A rash of bad odt members

[atljetmech]

nothing worse than a bad rash.

Especially on your Outer Dangling Testicles....

 

[bearpugh]

lol

 

[BIKER13]

(as long as one isn't high on any illicit drugs or anything). DJD

 

[no clever name]

I don't totally agree with traderjohn but I think he does have a point in how rules are enforced. For example, can someone explain to me how the safebuilder thread isn't in violation of the callout rule.

0L. Callouts - Public \"callouts\" are not allowed, if you have a problem with a member please post in the private help forum or use the iTrader feedback system.

That thread has everything from people calling for ass whippings, arrest warrants and now it even has a lawyer involved.

I am in no way saying that asshats & people that screw other members shouldn't be punished or outed, I think negative scores should be in a bold red 20 font right beside their user name so it's easier to see, but it just shows how interpretation and favorites play into the enforcing of rules around here.

 

[JWC]

I don't totally agree with traderjohn but I think he does have a point in how rules are enforced. For example, can someone explain to me how the safebuilder thread isn't in violation of the callout rule.



That thread has everything from people calling for ass whippings, arrest warrants and now it even has a lawyer involved.

I am in no way saying that asshats & people that screw other members shouldn't be punished or outed, I think negative scores should be in a bold red 20 font right beside their user name so it's easier to see, but it just shows how interpretation and favorites play into the enforcing of rules around here.

I may be wrong, but I don't think the deal was made or confirmed on ODT. Since there was a "business" involved, it would appear that it is the same thing as calling out, for example, a local gun store, a car dealership, or any other type of "business". Just my opinion.

 

[JLas]

Ok. So I read most of the thread over again hoping to see a Mod explain the handling of a loaned account and didn't see anything?
Was there no neg for that? If so, why?
I assumed he admitted loaning it in a PM which maybe incorrect and the reason for no neg.
Sorry if that was in here and I missed it, just trying to understand.

 

[no clever name]

I may be wrong, but I don't think the deal was made or confirmed on ODT. Since there was a "business" involved, it would appear that it is the same thing as calling out, for example, a local gun store, a car dealership, or any other type of "business". Just my opinion.

The rule says nothing about deals in any way shape form or fashion, it only references public callouts and problems with members.

 

[marnedrake]

If the deal was confirmed properly on the "loaned" acct the acct owner should be held accountable. Leave neg.

Yup