D3V's past behavior encourages a higher monitoring of his activities.

D3V probably provides 30% of the topics on this forum nowadays. He creates many post-worthy threads. People can change, Raziel. D3V now is definitely not D3V of the past.

All I'm saying is, KA/MJ posted RickRoll videos (an obvious misleading link) while D3V pulls the same thing with a flash video. Two links directing you to two videos. D3V is banned, KA/MJ don't even receive a warning.

So, yes, there are double standards.

I am lucky! I have never fallen for something like that! Besides, I wouldn't care if Brittany died anyhow.

D3V got banned because I could tell the link was fake without clicking it. I don't click links I think lead to videos and so was never aware of KA or MJ's offenses. The issue is that the people that did know didn't enforce the rules, rather than one of double standards.

And he's gone through these supposed "changes" multiple times in the life of this forum, only to revert back into stereotypical D3V. My ability to trust his current run of behavior is nonexistant, because history has proven he can't maintain it. It wouldn't surpise me in the least if several other members felt the same way. Enjoying his current trend of decent behavior, but on their toes for his next descent into absurdity.

If he's being watched more feverishly than other members, he's only got himself to blame for it.

Nah, D3V isn't close to being the model member, but he's nowhere near as bad as he used to be, and I don't think he will be in the future.

Let me just clarify this so I don't look like more of an ass than usual. While I don't like D3v most of the time and wouldn't care if he were banned forever, I stuck up for him, as did Lenny. I don't think the ban was fair. However, WW makes the call.

Technically, it was against the rules, but so were the threads me and MJ posted.

Either way, let's just be sure not to blame KA for this, because KA was against it.

I don't even really care that I was even banned. Like i've said before, I think the rules need to be restructured. I tried to explain them in about 2 minutes worth of spam typing a while back and everything seemed to get rejected. I think as long as you aren't redirecting a link to a fucking WArez site, p0rn0 site, or anything that contains trojans then who honestly gives a fuck?..

Your opinions would change if you were an active member and noticed his progress in becoming less of a retarded bafoon. Well, maybe not change, but it may surprise you.

Anyway, I was just pointing out the double standards. I don't really care, just made an observation. How about we don't enforce that ridiculous rule if no harm is done? Hell, if every member got banned for misleading links on some of the other forums I visit, there would be no member base.

I still visit daily, and read possibly a third of the interesting topics, I just don't post much. I've watched his progress, and yes, I agree, for the time being he is much better than the pinnacle of stupidity he was striving for in the past.

However, I stress, for the time being. Like I said, he's done this countless times in the past, and always reverted into a pile of gibbering dumb. I'm not saying his current behavior is poor, its fine by all standards. I just don't trust it'll stay this way. He gets that itch under his skin, and makes the choice to entertain himself by becoming a nuisance again.

I agree with you entirely on the enforcement of rules here. I think many are unnecessary, and their execution has a tendency to exhibit signs of one-sided monitoring. However, that doesn't mean I think people should be allowed to just run wild and break those rules consciously because they don't agree with them. This isn't 1776, rules and laws are not changed through acts of rebellion and defiance. You discuss, and come to an agreement. If you don't like the outcome, you're free to bitch about it all you want, or leave. But I don't support the idea that just because a rule popularly believed to be unfair is in place, that means you should be forgiven for consciously breaking it.

Not that this opinion specifically pertains to this situation, because D3V was apparently unaware that misleading links are a bannable offense. However, it does pertain to his overall mentality of the rules in previous situations. All I'm saying is that "martyring yourself for the cause" means nothing online. Have a concise discussion about it, aimed directly at the governing authority, and maybe you'll achieve something.

The reason for the rule's existence seems this way to me, D3V. You post a misleading link. It's harmless fun and nobody gets hurt or in trouble. Then MJ does it. Same story. Then King does a few. No blowback, no punishment. Then Titus does two or three, then Me, then Sovereign and so on and so on. The forum accepts the idea of blind links being okay, so the moderators stop checking for them. Then we've got leet5killz69 posting ad links, the moderators don't catch it because misleading links are acceptable and they're not trolling for them. Then bustanut52 starts posting porn, killyerPC starts posting links to trojans and now we've got a problem.

