Aceflyer

Agreed. The fact that he shot both of those burglars in their backs seems to indicate Mr. Horn went above and beyond mere self-defense in his use of lethal force. Of course, as none of us were there, we really can't say. But I agree with the gist of NBVegita's argument, that is to say, people should have the right to self-defense - including the use of potentially lethal force - when it becomes necessary.

Just because it isn't clickable doesn't mean it's fake.

You can give a person powers in only selected subarenas. This is something that is possible even with Subgame (let alone ASSS).

Translation: jertih, please fill out this ticket and wait for a reply from a SSC council member. Moving to SSC Forum. If it's a ban-related issue, this might be a better ticket to fill out. If it's a lost username, then this is the form to fill out.

That girl's pretty ugly.

Actually you could be home schooled and very sheltered. You could be, but homeschooling isn't a viable option for many/most kids.

Thanks, I think that will be a good move for the Wiki.

Agreed.

What CRe> said. Although that article was pretty well-written.

I don't understand your logic at all.

Done: Continued progress on SSC Forum with BlueGoku, Hoch, and Wonderer. Continued progress on Get Continuum and Get Continuum-wine with cReEmY (CRe>) and Trained. Continued progress on TWDev group website with RiiStar. Created SSCE Hyperspace zone website. Continued progress on SSCC Star Wars Empire zone website with RiiStar. Made new SSCC Star Wars Empire pub settings with Ne0. Currently in progress: Redesign of MERVBot.com in conjunction with cReEmY (CRe>). Enhancements to SSCC Star Wars Empire zone website. New SSCC Star Wars Empire pub settings with Ghetto D and Ne0.

It seems that these girls weren't too stupid to use contraception; rather, they wanted and planned to get pregnant. It wasn't a matter of being too stupid to use proper contraception.

The Kubuntu misspelling has been fixed on the Continuum-wine site. Thanks for pointing it out.

As I've noted earlier, my original post was defective. I later edited it to the following: And so while obviously in retrospect I shouldn't have started the topic at all, at the time it seemed like a good idea to get the word out on this new resource.

I agree Testtube. At this point though we can only work to make it better.

BlueGoku and I have, as far as I can tell, been consistent from the beginning about who should and shouldn't have access. However, your and others' opinion about the "Game VIP" category has been noted, and we are continuing to discuss this issue to try and work out a final solution that is fair and acceptable to all. In the meantime, the "Game VIP" category has been locked to new members. Do you think this is acceptable?

May I ask you to elaborate on the "poor organization" of the SSC forum? Also, I disagree that the Council has a negative view by the community. The opinion of a few known flamers who post prolifically at SSF does not indicate the opinion of the entire community.

Agreed, I think that should do the trick. Sounds good. (I had changed it a few days ago to allow guest viewing as per Dr Brain's recommendation, but unfortunately forgot to inform you about that. If I had, you probably wouldn't have changed it back this morning and this whole thing would have been avoided; again, my apologies for my oversight in forgetting to inform you. )

I'm not sure I get what you want. Do you want the current GAME VIPs to be denied access? We did discuss this, but agreed to simply put the kibosh on further GAME VIPs and allow the current ones to stay. It is not creating the board that is a problem. The problem is for the forum members to have to keep deciding which board to post in, and whether a post in the private board could actually go in the public board, or whether a post in the public board should actually go in the private board.

Agreed Chambahs. Probably not, I'd think, although that is not set in stone.

We already have this. It's called the "General Discussion" board. I do not think most devs need access. Furthermore there are already (publicly viewable) dev discussion boards at SSForum.net; there is no need to attempt to "reinvent the wheel" at SSC forum. The main sysop discussion board may quite easily contain sensitive information not necessarily suitable for public viewing. It seems like a lot of (unnecessary) work to separate it into a "publicly viewable" sysop discussion board and a "private" sysop discussion board. We have about as much to hide as most zones and SSForum.net do. I do not think there is anything wrong with a private staff discussion board. However, you made a good point about the forum's name; forum name is changed to simply "SSC Forum" for now.

Not that I am aware of. This is apparently an issue with the backup biller that is currently being used.

Generally a dev/test zone doesn't count. Although if you had a L1+ SSC BanG Operator in that zone, that person could sign up due to having L1+ BanG access. All it is is a cross-zone collaboration tool. As Blue said, "some if not most of the issues discussed on the forum will be more on the administrative end and will not really have an impact on players." As well, "people aren't being left out because we want to create a clique or whatever, but because sensitive information is being shared and discussed there. ... To gain access to the private forum you need to be a sysop, which I don't think is very unreasonable considering the entire point behind this forum was a place where all the zone sysops can get together and discuss issues, as opposed to just Council members."

May I ask how you know who has already registered for the forum? Guests can't view the memberlist.

I have already apologized for any mistakes I may have made in advertising it. I have also edited my original post to remove controversial content. I am not sure what else I can do to make this up to you. The only "sysops" who have been denied access are 1) !@#$%^&*led sysops who are netbanned from SSC; 2) people who aren't !@#$%^&*led sysops (and only have sysop access for dev purposes); I still do not see why this is unfair.