230 replies to this topic

[Heisenberg]

The staff's constant focus on administering punishment.

Now this is just silly. The staff have to administer punishment; it's part of their job. That's like complaining about your parents disciplining you, or a debate moderator moderating a debate. If they didn't, BZP would be an unhinged cesspool of a website. You want an example? Check out some "random" boards where there is no moderation and see if you like it there.

[Grantaire]

you mean the approach that says you're not allowed to discriminate and should treat people with respect?

yeah man that one really sucks

I said the approach, not the matter itself. I think that in their attempt to do what you describe, they do just the exact opposite.

[that guy from that show]

you mean the approach that says you're not allowed to discriminate and should treat people with respect?

yeah man that one really sucks

I said the approach, not the matter itself. I think that in their attempt to do what you describe, they do just the exact opposite.

I agree here, in RPGs for example, players are prevented from creating homosexual characters. By not being allowed to discuss it creates the allusion that the subject does not exist. It's discriminatory for Gay and Lesbians using this forum to not be able to be who they are. It gives them the impression that they are not welcome and are treated as non-people. By refusing to talk about them it can rob some members of there humanity and create an unwelcoming environment. In many cases refusal to acknowledge them and can be far worse then outright discrimination. I imagine that homosexual members using this forum might be more comfortable if they were allowed to express themselves and not be treated as a taboo.

I imagine that even that paragraph was unwelcome to some and is enough to spark some massive religious feud. I certainly I don't want that, but by talking about it it brings the issue out in the open. Hopefully I don't receive retribution for posting it, but if I do my point will only be proven.

I mean no disrespect. I apologize to anyone who does not want to have to think or talk about this stuff.

Edited by that guy from that show, Oct 28 2012 - 06:09 PM.

[Grantaire]

Well, it most likely is done out of, well, conservativeness; prudence, one might say. I mean, in an RPG, your character is not you. What if another person has a character who would be either repulsed, outraged, or worse at such a character? That could easily give rise to a fight out or character, just because that's a very touchy subject. Although discussion on homosexuality in that manner is not allowed on BZP, it'd be incredibly weird if characters basically had to metagamedly censor themselves.

Basically, from a quick analysis, it seems that such a practice is done simply out of fear of human nature, to keep the peace. Mayhap it is not the best policy, but... *shrugs*

Edited by Zarayna, Oct 28 2012 - 06:50 PM.

[Sir Kohran]

I do find the prohibition of linking to or mentioning certain sites a bit annoying, and fairly pointless as many of them are established sites that most of the community almost certainly visit or know of already.

And if we may gripe about past annoyances too...

On the old board, mostly in General Discussion there was an endless series of "what was your first post/avatar/username/set" topics, that would accumulate huge numbers of posts with absolutely no discussion. That was because people would just post their tiny and uninteresting responses without reading or responding to any others, then never look at the topic again. I found this infuriating as it was completely pointless and a waste of space. Thankfully those topics don't seem to have made it over here.

[Canama]

Well, it most likely is done out of, well, conservativeness; prudence, one might say. I mean, in an RPG, your person is not you. What if another person has a character who would be either repulsed, outraged, or worse at such a character? That could easily give rise to a fight out or character, just because again, that's a very touchy subject. Although discussion on homosexuality in that manner is not allowed on BZP, it'd be incredibly weird if characters basically had to metagamedly censor themselves.

Basically, from a quick analysis, it seems that such a practice is done simply out of fear of human nature, to keep the peace. Mayhap it is not the best policy, but... *shrugs*

If there were rules against making a straight character, you can bet a lot of straight people would be ticked off. I would find it harder to roleplay - it's harder to play a male character in a relationship with other men when I myself am not gay. (I wouldn't make a fuss about it, but I'd still have more trouble with that aspect of the game)

So basically, that's why the ban is unfair. Plus, it's a bit hypocritical of the staff to say "no discrimination based on sexuality, except for this one case where it's A-OK"

Anyhow, my answers are the usual stuff - word filter, no links to other sites, etc

Edited by Canama, Oct 28 2012 - 06:35 PM.

[Air-Master]

Really, the most annoying thing for me is just how much BZP has changed in the past 10 years. not the layout, or the features, but the people and discussions are somehow different then they used to be.

Plus, I agree that banning discussion of homosexuality is unfair. Don't forget, "Fear of a name increases fear of the thing itself." - Dumbledore

In this case, the the fear is mentioning homosexuality.

