Why do you assume I have not done research? Yes, I have not SPECIFICALLY looked for threads with this example, but this is my 4,444th post, and I have yet to see, in all my forum browsing, any examples of this. I understand you can't tell me on a thread, but there's nothing against (and even kmax suggested this) PMing me about it.
As I wade through all the posts... Back to the topic: So this suggestion is to make a rule to stop something that is already covered by another rule? If that is the case, I have to -1 it. Unless I am missing something.
4,444 posts, congratulations! You are clearly the smartest, most educated, thought provoking, insightful person in the forums. I clearly need to pm you these magical links so that you will immediately start agreeing me post haste! No thanks I'll just respond to people that actually perpetuate thought and discussion and not their own egos. Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
While I might not agree to your suggestion, I can provide an example of a post I thought there was excessive tagging in. http://www.ecocitycraft.com/forum/threads/my-ecc-life.74344/ I have no clue why some people just tag any name in the post. This perosn tagged the same name multiple times in the same post. Heck, the first tag is of the poster himself. Whu?!?! I agree there is excessive tagging. I agree that some people tag to start/continue flaming ('specially in the ban/appeal forum). I just don't think a new rule is going to help.
That thread had people posted for positive reasons. (Usually) and now than likely not against their will or wishes. What I'm talking about it is people spitefully tagging and then not removing the tag when requested. Do you appreciate the difference? Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
Maybe we aren't asking for a new rule.maybe we are asking for an existing rule to be properly enforced. Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
