5 letter rule

Yes, but not enough to warrant dealing with the trouble of retards complaining about unequal enforcement.

I think if a single post fits then that rule should not be automatically enforced. Why automate the moderator's job when they can do it so much more efficiently?

Because retards complain loudly and persistantly when rules are enforced on a case by case basis.

Because retards complain loudly and persistantly when rules are enforced on a case by case basis.

What about you? You think eliminating the five character rule will increase spam?

Ditch the 5 letter rule and enforce signifigant post rules completely in all non spam forums.

No. because you are still spamming even if you put "fuck ww" under your spam. Outside the chatterbox of course. So I am suggesting that they eliminate the rule and replace it with more responsible moderation in the better forums.

No. because you are still spamming even if you put "fuck ww" under your spam. Outside the chatterbox of course. So I am suggesting that they eliminate the rule and replace it with more responsible moderation in the better forums.

My point, however, is that certain posts are not spam that contain the "fuck ww" signature, they are merely posts which do not require more content to be valid.

My point, however, is that certain posts are not spam that contain the "fuck ww" signature, they are merely posts which do not require more content to be valid.

If they are in chatterbox yes, if not it is highly likely that they should be scrutinized and removed if nessicary.

And I still believe that posts in the whole chatterbox should not go toward postcount, and people can just go nuts in there, but you better keep that shit out of the other sections.

My point, however, is that certain posts are not spam that contain the "fuck ww" signature, they are merely posts which do not require more content to be valid.

"/signed"?

That's as bad as replying with "yeah" or "agree". If I posted something, and I got a number of "/signed" replies, I'd want to know why I got them. Simply putting "/signed" says nothing about why you agree with the post.

In the more serious forums, "/signed" does nothing to further the discussion. "/sgned" plus why you agree, does. It doesn't have to be a multi-page extravaganza, a sentence or two will do.

why do poeple put like /signed. whats the / mean?

"/signed"? That's as bad as replying with "yeah" or "agree". If I posted something, and I got a number of "/signed" replies, I'd want to know why I got them. Simply putting "/signed" says nothing about why you agree with the post. In the more serious forums, "/signed" does nothing to further the discussion. "/sgned" plus why you agree, does. It doesn't have to be a multi-page extravaganza, a sentence or two will do.

KA already described the motivation behind his opinion in the post I replied "/signed" to. I could not have done it better without getting unnecessarily philosophical. Perhaps I could reword it, but that is just fluff.

I think if a single post fits then that rule should not be automatically enforced. Why automate the moderator's job when they can do it so much more efficiently?

As if. I see a very overwhelming ammount of spam in areas suposed to be free of it.

Though since I have been complaining about it, the problem IMO does seem to be lessening.

As if. I see a very overwhelming ammount of spam in areas suposed to be free of it. Though since I have been complaining about it, the problem IMO does seem to be lessening.

You think removing the five character requirement is going to increase spam? Conversely, do you think raising the character requirement will decrease spam?