[Cosmic Titan]

What is with y'all and hating on the website because you can't discuss something? You could always find an a place outside of this website to talk about these things and if you tried hard enough you might be able to find the same people on here at some other place. Come on all you you can't be as pathetic as me and only have a single account on the internet where you talk to people.

Or you could just write in allegory. Then not a single rule is broken and you still get your ideas out there. And you might get better at writing too. Unless of course I missed a rule that doesn't allegory.

[Sir Kohran]

I agree that banning discussion of homosexuality is unfair. Don't forget, "Fear of a name increases fear of the thing itself." - Dumbledore

In this case, the the fear is mentioning homosexuality.

Firstly, there is no 'fear' of mentioning homosexuality, otherwise there'd be none of these posts bringing it up to begin with.

As far as discussion of homosexuality goes, I'm fairly sure it's left off-limits for the same reason discussion of politics or religion is - it simply courts controversy at a level inappropriate for a child-friendly website.

Edited by Sir Kohran, Oct 28 2012 - 08:32 PM.

[Scanty Demon]

What is with y'all and hating on the website because you can't discuss something? You could always find an a place outside of this website to talk about these things and if you tried hard enough you might be able to find the same people on here at some other place. Come on all you you can't be as pathetic as me and only have a single account on the internet where you talk to people.

Or you could just write in allegory. Then not a single rule is broken and you still get your ideas out there. And you might get better at writing too. Unless of course I missed a rule that doesn't allegory.

Can I just say I wish I had a member approval stamp, because you'd be the first to be get. This so much this, I couldn't agree more if my life depended on it.

you mean the approach that says you're not allowed to discriminate and should treat people with respect?

yeah man that one really sucks

I said the approach, not the matter itself. I think that in their attempt to do what you describe, they do just the exact opposite.

I agree here, in RPGs for example, players are prevented from creating homosexual characters. By not being allowed to discuss it creates the allusion that the subject does not exist. It's discriminatory for Gay and Lesbians using this forum to not be able to be who they are. It gives them the impression that they are not welcome and are treated as non-people. By refusing to talk about them it can rob some members of there humanity and create an unwelcoming environment. In many cases refusal to acknowledge them and can be far worse then outright discrimination. I imagine that homosexual members using this forum might be more comfortable if they were allowed to express themselves and not be treated as a taboo.

I imagine that even that paragraph was unwelcome to some and is enough to spark some massive religious feud. I certainly I don't want that, but by talking about it it brings the issue out in the open. Hopefully I don't receive retribution for posting it, but if I do my point will only be proven.

I mean no disrespect. I apologize to anyone who does not want to have to think or talk about this stuff.

In my opinion the bolded is just exaggeration. I think it does not create the allusion we don't talk about and therefore we say it doesn't exist. The BZP rules outright state we shall be tolerant of people regardless of political affiliation, race, gender, sexual orientation, religious, belief, etc. Heck anyone here who is afraid to express themselves really has hardly contributed to BZP at all. Besides I don't being unable to play as a homosexual character would make anyone feel bad, it may put off some people but not make anyone feel discriminated. But that's just my humble opinion, I may be an uninformed buffoon who knows nothing of how the other sexual orientations feel. So I could be wrong.

[!JOHN CENA!]

In my opinion the bolded is just exaggeration. I think it does not create the allusion we don't talk about and therefore we say it doesn't exist. The BZP rules outright state we shall be tolerant of people regardless of political affiliation, race, gender, sexual orientation, religious, belief, etc. Heck anyone here who is afraid to express themselves really has hardly contributed to BZP at all. Besides I don't being unable to play as a homosexual character would make anyone feel bad, it may put off some people but not make anyone feel discriminated. But that's just my humble opinion, I may be an uninformed buffoon who knows nothing of how the other sexual orientations feel. So I could be wrong.

Being bisexual myself, I would find that the inability to play a homosexual character to be incredibly discriminatory. Rules exist to prevent bad things from being posted or happening. Saying that you can't play homosexual characters is basically saying that there is something wrong with being homosexual.

That said, I don't think the rule exists. I was BZPRPG staff at one point, and I thought about playing a homosexual character. I remember at one point chatting with Smeag who was also BZPRPG staff and he said that he played a homosexual character. Granted I haven't been a part of the BZPRPG scene for about two years now, so things might have changed. I did a quick search in the rules topics and didn't find anything. Could someone specifically point it out to me where it says this?

