Sir Scarfalot Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 If Khorne is referenced in the title, and one of the main signatories is themed on 40k, then surely discussion of why Orks are relevant by color, theme, etc. is just as relevant as a random shakespearean reference to Nurgle, no? Let alone a continuation of the discussion of said Orks, which still hasn't been removed? Come on guys, a bit of 40k nerding out, while in an already 50% 40k themed thread in the title and OP, hardly compares to the derailments we've otherwise seen. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted January 27, 2020 Administrators Share Posted January 27, 2020 Do you have a specific post or something that you're referencing here? Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted January 28, 2020 Author Share Posted January 28, 2020 7 hours ago, Alex said: Do you have a specific post or something that you're referencing here? Yes, but sadly I can't actually link the removed posts directly since they're... y'know, removed, but this is the thread I'm referring to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted January 28, 2020 Administrators Share Posted January 28, 2020 I see your conversation with Inst about Orks now. However, I also see why those posts were hidden - they are pretty much irrelevant to IC politics and the treaty announcement. Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted January 28, 2020 Author Share Posted January 28, 2020 I disagree with that assessment, since such banter is entirely IC and relevant in the sense of teasing another alliance's theme. Surely IC insults and jabs, especially ones as lighthearted as those, aren't even inappropriate let alone against any rules? Sure, the discussion is tangential but it's not irrelevant any more than any other teasing or theming is? It'd be a dry board indeed if every treaty announcement was met with nothing more than 'signed' 'signed' 'good to work together' 'yey'. I'm not trying to stir drama here, I'm just surprised since this action represents a decision that's very unfamiliar. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chief Wiggum Posted February 1, 2020 Moderators Share Posted February 1, 2020 On 1/28/2020 at 11:16 PM, Sir Scarfalot said: I'm not trying to stir drama here, I'm just surprised since this action represents a decision that's very unfamiliar. I wouldn't be against 1-2 jabs in this thread, but the actual result was 30% or so of the thread at that time being just the exchange of those jabs. Keeping in mind this also took place in the very first page of the thread, I found it appropriate to hide these comments, to help people focus on the main topic of the announcement. I am sure that the OP would prefer for people to have a discussion on the actual treaty too, instead of a random discussion about colors. For the record, that's the reason I kept some of those posts around. Since you reported the remains of that discussion though, I just hid them too. I am kind of surprised you want them back now, after reporting them. No warnings were issued and I am pretty sure you and Inst had your fun and exchange of jabs, so I don't think any harm was done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.