Dear nazi douchebags, (or: no-ban policy has been revoked)

[DrDigej]

Fags are excused. As are trannies. Mos Maiorum.

Zep--

 

[Somberlain]

 

[taxalot]

Just read the OP. I'm very happy that the Codex is moving into a good direction. By 2010, we can hope to make it back into a sensible place.

 

[Whiny-Butthurt-Liberal]

Please add an "it was humans" button for threads like these.

Spoiler

 

[baud]

So, anyone wondering what the codex would look like if the rule had continued to be upheld?

 

[Micormic]

Calis and Vault dweller were cucked faggot retards anyways.

 

[aweigh]

So, anyone wondering what the codex would look like if the rule had continued to be upheld?

probably dead forum by now.

 

[laclongquan]

Just read the OP. I'm very happy that the Codex is moving into a good direction. By 2010, we can hope to make it back into a sensible place.

What?

 

[Owlish]

 

[aweigh]

Missing SJWs on that elephant.

 

[Owlish]

Missing SJWs on that elephant.

 

[baud]

So, anyone wondering what the codex would look like if the rule had continued to be upheld?

probably dead forum by now.

Are you sure? Going by the way the rule is written, it would have removed mostly the peopletrolls hanging in GD, not those that made the conversation on RPGs interesting (of course I didn't see how it was applied, so I could be off by a mile).

Still, you were there at the time, I wasn't, so your opinion is more valid than mine.

 

[mondblut]

So, anyone wondering what the codex would look like if the rule had continued to be upheld?

probably dead forum RPGWatch by now.

FTFY.

 

[aweigh]

Are you sure? Going by the way the rule is written, it would have removed mostly the peopletrolls hanging in GD, not those that made the conversation on RPGs interesting (of course I didn't see how it was applied, so I could be off by a mile).

Can't have good convos of any kind if there are rules against free speech or if there is censorship. Why would anyone want to post in a forum where you have to be constantly mindful not to "piss off a mod", or that you don't "offend" someone? How could any worthwhile discussion happen in such an environment?

 

[baud]

So, anyone wondering what the codex would look like if the rule had continued to be upheld?

probably dead forum RPGWatch by now.

FTFY.

I agree that look more likely.

Are you sure? Going by the way the rule is written, it would have removed mostly the peopletrolls hanging in GD, not those that made the conversation on RPGs interesting (of course I didn't see how it was applied, so I could be off by a mile).

Can't have good convos of any kind if there are rules against free speech or if there is censorship. Why would anyone want to post in a forum where you have to be constantly mindful not to "piss off a mod", or that you don't "offend" someone? How could any worthwhile discussion happen in such an environment?

I was going with the ruling, as presented on the first page of the thread. I don't think that banning "Jews are evil! They're plotting to weaken the white man and are keeping the black man dumb through hip-hop" would have prevented the codex to take a shit on Oblivion. On the other hand, there's no telling how such ruling would have changed over the years, so the codex could have ended up dead or RPGWatched.

 

[aweigh]

You can't reject outside knowledge categorically, if you do that you stop being a seeker of the truth and become an idealogue.

 

[fantadomat]

This had aged well....

 

[Kruno]

Fags are excused. As are trannies. Mos Maiorum.

Zep--

Why were you banned?

 

[Humbaba]

Surprised to see that internet Nazis were already a thing in 2007 pre-/pol/. Also this ruling is so hilariously tame lmao it's basically "It's ok to be racist, just don't say it out loud"

 

[Roguey]

Surprised to see that internet Nazis were already a thing in 2007 pre-/pol/. Also this ruling is so hilariously tame lmao it's basically "It's ok to be racist, just don't say it out loud"

Stormfront's origins date back to being a bulletin board in 1990. There were always nazis on the internet.

 

[Rean]

Shit we don't want on our forum is shit we don't want on our forum, irregardless of whether or not it shows on the front page.

'irregardless' is not a word.
Someone resurrect him so we can amend this!

 

[1451]

Back then they were arriving from the stormfront forum, afterwards I guess the metastasis to pol happened.

 

[Cunt Dickula!?]

There were always nazis on the codex.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Surprised to see that internet Nazis were already a thing in 2007 pre-/pol/.

most of the popular usenets are well preserved, just go search them for the slur form of melanin enriched gentleman
not much has changed on that front

alternatively, just search for some of Cleve's posts
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg/c/Um-SbU7mhNw

 

[JamesDixon]

Shit we don't want on our forum is shit we don't want on our forum, irregardless of whether or not it shows on the front page.

'irregardless' is not a word.
Someone resurrect him so we can amend this!

Few words draw the ire of grammarians as swiftly as irregardless. The term has been in use in English for over a century, but whether or not it’s a “real word” or one you should use in daily conversation continues to be the subject of debate.Irregardless is a nonstandard synonym for regardless, which means “without concern as to advice, warning, or hardship,” or “heedless.” Its nonstandard status is due to the double negative construction of the prefix ir- with the suffix -less. The prefix ir- means “not,” while the suffix -less means “without,” literally translating to “not without regard.” This, of course, is the opposite of what English speakers generally intend to convey when using this term; for this reason, style guides unanimously urge against using irregardless.

Although editors purge irregardless from most published writing, the term is alive and well in spoken English and is recorded in most dictionaries. Those who use it may do so to add emphasis.

The bottom line is that irregardless is indeed a word, albeit a clunky one. That said, to avoid the wrath of your grammar-loving friends, it’s safest to avoid using irregardless altogether.

https://www.dictionary.com/e/is-irregardless-a-word/

It's a word that's been in use for over a century.