All posts by Anonymous 67a8f391a32fb7.13434178

Yes to all.

<p>C) because I don't think either solution is that good. </p>

Voted against it last time so A.

A

Switching to B.

A

<p>A </p><p>As long as quality is maintained and all hell doesn't break lose I'm fine with this. </p>

B.

<p>A, despite the fact honestly some people here need to filter themselves and to simply list stuff they'll just find something not on it and exploit it. </p>

<p>Yeah.....no. B. </p><p>Trying to act like it would be used so innocently isn't a valid reason honestly. </p>

<div class="quote">Romaniandude12 wrote:
<div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: I swear I haven't heard this term IRL, ever. </p><noscript></noscript> Don't even know what it means, or how offensive it can be. <p>So for this time, C). </p><noscript></noscript> </div>It's a male prostitute, or a male paid by an older woman for companionship.</div>considered derogatory </div> <p>Same could be said for a lot of words allowed here that nobody is interested in blocking. </p>

C

<p>A </p><p>I was looking for the "muh freedom of speech" reason for B, not disappointed. </p><p>And look, if you really think this should be allowed why don't you go play with people who are like you? The place can be found on Reddit and it's called The_Donald. </p>

<p>I think honestly the whole "BUT IT MEANS OTHER STUFF" too argument really is silly because it honestly doesn't matter. What matters is how ultimately communities like this would use it. </p><p>On the other hand though if autistic is unblocked which is a far more specific word then I don't see why retard is blocked and autistic isn't. Either block them both or unblock them both. </p>

B it's a stupid idea.

<p>Due to the votes slowing down big time now on my example, the current admin vote. Changing my vote to A for the record. I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong. </p>

<p>Okay has anyone actually looked at the admin vote currently happening? Reducing the requirement is really questionable when we've got 20 people already listed on that and that's not even the full amount of active people. </p><p>With the way some are acting you'd think there's only exactly 20 left or something. </p>

<div class="quote">HyperFlash Studios wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Roddy15 wrote: D </p><p>Given the "census" we did puts members to 40 you should really need more than just 50% support. I'd be more in favour of adding a time limit to it and if there's a clear majority after a certain time period and they are a couple of votes short then give them the position. </p> </div>To be completely fair, the total was 36 and about 10 people left since then. </div> <p>I'd rather see proof of that before changing my vote. </p>

<p>D </p><p>Given the "census" we did puts members to 40 you should really need more than just 50% support. I'd be more in favour of adding a time limit to it and if there's a clear majority after a certain time period and they are a couple of votes short then give them the position. </p><p>EDIT: Changing to A </p>