how are they blatantly annoying? most threads on EE are just random bullshit anyway. the rest are just mainstays like the girl problems thread, drunk thread and EE Chats of the Monthbaggs wrote:
how i love random attempts at authority, after Ken's actions and comments today i think the mod team need to seriousley consider their position and whether blatantly annoying threads from the likes of Pace51 are worth the destruction of the already decimated regular user base.
dispute it? all we have here are BF2 bittervets discussing generally inane shit (myself included) for no other reason than we've all become e-m8s. this site is stagnating badly.Kmarion wrote:
decimated regular user base.
Gee zuss
OH NO, THAT IS A TERRIBLE REASON TO VISIT A WEBSITE! TO THE E-LIFEBOATS! ABANDON BROWSERFatherTed wrote:
for no other reason than we've all become e-m8s
that makes fuck all sense. the quality of the userbase IS the quality of the forumFlaming_Maniac wrote:
KEN was dead on. He echoed very similar sentiments I said days ago. It is more an issue of how much time we are willing to put forth keeping the shit down than anything.
The administration BF2S has always been and I imagine will always be based on quality of forum rather than quantity of user base.
dammit, i already have one AWM from today. that's it, i'm leaving (work).Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The administration BF2S has always been and I imagine will always be based on quality of forum rather than quantity of user base.
can you not read?FatherTed wrote:
that makes fuck all sense. the quality of the userbase IS the quality of the forumFlaming_Maniac wrote:
KEN was dead on. He echoed very similar sentiments I said days ago. It is more an issue of how much time we are willing to put forth keeping the shit down than anything.
The administration BF2S has always been and I imagine will always be based on quality of forum rather than quantity of user base.
oh quantity.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
can you not read?FatherTed wrote:
that makes fuck all sense. the quality of the userbase IS the quality of the forumFlaming_Maniac wrote:
KEN was dead on. He echoed very similar sentiments I said days ago. It is more an issue of how much time we are willing to put forth keeping the shit down than anything.
The administration BF2S has always been and I imagine will always be based on quality of forum rather than quantity of user base.
"quaNTity" of user baseFatherTed wrote:
that makes fuck all sense. the quality of the userbase IS the quality of the forumFlaming_Maniac wrote:
KEN was dead on. He echoed very similar sentiments I said days ago. It is more an issue of how much time we are willing to put forth keeping the shit down than anything.
The administration BF2S has always been and I imagine will always be based on quality of forum rather than quantity of user base.
Theres being a prick and having a bad phase (btw when was this) and then there's outright blatant trolls who are only here to piss people off. i'd like to think you could tell the difference.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
For the same reason we didn't straight off perm you when you were a prick for a while.
People bitch and moan when we do ban, bitch and moan when we don't. All semblance of order would crumble if at least an attempt to maintain a certain level of quantifiable forum "badness" to be required for a ban.
@teds
Last edited by FatherTed (2010-04-22 14:38:53)
There is a difference between "this is legitimate content that I don't find interesting" and "this is shitty content".baggs wrote:
what it all boils down to is this;
(as Ken so stated and of course who are we to argue against the decree of the mod team however pathetic it may be)
if you don't like it, ignore it.
this very rule should apply to everyone, mods included, as much as they disgust the very threads that amuse us so, they should have to put up with it just as we're supposed to put up with mornic threads made by annoying users. and by this summation, the mods are rendered pretty much useless.
Eifa wrote:
constructive, yes.
good guides, yes.
does 90% of the ppl give a fuck about random facts about random planes, cars, lawn mowers, no.
if they want to know, they'll google.
e: i personally didn't post in single one of the threads, they were just annoying.
i'm talking about mods as a whole. link me to these threads of me, i need a giggle.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Like two years ago.
Yeah, I would like to think I could tell the difference. But, people would whine if I just banned who I wanted to ban. Which is basically what you're saying.
also at teds
I'm not going to give a condensed, biased version of mod politics here so things can get even more confusing and pointless.FatherTed wrote:
i'm talking about mods as a whole. link me to these threads of me, i need a giggle.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Like two years ago.
Yeah, I would like to think I could tell the difference. But, people would whine if I just banned who I wanted to ban. Which is basically what you're saying.
also at teds
i'm assuming androo had a mod thread from the offset yes? and aside from that asian who thinks he's cool but really isn't, who gave a shit about androo being banned?
imho inciting 99% of the active userbase while breaking no actual rules is a reason to be banned.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I'm not going to give a condensed, biased version of mod politics here so things can get even more confusing and pointless.FatherTed wrote:
i'm talking about mods as a whole. link me to these threads of me, i need a giggle.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Like two years ago.
Yeah, I would like to think I could tell the difference. But, people would whine if I just banned who I wanted to ban. Which is basically what you're saying.
also at teds
i'm assuming androo had a mod thread from the offset yes? and aside from that asian who thinks he's cool but really isn't, who gave a shit about androo being banned?
We (try as hard as we humanly can) to ban people when they deserve to be banned, not when we want to ban them. If you disagree with that, fuck off, because you don't disagree with that you just wish you were a mod so you could ban without discretion. Not at teds specifically.
Last edited by baggs (2010-04-22 14:50:29)
I've been hearing this for at least two years now. People just love to reminisce about the good ole days. I've said it before and I'll say it again.. I'd rather have a half a dozen cool members than six dozen shitards. The problem is we can't keep the latter away.FatherTed wrote:
dispute it? all we have here are BF2 bittervets discussing generally inane shit (myself included) for no other reason than we've all become e-m8s. this site is stagnating badly.Kmarion wrote:
decimated regular user base.
Gee zuss
as we all know... I tried to clarify things for him.JohnG@lt wrote:
That didn't quite work out for him eitherFinray wrote:
Perhaps if he wanted serious replies he should have put them in DST?SonderKommando wrote:
Honestly, pace's guides were probably the most constructive contribution to the EE section in quite some time. It seems like everyone who bitched were just bitching for the sake of bitching. Even though his facts weren't always 100% accurate (according to some) his guides weren't terrible and quite frankly i enjoyed reading them more than the majority of the useless fucking spam threads you retards spew from your gaping cum-drenched assholes.
hey, I don't consider my cited Current News threads spamSonderKommando wrote:
Honestly, pace's guides were probably the most constructive contribution to the EE section in quite some time. It seems like everyone who bitched were just bitching for the sake of bitching. Even though his facts weren't always 100% accurate (according to some) his guides weren't terrible and quite frankly i enjoyed reading them more than the majority of the useless fucking spam threads you retards spew from your gaping cum-drenched assholes.
it doesn't have to be a slippery slope at all, just make it 'if 75% of mods agree this member is proving to be a detriment to the forum, he gets banned'.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Not 99% a vocal 10%.
And yeah, not in the rules. Slippery slope.