Now we have secret rules

[Sensationalism]

"Supergandhi64 threads are not allowed. We will delete and ban for them."

Are you serious??
You know, usually when a new or temporary rule is made, a thread is made letting everyone know about it. At least this is how mods handled it in the past.

Making posts that should be news posts or PMs are generally regarded as against the rules and get locked or deleted, usually without a ban, especially if it was an honest mistake. But here we are moving beyond that and saying a certain user is never to be talked about or your thread will be deleted and you will be banned? That's beyond fucked up.

You guys are not in charge. The users of this forum are the ones in charge. Fuck it up and you'll be the mod of an empty forum.

[SeanJoystixx]

Gandi has this place in shambles, his very presence has initiated new rules. He's clearly has psychological control over this board that the moderators run and ban anyone who even inquires about him.

[KatMaestro]

Supergandhi64 has fed the fat mods. This place is corrupted.

Inb4 this thread gets locked by fat mods.

[stafffighter]

Think of it as a specific application to the rule about not picking fights with other users.

[Profanity]

At 2/22/14 04:51 PM, Sensationalism wrote: You guys are not in charge. The users of this forum are the ones in charge. Fuck it up and you'll be the mod of an empty forum.

Wait a minute. You mean to tell me that moderating a forum has repercussions?. That clicking the Moderate button doesn't suddenly change peoples opinions, core personality, and decades of individuality? And if people leave the forum, they aren't suddenly replenished by an infinite supply of people who agree with the opinions of the moderators?

[Zachary]

"Chasing / harassing / flaming other users, regardless of who instigated it. "

How about that now?

[Earfetish]

Supergandhi is one of the most notable people on here. We should be able to talk about pretty much everything. This will help me succeed in my long-term ambition to flood this board with SEO spam.

[KatMaestro]

I just realized a fact: supergandhi64 is the new Insanctuary.

[Jester]

I can't even imagine the carnage that would be brought upon by there occasionally being like 1 or 2 threads directed towards a particular user.

Oh, the humanity!

[SeanJoystixx]

At 2/22/14 04:57 PM, stafffighter wrote: Think of it as a specific application to the rule about not picking fights with other users.

At 2/22/14 04:59 PM, Zachary wrote: "Chasing / harassing / flaming other users, regardless of who instigated it. "

How about that now?

The threads are not harassing him, they're discussing the clear influence he has over the place which is quite frankly ubiquitous. You are attempting to neuter it, but haven't figured out a way past banning him which would be the obvious solution. Yet he hasn't broke any rules, so that would be dishonest.

We have a thread defending pedophilia directly above (or below) and you think a thread questioning whether or not Gandi would make a great community leader is more harmful?

[Zachary]

At 2/22/14 05:00 PM, Earfetish wrote: Supergandhi is one of the most notable people on here. We should be able to talk about pretty much everything. This will help me succeed in my long-term ambition to flood this board with SEO spam.

You can talk about anything, but attacking and harassing other users by creating threads about them is not allowed.

I mean, clearly that is the kind of place Sensationalism wants to be posting. She just nitpicks little things and is usually wrong about them. Just like this thread shows.

If she actually read the rules, under THINGS THAT WILL GET YOU BANNED (not things that MIGHT get you banned), it says that chasing and harassing other users is something that will get you banned. Creating threads about people constantly to attack them is a bannable offense. Her claiming that these are "secret" is seriously dramatic and laughable.

They are right here if anyone wants to read them btw http://www.newgrounds.com/wiki/help-information/forums/forum-rules

[Maltos]

http://maltos.newgrounds.com/

Read the interview with SG64.

I did that interview because no one else would and I realized that she impacted NG in such a way that not many have in the past. SG64 wasnt being flammed in the thread that was locked, just seems to me like its a simple case of prejudice.

[Zachary]

At 2/22/14 05:09 PM, Maltos wrote: http://maltos.newgrounds.com/

Read the interview with SG64.

I did that interview because no one else would and I realized that she impacted NG in such a way that not many have in the past. SG64 wasnt being flammed in the thread that was locked, just seems to me like its a simple case of prejudice.

Um, your thread isn't locked?

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1361112

[Natick]

At 2/22/14 05:09 PM, Maltos wrote: http://maltos.newgrounds.com/

Read the interview with SG64.

I did that interview because no one else would and I realized that she impacted NG in such a way that not many have in the past. SG64 wasnt being flammed in the thread that was locked, just seems to me like its a simple case of prejudice.

lol, tool

[CiviLies]

You know, I probably should't be saying this as one who's responded to and even supported a couple of times, but if you IGNORE SG, then there probably WON'T BE a SG. Now, I personally don't care if he/she stays, but evidently a lot of you people do. In fact, almost the entire community does but almost the entire community feels the need to react in one way or another to SuperGandhi, no matter how much they want he/she gone. They want SG disappearing but by bringing forth more attention, they just keep SG around.

I think all you SG-haters that keep BRINGING ATTENTION to SG just have subconsciously hidden feelings about your Kawaii Gandhi-San and even if it means acting as ass to hide your true feelings, will do anything you can to be acknowledged in some way by your Gandhi-Senpai that you love so much. Anything so that YOU have attention paid to you by your Waifu Gandhi-Kun.

