|
Moridin920 posted:Ey here's some actual thoughts though being serious: I think making the forums more visible is a good idea, and also making them a little more friendly to people without an account yet. The autoplay video that pops up if you try to access a thread behind the paywall is funny and all, but I bet there is a significant population that hit it and immediately close the tab. It's not really worksafe, either, in the sense that it can be really drat loud. Maybe something along the lines of what a lot of newspapers are doing, with a limited number of free pageviews and a nag screen would help drive new regs?
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
That Robot posted:gbs is fine as it is I think that hating on GBS has passed from being a hobby to a vocation for some people.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
Ayin posted:It's talking about this and this, things which are certainly not pseudoscience. Yes, those are things, and the weird petition alludes to them, but refers to them as PAWS which (while it can result from benzos) is generally something related to substance use disorders, which the author essentially disavows. I'm not saying the ad should be nuked, but it is pretty clearly an anti-psychiatric medicine stance, which is generally rooted in pseudoscience..
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2019 06:07
|
|
|
Facebook Aunt posted:You can't delete history, maaaan. There is some truth to this. I just checked and the Offensive Cereals photoshop thread is easily accessible on the Wayback Machine, for instance. Rather than deleting content and leaving the door wide-open to "oh yeah, SA used to be horrible and here is proof!" stuff maybe a better approach would be a sort of gas chamber for front page content? Keep the content but put it in a place clearly labeled as being disavowed, regretted, and disowned? Something like that?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2019 06:54
|
|
|
Well, it was just a thought. I don't have strong feelings about it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2019 07:49
|
|
|
tangy yet delightful posted:I don't think you'd need to include avatars in this pre-approval system. Just make a new rule that say we will ban you for avatars that violate our standards and repeated violations will result in a perma. I'm pretty sure that there is no way to tell who bought an avatar, so there is no way to enforce what you suggest. The only thing the mods can do is delete and replace offensive avatars if they go through.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2020 22:48
|
|
|
Out of morbid curiosity, since the second ad linked to a less sketchy-looking URL, I went ahead and read through what it contains. And I honestly don't see how it is damning evidence of anything other than the local investigator who wrote most of the entries being an abject embarrassment. Whoever is buying these things seems to be taking a really dumb "CHECKMATE ATHESITS!" approach to it, and it simply doesn't contain anything like what they seem to think it does.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2020 02:12
|
|
|
Krankenstyle posted:i really dont think its a sneaky conspiracy lol As someone who has followed the bad ad thread for a very long time, I agree. Speculating some sort of ill intent runs entirely counter to the Keystone Cops nature of how ad issues arise and are dealt with historically.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2020 01:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:
It appears to just link to the forums main page. Maybe somebody is just really nostalgic for the late 90s?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2020 05:48
|
|