[Scanty Demon]

In my opinion the bolded is just exaggeration. I think it does not create the allusion we don't talk about and therefore we say it doesn't exist. The BZP rules outright state we shall be tolerant of people regardless of political affiliation, race, gender, sexual orientation, religious, belief, etc. Heck anyone here who is afraid to express themselves really has hardly contributed to BZP at all. Besides I don't being unable to play as a homosexual character would make anyone feel bad, it may put off some people but not make anyone feel discriminated. But that's just my humble opinion, I may be an uninformed buffoon who knows nothing of how the other sexual orientations feel. So I could be wrong.

Being bisexual myself, I would find that the inability to play a homosexual character to be incredibly discriminatory. Rules exist to prevent bad things from being posted or happening. Saying that you can't play homosexual characters is basically saying that there is something wrong with being homosexual.

I only said the quote was an exaggeration in my opinion, I did not deny it was discrimination (unless I planted that as a subliminal message unknowingly). The reason why I said it was an exaggeration was because it sounded like they would feel worthless if they couldn't play as a homosexual person which I disagreed. Yes it would be a little discriminatory if it said gay people couldn't play, but you can still play regardless of your sexual orientation you just can't (hypothetically speaking of course) play as a homosexual character. Now yes I would find it irritating if I couldn't play as a straight person and maybe even a little discriminatory but not to the point where'd I feel like because of my sexual orientation I was a bad person or a bad thing. But like I said I could be very wrong, as the nativist party member once said when he was questioned about his activities:

I know nothing.

Edited by Felix Dzerzhinsky, Oct 28 2012 - 08:47 PM.

[Heisenberg]

In my opinion the bolded is just exaggeration. I think it does not create the allusion we don't talk about and therefore we say it doesn't exist. The BZP rules outright state we shall be tolerant of people regardless of political affiliation, race, gender, sexual orientation, religious, belief, etc. Heck anyone here who is afraid to express themselves really has hardly contributed to BZP at all. Besides I don't being unable to play as a homosexual character would make anyone feel bad, it may put off some people but not make anyone feel discriminated. But that's just my humble opinion, I may be an uninformed buffoon who knows nothing of how the other sexual orientations feel. So I could be wrong.

Being bisexual myself, I would find that the inability to play a homosexual character to be incredibly discriminatory. Rules exist to prevent bad things from being posted or happening. Saying that you can't play homosexual characters is basically saying that there is something wrong with being homosexual.

I only said the quote was an exaggeration in my opinion, I did not deny it was discrimination (unless I planted that as a subliminal message unknowingly). The reason why I said it was an exaggeration was because it sounded like they would feel worthless if they couldn't play as a homosexual person which I disagreed. Yes it would be a little discriminatory if it said gay people couldn't play, but you can still play regardless of your sexual orientation you just can't (hypothetically speaking of course) play as a homosexual character. Now yes I would find it irritating if I couldn't play as a straight person and maybe even a little discriminatory but not to the point where'd I feel like because of my sexual orientation I was a bad person or a bad thing. But like I said I could be very wrong, as the nativist party member once said when he was questioned about his activities:

I know nothing.

I admit I'm also a little in the dark as far as how people of different sexual orientations feel about this, but to me it sounds like the rule would be extrememely discriminatory. It's like if there was a rule saying your RPG character can't be black, he/she can only be white. Or if it could only be male. That would be considered rather discriminatory, no?

However, if this is dealing with Bionicle RPGs... sexual orientation should not be a factor at all, so why is that even a rule? (If it even is one; I don't do RPGs.)

[BenLuke]

However, if this is dealing with Bionicle RPGs... sexual orientation should not be a factor at all, so why is that even a rule? (If it even is one; I don't do RPGs.)

Hah, I wish.

Anyway, the only think is really annoying, besides the very existence of almost everything I've ever seen from the Comedy and Comics sections, is probably the overly-strict word-filter and linking policy. Both of which, while the sentiment behind them is perfectly fine, are far too draconian in their current state. Not a very original choice, but whatever.

[Toa Zaz]

I agree that banning discussion of homosexuality is unfair. Don't forget, "Fear of a name increases fear of the thing itself." - Dumbledore

In this case, the the fear is mentioning homosexuality.

Firstly, there is no 'fear' of mentioning homosexuality, otherwise there'd be none of these posts bringing it up to begin with.

As far as discussion of homosexuality goes, I'm fairly sure it's left off-limits for the same reason discussion of politics or religion is - it simply courts controversy at a level inappropriate for a child-friendly website.

Because homosexuality is inappropriate for a child-friendly website, but heterosexuality isn't.

[Heisenberg]

Because homosexuality is inappropriate for a child-friendly website, but heterosexuality isn't.

