New Rules

Rambino wrote: Overruled.

Haha, I love how one simple word supersedes all of the latin terms and legal jargon I had to google.

Touche'.

FlimFlam wrote: Well played sir. Did you say yoots?

I'm glad somebody is paying attention.  My comedic genius doesn't get the attention it deserves.

lol nice...

Snipa69 wrote: It's 1:30AM and I just put down one of my law textbooks and come to read this. I'm convinced, there is no escaping it. I need to change my major...

Your sig barely escapes violation of Section 3.

I LOVE THESE NEW RULES.


Edited by xteam - 22 April 2008 at 4:20am

Gatyr wrote: Upon further review, this opponent to the new sig guidelines requests that stare decisis be enacted for all previous signatures, and that the writ of sua sponte be reviewed for all guidelines not pertaining to the original call for signature size with regards to height and width aspects. Furthermore, corpus delecti is to be viewed as mandatory, with full explanations as to what offenses said signatory of the signature the "mod" deemed in violation of agreed upon guidelines. Malfeasance is not to be grounds for signature removal; the moderator shall keep in mind the reputation certain forumers hold (and any detrimental effects that may be had by reprimanding said forumer) and allow for a correction period of one internet millennium (or one normal day), after which  the moderator is to take into account the mens rea of the infraction. Upon deeming the signature, it is advised that the moderator review the abstract of title and confer with an appellate moderator (those moderators with more stars than the moderator questioning the legality of the signature) to confirm that there has indeed been an infraction. It is then the decision of the moderators what to do with the signature. Should no appellate moderator be conferred with, the infraction is to be thrown out, and stricken from the records, never to be considered again for future infractions. K?

Mr. Gatyr, that is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection.

 

 

Overruled.

THERE IS A SIG VIOLATION ON THIS PAGE.

Upon further review, this opponent to the new sig guidelines requests that stare decisis be enacted for all previous signatures, and that the writ of sua sponte be reviewed for all guidelines not pertaining to the original call for signature size with regards to height and width aspects.

Furthermore, corpus delecti is to be viewed as mandatory, with full explanations as to what offenses said signatory of the signature the "mod" deemed in violation of agreed upon guidelines.

Malfeasance is not to be grounds for signature removal; the moderator shall keep in mind the reputation certain forumers hold (and any detrimental effects that may be had by reprimanding said forumer) and allow for a correction period of one internet millennium (or one normal day), after which  the moderator is to take into account the mens rea of the infraction.

Upon deeming the signature, it is advised that the moderator review the abstract of title and confer with an appellate moderator (those moderators with more stars than the moderator questioning the legality of the signature) to confirm that there has indeed been an infraction. It is then the decision of the moderators what to do with the signature.

Should no appellate moderator be conferred with, the infraction is to be thrown out, and stricken from the records, never to be considered again for future infractions.

K?

LAME

Rule #5 wrote: no Sig may contain images of more than 2 attractive females.

Rule #8 wrote: Sigs protraying usage of legal drugs of any kind are permitted only if such Sigs include the disclaimer "drugs are bad, mmmkay".

Rule #11 wrote: Sigs containing dinosaurs are exempt from Sections 6 and 8 above.