Do you think I could just leave this part blank and it'd be okay? We're just going to replace the whole thing with a header image anyway, right?
You are not logged in.
TheGreenTroll wrote:RayDof wrote:It might not be ok to abuse it but its ok to have it. Its their choice, if they abuse it like I said before less and less people will go to their room and it should be the owner only who can use ban list for his/her rooms. And only the owner. Wouldnt want a "troll" to go into a random beta room and use ban list on ever one now would we.
But why should you be able to kick and ban people that can't affect your room in any negative ways?
silence, troll...
if you've been kicked, it's because you **** off the owner. nobody just randomly goes on ban-sprees. unless of course, they aren't done their level, in which case you shouldn't interrupt them. the worst thing in the world for a level is for the creator to rush because they feel the need to keep ahead of some player. that's when you get crappo games.
And if the owner kick you even if you not have **** of the owner?
AmoebaLord wrote:TheGreenTroll wrote:But why should you be able to kick and ban people that can't affect your room in any negative ways?
silence, troll...
if you've been kicked, it's because you **** off the owner. nobody just randomly goes on ban-sprees. unless of course, they aren't done their level, in which case you shouldn't interrupt them. the worst thing in the world for a level is for the creator to rush because they feel the need to keep ahead of some player. that's when you get crappo games.
And if the owner kick you even if you not have **** of the owner?
then the owner is a troll and you should just join another room.
@troll person
Look, you're stupid if you try to rejoin a room after you've been kicked. If you do that, then you deserve to be the reason that the creator (in your definition of the word) 'abuses' the kick/would-be ban function.
I hate tall signatures.
Offline
@troll person
Look, you're stupid if you try to rejoin a room after you've been kicked. If you do that, then you deserve to be the reason that the creator (in your definition of the word) 'abuses' the kick/would-be ban function.
And you're stupid if you kick and ban someone without any reason.
JadElClemens wrote:@troll person
Look, you're stupid if you try to rejoin a room after you've been kicked. If you do that, then you deserve to be the reason that the creator (in your definition of the word) 'abuses' the kick/would-be ban function.
And you're stupid if you kick and ban someone without any reason.
which is the basic definition of a troll.
can someone tell me exactly what it is we are arguing about?
I think /kick bans for 5 minutes, while ban bans for 24 hours.
Sound good?
yeah, kicking would be like a warning, and banning would be like getting rid of them.
JadElClemens wrote:@troll person
Look, you're stupid if you try to rejoin a room after you've been kicked. If you do that, then you deserve to be the reason that the creator (in your definition of the word) 'abuses' the kick/would-be ban function.
And you're stupid if you kick and ban someone without any reason.
Look. If the person wants to kick you and lose plays at his place. He's welcome to do that. That makes the owner stupid, as you said.
I hate tall signatures.
Offline
There's a ban function?
I hate tall signatures.
Offline
Guests already have immunity to being kicked. I think we should solve that first. :/
Guests already have immunity to being kicked. I think we should solve that first. :/
there are 2 solutions. we can give them a temporary username (guest8485), or we can prevent them from being able to get god mode (they can't troll, so there is no real reason to ban them).
/kick simple guest/simple_guest. Does that not work? someone said it did.
I hate tall signatures.
Offline
no, if that would work then it would ban all guests, since it doesnt spcify which guest you are kicking.
[ Started around 1732254513.5525 - Generated in 0.058 seconds, 13 queries executed - Memory usage: 1.5 MiB (Peak: 1.66 MiB) ]