Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=105153
180taytay wrote:tagged
I had a feeling this would happen. Because this was witty and the first, you only get an hour off. Hopefully there's something good on TV.taytay wrote:tagged
Mod's about to lay down the... wait for it... lawtjeffery wrote:perma-banned
now that's a 180SoftBoiledLife wrote:I had a feeling this would happen. Because this was witty and the first, you only get an hour off. Hopefully there's something good on TV.taytay wrote:tagged
Perhaps you're more used to it. I found it amusing. Either way, it's better than reading Con Law.betasteve wrote:160... It was a fairly predictable response.FlightoftheEarls wrote:180taytay wrote:tagged
--ImageRemoved--taytay wrote:tagged
In other words, you're tired of people pointing out that you're a douche?predetermined wrote:But honestly, if this is worth cracking down on because it spams a thread, then pretty much any off-topic and ad hominem post should be prohibited as well. All the ridicule and drama that ensues just because someone made a douchey post is far more annoying than these "tag" posts. They perpetuate further ridicule and drama, totally derail useful threads, and are much, much harder to ignore.
You do realize you're taking this thread off-topic and derailing it, right?predetermined wrote:There's a reason why beneficial threads stop being beneficial when the ad homs break out. Sometimes that's because they've exhausted their utility, other times it's because the ad hom thoroughly derailed it.
It doesn't even matter if the thread has been genuinely exhausted of value, though, because continued back and forth keeps bumping it on the front page. At least when someone posts "tag", they're usually bumping a still useful thread.
You're not going to win this because nobody who matters is going to agree with you.predetermined wrote:If you're saying I'm not going to "win this" because you just don't want to argue the point, well, okay.betasteve wrote:You aren't going to win this. You might as well drop it.predetermined wrote: It's not about whether they're logical fallacies, it's about whether they're pointlessly disruptive. Vast majority of ad homs are, especially on TLS. It doesn't take that much judgment.
Since this thread has given all it can to the forum in the way of information, can I call predetermined a douche?betasteve wrote:ad homs, stuff like that usually occurs in threads that aren't very beneficial or have already given all they can to the forum. "tag" usually happens in a very useful thread, but acts to disrupt it.predetermined wrote: Yeah, my point was that this "trash substance" is even more pointlessly annoying/disruptive than posting "tag". Pointless annoyance/disruption is the reason for having the tag="ban" rule, otherwise it wouldn't be ban-worthy.
A debate nobody wanted but you. We're not here to have debates with everyone that wants one.predetermined wrote:And way to close off an honest debate.
Modtatorship? Modtocracy? Modarchy?betasteve wrote: P.S. Standing does matter. Moderators make policy. Moderators discuss and debate between each other for or against policy and how it is implemented. That is the only way policy changes. You aren't a moderator, thus your lack of standing is very relevant.
you're a douche.predetermined wrote: I don't think anybody's actually called me a douche here.
Yeah, we weren't going to come out and say it buuuuuuut...superserial wrote:you're a douche.predetermined wrote: I don't think anybody's actually called me a douche here.