Now you're just flame-baiting. Let's please not make this thread into a discussion on homosexuality. If you want to debate about this, feel free to PM me. I'd like to see this thread last a little longer.

[Scanty Demon]

Now you're just flame-baiting. Let's please not make this thread into a discussion on homosexuality. If you want to debate about this, feel free to PM me. I'd like to see this thread last a little longer.

I second this notion whole heartedly.

Changing the subject, I really wish they still had the "blogs" button for the mobile version. I miss that button. .

Edited by Felix Dzerzhinsky, Oct 28 2012 - 10:51 PM.

[Spink]

Let's keep off the discussion of sexual orientation, mainly for there really isn't anything to discuss (Some guys like guys, some guys like girls, so what? [and vice-versa]). (And it often drags in religious and political "arguments" which are against the website's rules )

(*as a note, it is allowed to have gay characters in website fiction in the short stories area, and to represent in art, and so on and so forth; going so far as to ban gay characters from a TBRPG amounts to the same discrimination as it would banning the use of a particular race or gender -- which isn't appropriate on a website that wishes to make absolutely everyone feel welcome and safe and comfortable to be who they are, just for clarification on that; unless the Administration chooses to say otherwise, but they have endorsed a stance of equity and so I'm going off that and the allowances in the Creative Writing forums and Art forums).

*** as a double note, if someone desperately wishes to comment on the above for one reason or another, you can feel free to send me an IM (It's in my profile)

But moving on and dropping that topic here, there's one thing (okay, one of a few things) that will annoy me on the site.

I really dislike it when people believe that staff, be it official staff or staff of a particular function (like RPG Judges, or Fact Team Members, or the Poll Making Squad when they were around), devote every single breath to that function (or severely underestimate the amount of time and effort it takes to do something in that area). BZPower is not my first priority, life is, and life can be absolutely full of other priorities that I must tend to first. Be it school, friends, loved ones, work, family matters, volunteer and other community business -- BZPower comes later. Then on BZPower there's a whole new hierarchy of priorities, from doing primary staff functions (reporting, closing things, checking reports, etc...) then to secondary staff things (Going over ideas, doing COT RPG Judge things, etc...) and so on. A lot of times I run out of time to do it all in, as do other people, and it's a drain to read about how "X Staff member isn't doing his job appropriately because he/she should be devoting all his/her time to BZPower and doing things in inhuman speed!"

Just a general thing I've noticed over the years that crops up, and is probably the main thing that annoys me (outside of, of course, members hurting one another, or members being insensitive towards certain issues that some people may be facing in real life, or insensitive towards people who happen to be different in some manner -- but those didn't have as big an explanation [without me getting really ranty], and I wanted some less-ranty content to toss in this here post).

Wuv you all~

[DeeVee]

As far as discussion of homosexuality goes, I'm fairly sure it's left off-limits for the same reason discussion of politics or religion is - it simply courts controversy at a level inappropriate for a child-friendly website.

Discussion of homosexuality isn't against the rules, in fact, quite the opposite. Those members who are gay or bisexual or what-have-you are allowed to discuss their lives and orientations as much as they wish. What's not allowed is intolerance directed towards homosexuality.

So like I said, the exact opposite of what you just said.

I said the approach, not the matter itself. I think that in their attempt to do what you describe, they do just the exact opposite.

You're right- we don't tolerate intolerance. And we don't respect views that promote it. If you find this an "annoying part of BZPower", then I suppose that's just too bad.

[Dallas Winston]

I agree here, in RPGs for example, players are prevented from creating homosexual characters.

Yeahhhhhhhh, uhhhhh...that's not true.

-Teezy

[Ilyusha Blokfase]

I agree here, in RPGs for example, players are prevented from creating homosexual characters.

Yeahhhhhhhh, uhhhhh...that's not true.

-Teezy

Most definitely not true.

[Cederak]

Wow, I didn't imagine people had so many complaints with the site. My biggest issue is just formatting problems with my text - particularly when I'm posting stories or reviews of stories. Compared to some other things here, not really too bad of a complain.

Also, this stood out to me as I read through the topic.

You're right- we don't tolerate intolerance. And we don't respect views that promote it. If you find this an "annoying part of BZPower", then I suppose that's just too bad.

That seems very paradoxical. I mean, I think I know what DeeVee was trying to say, but the way he put it is...confusing to me. We don't tolerate intolerance, but we tolerate the intolerance of people we consider intolerant? I know the world isn't perfect, and "agree to disagree" may go out the window online...I guess I just need some clarity on DeeVee's point, without the circular reasoning.

