No Posting Articles More Than 12 Months Old

[Demi-fiend]

It's come to my attention that we're not allowed to post articles that are, "Four Years Old."

Alright, so I guess the rule of thumb is... a year? I honestly have no idea.

But anyway guys, this is just to make things clear because I didn't see it on the rules themselves.

I saw, "Don't Revive Old Threads." However, I've yet to see, "Don't Mention Old Articles."

So there you have it. Unless you have a really good reason, no bringing up old stuff.

ESPECIALLY THE BROKEBACK SLIDESHOW THING. IT'S OVER AND DONE WITH.

 

[ToCool74]

It's come to my attention that we're not allowed to post articles that are, "Four Years Old."

Alright, so I guess the rule of thumb is... a year? I honestly have no idea.

But anyway guys, this is just to make things clear because I didn't see it on the rules themselves.

I saw, "Don't Revive Old Threads." However, I've yet to see, "Don't Mention Old Articles."

So there you have it. Unless you have a really good reason, no bringing up old stuff.

ESPECIALLY THE BROKEBACK SLIDESHOW THING. IT'S OVER AND DONE WITH.

Soooo.....is this topic just to take a jab at Meg's decision here?

http://devilmaycry.org/threads/kamiyas-opinion-on-dmc-once-and-for-all.20039/#post-590493

From what I gathered it was mostly closed due to it pretty much just becoming a topic full of taunting/putting down fans of the original series.

 

[Demi-fiend]

It's not in the rules, specifically, so I decided to clarify it here.

No one knew to not post a four-year-old article because it isn't listed. I figured it would be best to let people know to not do that anymore.

 

[ToCool74]

It's not in the rules, specifically, so I decided to clarify it here.

No one knew to not post a four-year-old article because it isn't listed. I figured it would be best to let people know to not do that anymore.

But she said this right under the four year old article part before closing it,

And this entire thread is just for DmC fans to gloat and bring down DMC fans. So thread locked.

If you ask me THAT was the main reason for the thread getting closed.

But the only one that can answer that with certainty is Meg.

 

[Demi-fiend]

Yeah, but she said first that it was "four years old."

I thought that that was part of the reason since it was old news and thus, was related to "old threads/topics" that weren't allowed to be "revived."

 

[ToCool74]

alright than dude, I'm sure Meg will clarify this when she is back on, but I'm out this topic.

 

[Demi-fiend]

Alright.

 

[Angel]

Uh...yeah...no.

Cannot see the point of this thread other than to have a bit of a jab at one of our moderators. Which is both pointless and a little on the juvenile side, really.

 

[LordOfDarkness]

How I'm viewing it here is as @ToCool74 put it. Meg closed the thread because of people bashing DmC/DMC. The fact she mentioned the article was four years old, is not the point. In my opinion it seems that was only mentioned as if to say "Are we really bringing this old news up again, as if new, and going to likely cause issues with it".

Lastly it's not in anybody's place to state what rules there should and shouldn't be. Whether your intentions were good in your own eyes is not the point.