Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I presume that Rule #1 applies to signatures as well. However, the signature seen in this POST here is nothing but a cheap shot at me. Can we please take care of this? Thanks.

That's not that hostile at all.

You just directed them to the section they neded to find the rule. Which depending on source your not allowed to quote in full on dakka anyway.

 jhe90 wrote:
That's not that hostile at all.

You just directed them to the section they neded to find the rule. Which depending on source your not allowed to quote in full on dakka anyway.

Yes, it is rude and hostile. It's perfectly acceptable in YMDC to direct a person to a clear answer if it exists (and it did). Here is the THREAD in question where he was called out by a mod for being insulting and not to do so in the future.

I think sigs actually have like a rule 1+ even, because when I had a direct quote of something someone typed and posted but apparently regretted it once I brought attention to it by using it in my signature, it was taken down. And I didn't embellish it by adding a question like that to make the person look worse.

So yeah, if you're not happy about it, you can probably report the post in question and a mod will likely take it down and message the user to not do that.

 jhe90 wrote:
That's not that hostile at all.

You just directed them to the section they neded to find the rule. Which depending on source your not allowed to quote in full on dakka anyway.

Exactly - Ghaz did that, and the OP of the thread in question took it as an insult, and proceeded to become aggressive to Ghaz for not quoting in full. I'm not sure on the ruling for this, but it seems to be meant with a degree of hostility.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
That's not that hostile at all.

You just directed them to the section they neded to find the rule. Which depending on source your not allowed to quote in full on dakka anyway.

Exactly - Ghaz did that, and the OP of the thread in question took it as an insult, and proceeded to become aggressive to Ghaz for not quoting in full. I'm not sure on the ruling for this, but it seems to be meant with a degree of hostility.

I think the faq is allowed to quote the correction admitly as freely available and issued freely out.
Thr correction not always explain the original rule.

The original rule in a paid for book is a big no.
Ie original rule or a point cost and stats in detail to as such not require original.

Aye.. As of this I think taking down the quote is a good idea as rule one is well.. Rule one is kinda non negligible.

ta.

We'll have a look/think.