The mods should be checking links presented in threads to make sure this crap doesn't happen, but if there's no harm-no foul in any kind of blind link, they're not checking for trouble and suddenly we find ourselves mired in it. That's why. Shit, we've had currently active, longstanding members crash the forum before, so there's really no trusting what someone will or won't do when they're posting links on the boards. That's it. I agree that perhaps the temp ban rule is a little harsh for an honest to God no harm blind link. Maybe just a temp loser tag or something to that effect. But, the rule still needs to be there, dude.

D3V has been banned for it before. He has a selective memory.

His selective memory is about as far from a new discovery as you can get, WetWired.

I generally agree with you, Raziel. I don't believe D3v will continue to be how he is, he has even hinted at reverting a bit lately, when he challenges rules and knows he's going to get banned just so he can bitch about it.

However, it was dumb to ban him in this case. If the links posted were not harmful, it's really dumb to ban him for it. In this case, I don't support WW in enforcing the rules. Before, I did, because having very nearly naked women on the public forums could be NSFW, and since a lot of people surf from work, that's a problem.

However, in this case, it was a link, which was completely harmless, and completely optional to click. WW was just looking for an excuse to ban D3v, in my opinion.

Oh, I agree with you entirely King. A ban for a harmless link is a bit overboard, in my opinion. A loser tag, or something less severe, seems more appropriate to me.

If everybody else was getting banned for the same things, (rick Roll'd) then I wouldn't care, I probably wouldn't even bother. This thread is fucking retarded, and WW is still on his power trip which is never going to change because these forums are never going to grow if we keep the same trend of spectacular retardedness.

As I've said twice already, if I was made aware, everyone else would be getting banned for it.

The issue isn't that stuff like this is necessarily harmful, the issue is how do you clearly define the line between harmful and not when it comes to
It's easier to just outlaw all of it.

I'd argue against that, as would 99% of the rest of the members on here, atleast thinking the rules are stupid for the majority.

Anyways in that case, K_A used a Rick Roll'd link earlier today in the Flame forum, ban?

Can I get a link, or a thread title?

Well, it wasn't misleading in any way. I just told Kyeruu it represents how I feel about him.

In a sarcastic sort of way, no?

Of course.

Regardless, that link wasn't misleading in any way. Either way, I would think it dumb to be banned for it, and I still disagree with D3v's ban. Zero Tolerance=Zero Intelligence.

I was being sarcastic in Brittney Spears being dead. Do you honestly think if she really died I would post a youtube video? Jesus christ, there would atleast be a news story pasted along with it.

I don't think the youtube video is what got you banned. The first link you posted was made to LOOK like a news story but it linked to something completely different.

Oh yeah durka dur. Even still, We have tons of nerds on here that actually look at the hyperlink before clicking.

But there are still some that will click the link without looking. You could just as easily link to a trojan. That's WW's point, I believe. My problem with that is he's taking an all or nothing stance on it, when there is a lot of gray area in the middle. I don't think someone should be banned for rickrolling, I do think someone should be banned for posting a fake link that goes to a trojan or to a website where they gain something from getting clicks.

We do all have brains and we should be able to think "Is this bad enough to warrant a ban?" Your post wasn't harmful in any way, you gained nothing from it, and if anything you probably gave a few people some laughs. It was just more activity for the forums, that was in no way harmful, so in turn WW banned you for a day and decreased activity on the forums, over a stupid technicality.

I think that's bullshit, but unfortunately for you, I don't call the shots.

Well, I made a revamp rules thread a while back and every point I tried to create was shot down, I don't really know what else we can do. Maybe just get over it and drone to the shitty rules.

Possibly make a poll? Maybe that will sway WW's decision.

You could send him a fruit basket. A nice fruit basket always greases the wheels.