Uh these rules....

[Lelios1]

Ever wanted to reply in the forums with something funny, a question or at least something relevant to a post that was made ages ago? As you are confident enough that you know the rules what can go wrong right? You make the reply and after a couple of minutes BOOM here is a warning! "But.... but... but... what did I do wrong" you might ask. You see the reason and it says "2.1 Bumping". You read the rule again but when you come across 2.1 you realise that you did nothing wrong at all? You become mad and you make a warning dispute. It gets denied for whatever crappy reason. You still are mad claiming that you need nothing wrong. And here I am to around this rule. 2.1 states:
2.1 Bumping - Users are not to post on a thread with the intention to bring it to the top of the category so it gets seen quicker and/or more.
Did you read what it says? No? Let me highlight some words for you: "Users are not to post on a thread with the intention to bring it to the top of the category so it gets seen quicker and/or more." So what is this rule and how can you break it? This rule prevents people to bump their / another guy's thread for the reason to get the thread on top on purpose so more people see it and faster. Here is an example of bumping

Spoiler: mhm

. Although the rule is pretty clear to where and when it applies, our lovely staff members do not really care about it and they warn people just from the title "Bumping". But what does bump really means? If we see the urban dictionary:

Even if the urban dictionary is wrong which I don't think it is, "Bumping" is the title for the rule. Warning people from just the title and not taking account what the rule states then whoever breaks a law in game, breaks 3.4 as the title of the rules says "Putting your life at risk". Anyways this was made as I see recently many replies getting warned for 2.1 when they didn't break it at all. Feel free to share your opinions.


EDIT: ok so daymon said this: "Spoke to a higher staff member about this due to an WD someone made, my reply caused some salt; me and the staff member in the end came to the conclusion that warnings for 2.1 should be given if they simply bump the thread."
If you give warnings if the reply simply bump the thread then change what the rule says and remove any warning that were occurred before the changed rule as it is silly

 

[DilanTheSkrub]

I wish that more people had the balls to complain about this stuff. Admins throw around warnings for no reason, like just look at this:

Here I received a warning for putting my opinion in a reply to a RR, and is that not allowed? If me putting my opinions on an RR isn't allowed, then isn't it the same for anyone else?

 

[Saltguy]

Here's a warning for calling someone a donkey, fanx Lewis.

 

[Philip]

Hey @Saltguy and @DilanTheSkrub
If you feel like your warnings were invalid, make a dispute, don't complain about it here as nothing will change anyways.

 

[Jeffer Cake]

Staff gotta get that warning count up though or how else will they feed their children

Inb4 warning,
Jeffers