-Ced

[Eduard Bernstein]

I agree here, in RPGs for example, players are prevented from creating homosexual characters.

They are not. Come to the BZPRPG, and you'll see.
-Dovydas

[!JOHN CENA!]

You're right- we don't tolerate intolerance. And we don't respect views that promote it. If you find this an "annoying part of BZPower", then I suppose that's just too bad.

That seems very paradoxical. I mean, I think I know what DeeVee was trying to say, but the way he put it is...confusing to me. We don't tolerate intolerance, but we tolerate the intolerance of people we consider intolerant? I know the world isn't perfect, and "agree to disagree" may go out the window online...I guess I just need some clarity on DeeVee's point, without the circular reasoning.

-Ced

The difference is that people aren't hurting others by being homosexual. Other people are hurting homosexuals by being intolerant. It's not one of those agree to disagree things that comes down to apples and oranges. It's about one group of people being hurt by the words and actions of another, and that simply will not be allowed on BZPower.

[Sir Kohran]

As far as discussion of homosexuality goes, I'm fairly sure it's left off-limits for the same reason discussion of politics or religion is - it simply courts controversy at a level inappropriate for a child-friendly website.

Discussion of homosexuality isn't against the rules, in fact, quite the opposite. Those members who are gay or bisexual or what-have-you are allowed to discuss their lives and orientations as much as they wish.

Yet members who are socialist or conservative, or Christian or Muslim, are not allowed to discuss their views and beliefs at all?

[Lyichir]

As far as discussion of homosexuality goes, I'm fairly sure it's left off-limits for the same reason discussion of politics or religion is - it simply courts controversy at a level inappropriate for a child-friendly website.

Discussion of homosexuality isn't against the rules, in fact, quite the opposite. Those members who are gay or bisexual or what-have-you are allowed to discuss their lives and orientations as much as they wish.

Yet members who are socialist or conservative, or Christian or Muslim, are not allowed to discuss their views and beliefs at all?

There's a difference between posting about your life and what's been going on in it (which is allowed whether you're gay, straight, Christian, Muslim, atheist, liberal or conservative) and starting a debate on a controversial subject. Homosexual members can talk about their relationships the same way straight members can talk about their girlfriend/boyfriend. Christians can talk about activities they've participated in with members of their church, and atheists can discuss literature by Richard Dawkins or Philip Pullman. Liberals can post pictures from the Obama rally they attended, and conservatives can post pictures of themselves shaking hands with Romney on a campaign stop.

What aren't allowed (at least from my experience) are posts which have a net effect of forcing a debate on the subject. Posting about why you support a political issue can force others with dissenting opinions to have to justify their own views, which more often than not results in arguments. Posting "Jesus loves you" can offend those who disagree with the teachings of Jesus and his disciples. And arguing that homosexuality should/should not be accepted by society can cause any discussion to devolve into a full-on flame war (and moreover bleeds into the political arguments I just discussed). If this were a website which revolved around these topics, then obviously there would be more of an opportunity for these sorts of arguments to be sorted out. But BZP specifically revolves around Lego discussion, and having the moderators have to break up fights about these things fragments the community and distracts from the core purpose of the site.

[Sir Kohran]

There's a difference between posting about your life and what's been going on in it (which is allowed whether you're gay, straight, Christian, Muslim, atheist, liberal or conservative) and starting a debate on a controversial subject. Homosexual members can talk about their relationships the same way straight members can talk about their girlfriend/boyfriend.

I agree with the examples you give. Problem is, discussing your relationship with someone who happens to be the same gender as you isn't the same as discussing the orientation of that relationship itself (which is apparently allowed, yet discussion of religion and politics themselves are not).

Christians can talk about activities they've participated in with members of their church, and atheists can discuss literature by Richard Dawkins or Philip Pullman.

So atheists can go all the way and outright discuss literature related to their views? Why then do the rules prohibit Christians and Muslims from even quoting the Bible or the Koran?

Liberals can post pictures from the Obama rally they attended, and conservatives can post pictures of themselves shaking hands with Romney on a campaign stop.

Doing this draws attention to those political figures and their views that the posting member supports, which is surely in violation of the rule against 'promoting or insulting certain political ideologies'.

And arguing that homosexuality should/should not be accepted by society can cause any discussion to devolve into a full-on flame war (and moreover bleeds into the political arguments I just discussed).

