Re: A message for [censored]
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Am I the only one who didn't think OOT is not much different than it was before? The crappy threads that would have been created by people who are now banned are replaced by "moderator controversy" threads and "revenge for banning me" threads. Everyone seems to think OOT is either hell or utopia now...I still see about 5 good threads on page one, same as it was before.

[/ QUOTE ]
i already said this in response to daryn saying how the first page was nothing but great threads for the first time in a year.

i am all for cleaning house but whining about it is getting old, its been a few days and this hasn't died down and we still have threads dedicated to it on the first page, to me this is worse than before. of course the best plan would be for [censored] to not have announced his plan and just to have banned all those idiots posting "would you [censored] a gay or be killed" and the spawns of those posts. now everything is divided.

i just never understood why it had to be this big announcement and why it couldn't be some sort of CIA cleaning out mission where in a few weeks you click on OOT and you think to yourself, "wow, i haven't seen a poster make the same thread over and over...is he gone...[censored] it who cares? there's some good [censored] on here to read."

[/ QUOTE ]

Just brilliant. I think this really would have been optimal, plus the inevitable "Holy [censored], [censored]'s lit up in green!" discovery post & fallout would be pure molten gold.

But, of course, what's done is done. Again, I'd like to say that it's gone better than I'd expected, and I was optimistic to begin with.

Re: A message for [censored]
 

[ QUOTE ]

If they choose to return, they'll do so under a new name, and probably be grateful people aren't judging them based on their former idiocy. Not a big deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is idiotic. How is an immediate ban of someone making a bad post more effective than deleteing the thread and sending a PM saying "That was a bad thread for x, y and z. Don't do it again." Anyone who gets banned because they make a bad post in the beginning will not return and there will never be any new blood in this forum. It will, as has been said by myself and others, turn into a mutual admiration society for a small group of regulars.

Re: A message for [censored]
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Am I the only one who didn't think OOT is not much different than it was before? The crappy threads that would have been created by people who are now banned are replaced by "moderator controversy" threads and "revenge for banning me" threads. Everyone seems to think OOT is either hell or utopia now...I still see about 5 good threads on page one, same as it was before.

[/ QUOTE ]
i already said this in response to daryn saying how the first page was nothing but great threads for the first time in a year.

i am all for cleaning house but whining about it is getting old, its been a few days and this hasn't died down and we still have threads dedicated to it on the first page, to me this is worse than before. of course the best plan would be for [censored] to not have announced his plan and just to have banned all those idiots posting "would you [censored] a gay or be killed" and the spawns of those posts. now everything is divided.

i just never understood why it had to be this big announcement and why it couldn't be some sort of CIA cleaning out mission where in a few weeks you click on OOT and you think to yourself, "wow, i haven't seen a poster make the same thread over and over...is he gone...[censored] it who cares? there's some good [censored] on here to read."

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a good point. However, I wanted to get some support for my plan and most importantly I don't believe in being a moderator who just acts without atleast giving everyone here a chance to complain, call me names or state a case.

My biggest problem with the way moderators are now is that decisions are discussion not made public.

Re: A message for [censored]
 

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who gets banned because they make a bad post in the beginning will not return and there will never be any new blood in this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]
Look out, Chicken Little.

Re: A message for [censored]
 

[ QUOTE ]
Gee, what a surprise. Who couldn't see this coming? (Hint: only a complete twit.) It's not like the same thing hasn't happened hundreds of thousands of times on the internet in other places already. Every forum I've been a part of has had some power hungry internet bully mod that runs over the top of everything.

Worst idea ever. Thanks for helping it get through with so much support though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: A message for [censored]
 

[ QUOTE ]
That is a good point. However, I wanted to get some support for my plan and most importantly I don't believe in being a moderator who just acts without atleast giving everyone here a chance to complain, call me names or state a case.

My biggest problem with the way moderators are now is that decisions are discussion not made public.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've been very reasonable lately in defending your plan, but I don't think that there would have been so much opposition if you had not come across as so vindictive in the original "show your support" thread.

Re: A message for [censored]
 

This is more a technical question than one of judgement:

Are IP bans within your power?

Re: A message for [censored]
 

[ QUOTE ]
banning noobs does not make an elitist forum for posters with 4k+ posts. it makes a forum without noobs.

[/ QUOTE ]

so SHIIP isn't allowed but 'noobs' is? it sounds like a bunch of internet nerds arguing over the best softdrink.

Re: A message for [censored]
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
banning noobs does not make an elitist forum for posters with 4k+ posts. it makes a forum without noobs.

[/ QUOTE ]

so SHIIP isn't allowed but 'noobs' is? it sounds like a bunch of idiot nerds arguing over the best softdrink.

[/ QUOTE ]

The dryness of the word "noob" and the phenomenon that was "SIIHP" make those two completely different cases.

Re: A message for [censored]
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
banning noobs does not make an elitist forum for posters with 4k+ posts. it makes a forum without noobs.

[/ QUOTE ]

so SHIIP isn't allowed but 'noobs' is? it sounds like a bunch of idiot nerds arguing over the best softdrink.

[/ QUOTE ]

The dryness of the word "noob" and the phenomenon that was "SIIHP" make those two completely different cases.

[/ QUOTE ]



wtf. noobs better well be allowed around this place.

else I might be bidding you all adieu [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]