I am being serious 😁 It is quite common for a US law firm to send you a notice demanding a specific settlement amount just to get them to take down an image 😍
Peter, it’s quite simple. Just highlight the specific text you want to address and click the "Wrap Quote" icon, then type your response after it. Repeat the process by highlighting the next section and clicking the icon again. Everything ends up nested inside one massive quote because you aren't deleting the closing tag at the end. When you hit the quote button, the forum automatically adds the opening and closing tags; leave the first one so people know what you're replying to, but manually delete that tag at the bottom.
I am in favor of this idea. We are seeing a significant amount of spam via direct messages and complaints regarding thread quality coming exclusively from newly registered users. I hope the technical admin reviews this and determines if implementation is feasible.
Person A posted their own email address just so other users could reach them while they're under a ban.
The upside of deleting it: you eliminate the tiny, microscopic chance that she accidentally leaked someone else's address (which is unlikely, since why would anyone bother posting a stranger's email just to tell people to send them private messages?) or that she tries to sue the site over her own self-published email. That wouldn't fly here in the States, either.
The downside of deleting it: you're stripping away her ability to talk to people outside the forum (which isn't actually part of the ban she received), you're setting a precedent where admins would have to scrub endless amounts of private info from profiles and posts across the entire site, you're fueling more drama with an already unhappy user, and you might even inadvertently push her to create a sockpuppet account just to stay in touch with people.
You don't need a law degree to figure out which option makes more sense.
Steven Reed, I am perfectly aware of where I permit email addresses to be posted 🙂
What I don't understand is this constant nitpicking and hair-splitting. The address was clearly left there to stir the pot and spark another endless, pointless thread on the PŽK. Sure, the rules are flexible and enforcement is inconsistent—it’s just a forum. Get over it.
wanderingbadger44 said:Man, I really love being right. Honestly, nothing beats that feeling of knowing I'm spot on when I'm arguing points on the PŽK.
It feels like the average person posting here would need to be both a high-priced attorney and a computer scientist just to write a single comment without worrying about breaking some rule. ☕
I disagree. I would say the average user is smart enough not to leave their email address—in any format—on a public platform. At least on my PDF. Those who post their email only to have it deleted usually get the point immediately. I fail to see the purpose of this thread. Is it just getting too heated?
wanderingbadger44 said:Bolded text usually jumps out at you, but somehow, it seems to have slipped right past you.
The ban keeps me from talking to them here on the forum, but the part I had bolded was outside the forum.
It didn't "slip past me" as you're implying through your trolling; I simply didn't think it was necessary. I am certain you realize that, but this allows you to make your point about how we "evil moderators" are just stupid sadists, voyeurs, or stalkers—whatever you want to call us. Everything is fine. Just carry on.
If we go by that logic, then George Orwell is nothing more than a complete amateur.
Are you suggesting the entire purpose of being banned is to shut down all contact, even outside of this forum?
Does your oversight extend into our real lives too? : plašljivosvrtprekoramena:
Yes, dear forum user, the point of a ban is to stop you from interacting with other members for the duration of the penalty. If you choose to communicate privately with users through other means without creating clone accounts, that is your business. A ban is a punishment for inappropriate behavior. It prevents you from communicating with the community here. There is nothing to debate; it is simply a fact.
This wasn't deleted; it was merged into the Chat - credits and quick questions thread The forums get too many posts daily, and we can't start a new thread for every single question or nobody would be able to navigate the site
You see why I stood out to you? We both share this habit of writing these long, winding sentences. 😁 Anyway, here is the rundown on how the Economy works around here: people rarely drink, they hardly ever post, and they seldom jump into debates. Just one decent PDF. There, now you know when you visit next.
Of course we aren't, but this is pure generalization. If Jacob Allen (by the way, if this were a Facebook game, I’d be the one asking 'Who are you?' 😁) thinks someone was drunk when they got red-carded, or if anyone else claims a penalty can just be erased because it was unfair
Look, Oliver, this isn't about nature or God. The issue is women hunting for wealthy husbands. Frank Moore4 started rambling about women who don't want kids—that isn't just off-topic, it's blatant trolling designed to derail the conversation. And the way he phrased it was unnecessarily inflammatory.