|
|
#41
10-24-2005, 10:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: In memory of dead --- R.I.P. circa 07/17/2005
[ QUOTE ]
I'm a burst of energy right now and I feel like ranting a little bit. I actually remember thinking 2-3 weeks ago that someguy2 sure does seem to suck but I didn't want to ban him because I thought that would be unfair. Well enough of the self doubt as time and time again my wisdom shows itself to be true. For now on if I think you suck, i'm banning first and asking questions later as clearly I'm like truth serum when it comes to sniffing shithead posters out. [/ QUOTE ] Vindication! eh ... 
|
|
#42
10-24-2005, 10:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: In memory of dead --- R.I.P. circa 07/17/2005
[ QUOTE ]
is ghost bumping not kosher? what if its a good ghost bump of a particularly appropriate thread (dcifrthis's unfortunate combo of threads, for example) or a memorable one? im just looking for a clarification, im all for banning stupid ghostbumpers. [/ QUOTE ] In the examples you site I would expect that a traditional bump with comment like "this thread is appropriate to the current discussion in X thread or something along those lines. It doesn't at all require a ghost bump where the poster bumps a thread then deletes his post. Basically once again I only require posters to use common sense and once again there will be plenty of idiots who prove themselves incapable of doing so.
|
|
#44
10-24-2005, 10:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: In memory of dead --- R.I.P. circa 07/17/2005
[ QUOTE ]
is ghost bumping not kosher? what if its a good ghost bump of a particularly appropriate thread (dcifrthis's unfortunate combo of threads, for example) or a memorable one? im just looking for a clarification, im all for banning stupid ghostbumpers. [/ QUOTE ] The policy was clearly established yesterday when one poster went on a ninja bumping spree. It was [censored] annoying and he got caught red handed.
|
|
#45
10-24-2005, 10:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: In memory of dead --- R.I.P. circa 07/17/2005
[ QUOTE ]
I'm a burst of energy right now and I feel like ranting a little bit. I actually remember thinking 2-3 weeks ago that someguy2 sure does seem to suck but I didn't want to ban him because I thought that would be unfair. Well enough of the self doubt as time and time again my wisdom shows itself to be true. For now on if I think you suck, i'm banning first and asking questions later as clearly I'm like truth serum when it comes to sniffing shithead posters out. [/ QUOTE ] I have to say [censored], OOT has been really good lately. I think you should definetly trust your insticts. There has been a marked change here since you became a mod. All you need is a cool way of banning people. [censored] in the banned poster's title is cool but maybe you could get a calling card of sorts where you respond to their last post. A good image comes to mind. Think about it.
|
|
#46
10-24-2005, 10:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: In memory of dead --- R.I.P. circa 07/17/2005
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] There are worse. WAY worse. [/ QUOTE ] Then be the first person NOT to hijak this thread and post some! [/ QUOTE ] There have been many, many misogynistic posts in OOT that make Dead look like a kitten. Sure, he was a pain in the ass sometimes, but if we're getting into the business of policing OOT, there are going to be waaaaaaaay more indians than cowboys. IMHO. [/ QUOTE ] The differece was that Dead was always like that and for 6000 posts in 6 months. He seemed to be a professional troll and his omnipresence affected the mood here too negativly to be tolerated. I think we should give the mod who did it a prize of some sort.
|
|
#47
10-24-2005, 11:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: In memory of dead --- R.I.P. circa 07/17/2005
[ QUOTE ]
...maybe you could get a calling card of sorts where you respond to their last post. A good image comes to mind. Think about it. [/ QUOTE ] Suggestion of the day!! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