So by this logic, some discussion of homosexuality (the controversial aspects) actually is off-limits.

[!JOHN CENA!]

The difference is that unless religion and politics enter the picture, there is nothing inherently wrong with Homosexuality. Members are allowed to talk about their sexual orientation. They are not allowed to talk about religion or politics. Also being a Christian or a conservative or a liberal or what have you is a willing choice that you made. Your sexuality is something that you are born with. There is a limited amount of political and religious talk involved like Lyichir mentioned too.

[Sir Kohran]

The difference is that unless religion and politics enter the picture, there is nothing inherently wrong with Homosexuality.

You're assuming all controversy about homosexuality is for religious or political reasons.

Also being a Christian or a conservative or a liberal or what have you is a willing choice that you made. Your sexuality is something that you are born with.

What impact does that have? A willing choice can be made about hairstyle or accent, a willing choice can't be made about height or facial features, but both are aspects/properties of a person. Just as sexuality and views are.

There is a limited amount of political and religious talk involved like Lyichir mentioned too.

The 'Rules & Guidelines' topic makes no exception or allowance for it.

[Makaru]

So here we are again. This venue we travel. Let me reach into my wardrobe here for a second to put on my modpants.

BZP Rules and Guidelines

BZPower does not condone discrimination or intolerance. Members should not treat each other with disdain or contempt because of race, religious preference, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, or a similar quality or belief. In addition, speech or acts that isolate others or belittle them because of a physiological trait or a belief are not acceptable. This especially includes saying you are anti or against a group of people that can be characterized by a shared quality or belief. Members will face administrative action up to and including banning if their actions are severe enough.

You all have your beliefs. This is great. Individuality and all that. But we've gotten to that point where we're no longer talking to each other, but tossing talking points at each other and not listening.

MOVE OFF IT.

Thank you.

~Makaru

[Black Six]

Thank you Bryan. This topic has become derailed. I suggest everyone get back on the tracks before it has to be closed.

Final comment, for clarification - you can have characters of all sexual orientations in your stories, RPGs, artwork, games, etc. You cannot have overt sexual content, no matter what the sexuality of the characters are, in any of those or anywhere on the site.

[Makaru]

so to get this boat on the road YOU KNOW WHAT ANNOYS ME?







The avatars are less eye-catching in this version of the forum software, even though they are, on average, larger than before. I guess it's the lack of animated gifs.

Gosh I miss avatar gifs.

[Hurricane iBrow]

I miss my old notepad from the old forums. In my newbie days I wrote some stupid thing on it, and it stayed there right up until the forums went offline.
...obviously, it's gone now.

-ibrow

[!JOHN CENA!]

You are not the only one that misses the notepad. I had so much stuff saved on mine from various signature codings to old to do lists to rp concet ideas.

[Taka Nuvia]

... I'm probably the only one who finds it annoying that these days you can't send pms to yourself anymore. Right? ._.

[Kakaru]

... I'm probably the only one who finds it annoying that these days you can't send pms to yourself anymore. Right? ._.

Basically this forever. I used to use it all the time to test large blocks of coding and to figure out the more obscure word filter quirks. Now I have to draft blog entries instead. :c

Edited by Kakaru, Oct 29 2012 - 12:45 PM.

[Aderia]

... I'm probably the only one who finds it annoying that these days you can't send pms to yourself anymore. Right? ._.

Basically this forever. I used to use it all the time to test large blocks of coding and to figure out the more obscure word filter quirks. Now I have to draft blog entries instead. :c

Whooo we're all in the same boat! My blog is so disorganized because of all the drafts with things I think I may need like old signature coding or drafts of reviews or whatnot. Grrr....

[~~Zarkan~~]

The fact that we have about a hundred bazillion emoticons that are arranged in absolutely no sensible order. Seriously, I don't remember it being nearly this bad on the old site, and since the transition I've almost completely stopped using them. You would at least think the first few emoticons listed (and thus the ones that appear below the text box along with the "show all" button) would be a variety of the more commonly used smileys. Instead, I'm greeted mainly with a collection of random kanohi masks.

Edited by ~~Zarkan~~, Oct 29 2012 - 01:10 PM.

[Cederak]

... I'm probably the only one who finds it annoying that these days you can't send pms to yourself anymore. Right? ._.

Y'know, I wish I could say I learned that this was a feature before the new board came along, but I think someone told me about it in early 2012. The idea never crossed my mind, I guess.

-Ced

[Grantaire]

Would anyone consider it weird that I never knew until now that you could not PM yourself?

But now I'm just sad.