- gamertag: [none]
- user homepage:
Rather than being vague and verbose, why not just be blunt about it? "We lock threads that attack -blam!-ity, display racism, or things of that nature" rather than an example that is hardly straightforward. Sorry if I appear up-front about this, but an answer not clouded with real-life examples and subtlety would be appreciated.
Posted by: Recon Number 54
Posted by: Revelata Secreto
wat
Posted by: Recon Number 54
Ever seen the frustration of a graffiti artist, tagger, or vandal with spray paint when they encounter a teflon coated wall?
Everything they put on it slides off to the ground. All of their effort, their planning, their work, their statement "that everyone will see and know that I exist" ends up.... no where. No one sees it.
Hopefully such denial of reward and recognition can encourage them to find a more appropriate and positive avenue for their energies and desire for attention/recognition.
You guys lock spam attack threads. Not delete them.
I wasn't stating a policy or even a practice.
I was explaining a potential and hypothetical course of reasoning for a possible action.
An example using vandals and teflon is hardly related here. The OP wanted to know what a thread must contain in order to be deleted.