• The site has now migrated to Xenforo 2. If you see any issues with the forum operation, please post them in the feedback thread.
  • Due to issues with external spam filters, QQ is currently unable to send any mail to Microsoft E-mail addresses. This includes any account at live.com, hotmail.com or msn.com. Signing up to the forum with one of these addresses will result in your verification E-mail never arriving. For best results, please use a different E-mail provider for your QQ address.
  • For prospective new members, a word of warning: don't use common names like Dennis, Simon, or Kenny if you decide to create an account. Spammers have used them all before you and gotten those names flagged in the anti-spam databases. Your account registration will be rejected because of it.
  • Since it has happened MULTIPLE times now, I want to be very clear about this. You do not get to abandon an account and create a new one. You do not get to pass an account to someone else and create a new one. If you do so anyway, you will be banned for creating sockpuppets.
  • Due to the actions of particularly persistent spammers and trolls, we will be banning disposable email addresses from today onward.
  • The rules regarding NSFW links have been updated. See here for details.

Mass Tagging Clarification

Iandude0

Versed in the lewd.
Joined
Nov 30, 2015
Messages
1,727
Likes received
7,547
Today I had received a mod warning about my mass tagging of someone. While I can understand the reasoning behind it, I looked to see if it was it was the rules.

It was not. While I wouldn't personally say a blanket ban would be in order for that specific action, I ask at least recommend some provisions against it be added either way to clarify things (whether a blanket ban or provisions against abusing it in thread). I thought what I had done, while not necessarily encouraged, did not warrant a mod post in and of itself.

I would just like an official ruling since I didn't feel I deserved the warning for something not stated to be in violation of the rules (specifically rule 1, which after a lookover seemed the closest to what the ruling might've meant).
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top