Brittney Spears, dead at age 26

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.

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?..

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.