[Zachary]

At 2/22/14 05:15 PM, CiviLies wrote: I think all you SG-haters that keep BRINGING ATTENTION to SG just have subconsciously hidden feelings about your Kawaii Gandhi-San and even if it means acting as ass to hide your true feelings, will do anything you can to be acknowledged in some way by your Gandhi-Senpai that you love so much. Anything so that YOU have attention paid to you by your Waifu Gandhi-Kun.

Well said, they just can not handle that Supergandhi64 is a much better poster than they will ever be.

[Maltos]

At 2/22/14 05:11 PM, Zachary wrote:

At 2/22/14 05:09 PM, Maltos wrote: http://maltos.newgrounds.com/

Read the interview with SG64.

I did that interview because no one else would and I realized that she impacted NG in such a way that not many have in the past. SG64 wasnt being flammed in the thread that was locked, just seems to me like its a simple case of prejudice.

Um, your thread isn't locked?

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1361112

The interview with supergandhi64 isnt locked
I meant this one http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1361499

[Zachary]

At 2/22/14 05:21 PM, Maltos wrote:

At 2/22/14 05:11 PM, Zachary wrote:

At 2/22/14 05:09 PM, Maltos wrote: http://maltos.newgrounds.com/

Read the interview with SG64.

I did that interview because no one else would and I realized that she impacted NG in such a way that not many have in the past. SG64 wasnt being flammed in the thread that was locked, just seems to me like its a simple case of prejudice.

Um, your thread isn't locked?

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1361112

The interview with supergandhi64 isnt locked
I meant this one http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1361499

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1361499#bbspost24989954_post_text

[Zachary]

At 2/22/14 05:21 PM, Maltos wrote:

At 2/22/14 05:11 PM, Zachary wrote:

At 2/22/14 05:09 PM, Maltos wrote: http://maltos.newgrounds.com/

Read the interview with SG64.

I did that interview because no one else would and I realized that she impacted NG in such a way that not many have in the past. SG64 wasnt being flammed in the thread that was locked, just seems to me like its a simple case of prejudice.

Um, your thread isn't locked?

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1361112

The interview with supergandhi64 isnt locked
I meant this one http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1361499

Also, I just wanted to add that SeanJoystixx is just a bad troll. He is mad that his attempt to get a rise out of the other users by mentioning supergandhi was cut short.

[nonono1]

fuck the system!

[Insanctuary]

At 2/22/14 05:24 PM, nonono1 wrote: fuck the system!

Can't fuck what already fucks you.

[Jester]

At 2/22/14 05:28 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 2/22/14 05:24 PM, nonono1 wrote: fuck the system!

Can't fuck what already fucks you.

I would certainly hope that any fucking that's occurring is mutual.

[SeanJoystixx]

If I was a 'bad troll', wouldn't no one respond to my threads? They shouldn't even need cutting short.

Zachery is just diverting the discussion, he's embarrassed by the amount of attention Gandi was getting and wanted to divert the discussion. Why can't you address me about the pedophile topic above? Surely asking if abusing children is okay is more of a 'troll' topic' than someone asking if Gandi makes a great community leader based on replies in my inbox.
I would gladly screenshot those replies if you wish, just to prove it wasn't a 'troll thread'.

[nonono1]

At 2/22/14 05:28 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

Can't fuck what already fucks you.

Yes you can! it's called marriage.

[Sensationalism]

At 2/22/14 04:59 PM, Zachary wrote: "Chasing / harassing / flaming other users, regardless of who instigated it. "

How about that now?

That still doesn't equal "nobody is allowed to talk about one specific user"

And omg do you ever have a personal vendetta against me!

I have read the rules, and superghandi has never been mentioned in them.

[Zachary]

At 2/22/14 05:38 PM, Sensationalism wrote:

At 2/22/14 04:59 PM, Zachary wrote: "Chasing / harassing / flaming other users, regardless of who instigated it. "

How about that now?

That still doesn't equal "nobody is allowed to talk about one specific user"

And omg do you ever have a personal vendetta against me!

I have read the rules, and superghandi has never been mentioned in them.

It is not a personal vendetta, you are always the one bitching for no reason. It is against the rules to harass other users. I did not see the deleted topic, but I trust the other mods judgement.

[Insanctuary]

At 2/22/14 05:35 PM, nonono1 wrote: Yes you can! it's called marriage.

One fuck is always better than the other.

At 2/22/14 05:32 PM, Jester wrote: I would certainly hope that any fucking that's occurring is mutual.

Fucking is never mutual.

[Sensationalism]

At 2/22/14 05:44 PM, Zachary wrote:

At 2/22/14 05:38 PM, Sensationalism wrote: I have read the rules, and superghandi has never been mentioned in them.

It is not a personal vendetta, you are always the one bitching for no reason. It is against the rules to harass other users. I did not see the deleted topic, but I trust the other mods judgement.

Riiiight.
Well then is making a thread about superghandi against the rules or not?
Because if that's a new rule you best get to making a thread about it so everyone knows it's a rule.

[Zachary]

At 2/22/14 05:52 PM, Sensationalism wrote:

At 2/22/14 05:44 PM, Zachary wrote:

At 2/22/14 05:38 PM, Sensationalism wrote: I have read the rules, and superghandi has never been mentioned in them.

It is not a personal vendetta, you are always the one bitching for no reason. It is against the rules to harass other users. I did not see the deleted topic, but I trust the other mods judgement.

Riiiight.
Well then is making a thread about superghandi against the rules or not?
Because if that's a new rule you best get to making a thread about it so everyone knows it's a rule.

If I lock this thread because the question has been answered, are you going to complain about it by creating another thread?