ALL HAIL PRESIDENT SNORRI

[notyou2]

President Snorri would never stand for this.

[BigBallinStalin]

AoG, just because you love your threads doesn't mean you have to bump them several years after they've died. Let's not keep up this trend.

Yeah, jokes aren't appreciated in GD. CC is trying to encourage a thriving environment.

[Army of GOD]

Snorri was just and wise.

Blakebowling is evil and picks his nose.

[blakebowling]

Snorri was just and wise.

Blakebowling is evil and picks his nose.

This flip flopping won't get you anywhere.

BBS, isn't this that "u wot m8?" thread?

[BigBallinStalin]

Snorri was just and wise.

Blakebowling is evil and picks his nose.

This flip flopping won't get you anywhere.

BBS, isn't this that "u wot m8?" thread?

I don't know what you're talking about, but you're doing a great job intimidating people for harmless activities. Presumably, you're trying to make this forum better, but I don't see how your means attain that goal.

The problem with regulators (within companies and governments) is that much of their regulating is unnecessary, but there's very little constraint on their behavior. You're currently proving yourself to be a prime example; I'm merely trying to constrain you by calling you out on your unnecessary enforcement. Maybe you can exercise some self-restraint by considering how your means actually promote a livelier forum.

[notyou2]

This site is dieing. The fora are dieing. There is nothing inherently wrong with what AoG did. The rule is a stupid rule and has been overlooked for other posters and out of the blue you come down on AoG.

THIS is what's inherently wrong with this site. Badger people until you drive them away, or ban them for life for frivolous reasons. Some of them paying members. People are having fun and you attack them.

OH LOOK!!!! Someone is smiling over there. Get your ban hammer ready and threaten them. If they don't comply MAKE THEM.

Obviously you only want quiet meek people here, you fucktards. Keep badgering until you have driven the life out of this site. Morons.

[owenshooter]

oh, look!!! *glances upwards*... FLAMEWARS has returned!!! way to further the discourse about bumping the first thread ever posted in the history of the INTERNETS, by calling the mods profane and derogatory names!!! jeez... the black jesus is amused...-el Jesus negro

[notyou2]

oh, look!!! *glances upwards*... FLAMEWARS has returned!!! way to further the discourse about bumping the first thread ever posted in the history of the INTERNETS, by calling the mods profane and derogatory names!!! jeez... the black jesus is amused...-el Jesus negro

If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem. I am trying to make the administration realize the negative issues of their actions. Yes I admit I used inflammatory language, but at least I am passionate about what I am saying.

I don't usually spew negativity at every post, unlike some here.

[Dukasaur]

oh, look!!! *glances upwards*... FLAMEWARS has returned!!! way to further the discourse about bumping the first thread ever posted in the history of the INTERNETS, by calling the mods profane and derogatory names!!! jeez... the black jesus is amused...-el Jesus negro

If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem. I am trying to make the administration realize the negative issues of their actions. Yes I admit I used inflammatory language, but at least I am passionate about what I am saying.

I don't usually spew negativity at every post, unlike some here.

Stop talking about BBS that way!

[owenshooter]

oh, look!!! *glances upwards*... FLAMEWARS has returned!!! way to further the discourse about bumping the first thread ever posted in the history of the INTERNETS, by calling the mods profane and derogatory names!!! jeez... the black jesus is amused...-el Jesus negro

If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem. I am trying to make the administration realize the negative issues of their actions. Yes I admit I used inflammatory language, but at least I am passionate about what I am saying.

I don't usually spew negativity at every post, unlike some here.

sorry, you can't defend a bump of a thread that was dormant for 5yrs... i know that i for one reported it... this sort of thing would have gotten you a 24, 48 or 72 hour ban without question... i'm so glad that you are passionate about a cut and dry rules infraction, doesn't change that a rule was broken... please continue to flame, as i said before, it truly helps to further the discourse... if you are so passionate about this, i suggest you got to the suggestions forum and propose a rules change to allow bumps of 5yr old threads... *rolling my eyes right out of my head*... the black jesus has scoffed at you...-el Jesus negro

p.s.-boy, you sure did show me with all those big words you used to disparage me!!!

[blakebowling]

Let's all take a step back and calm down. Just because I pointed out that AoG bumped an old thread doesn't mean I was punishing him. Just because I have a colored name does not mean every post I make is the word of CC law.

Just consider that:
I posted the message in the public forums.
I didn't lock the thread, or mention that it could be necessary.
I also didn't mention any sort of punishment.

I personally don't like old threads. Though I am an administrator, I occasionally post my personal opinions in the forums.

[notyou2]

Snorri was just and wise.

Blakebowling is evil and picks his nose.

This flip flopping won't get you anywhere.

BBS, isn't this that "u wot m8?" thread?

I don't know what you're talking about, but you're doing a great job intimidating people for harmless activities. Presumably, you're trying to make this forum better, but I don't see how your means attain that goal.

The problem with regulators (within companies and governments) is that much of their regulating is unnecessary, but there's very little constraint on their behavior. You're currently proving yourself to be a prime example; I'm merely trying to constrain you by calling you out on your unnecessary enforcement. Maybe you can exercise some self-restraint by considering how your means actually promote a livelier forum.

BBS Blake had to do it.

Owen whined as admitted above.

Some people live such a mundane existence, they feel it is their duty to whine, snivel and cry.

[owenshooter]

Snorri was just and wise.

Blakebowling is evil and picks his nose.

This flip flopping won't get you anywhere.

BBS, isn't this that "u wot m8?" thread?

I don't know what you're talking about, but you're doing a great job intimidating people for harmless activities. Presumably, you're trying to make this forum better, but I don't see how your means attain that goal.

The problem with regulators (within companies and governments) is that much of their regulating is unnecessary, but there's very little constraint on their behavior. You're currently proving yourself to be a prime example; I'm merely trying to constrain you by calling you out on your unnecessary enforcement. Maybe you can exercise some self-restraint by considering how your means actually promote a livelier forum.

BBS Blake had to do it.

Owen whined as admitted above.

Some people live such a mundane existence, they feel it is their duty to whine, snivel and cry.

and others sit in their mother's basement eating fried bologna sandwiches in stained white tshirts posting on sites to give their lives meanings... touche... the black jesus has spoken the truth...-el Jesus negro

p.s.-if you don't like the rule, go have it changed... period.

[BigBallinStalin]

Let's all take a step back and calm down. Just because I pointed out that AoG bumped an old thread doesn't mean I was punishing him. Just because I have a colored name does not mean every post I make is the word of CC law.

Just consider that:
I posted the message in the public forums.
I didn't lock the thread, or mention that it could be necessary.
I also didn't mention any sort of punishment.

I personally don't like old threads. Though I am an administrator, I occasionally post my personal opinions in the forums.

Somehow, "let's not keep us this trend" doesn't imply any likelihood of future enforcement. How is that comment not a warning?

It is.

[BigBallinStalin]

Let's conduct a thought experiment:


If I told blakebowling, "go shit on someone else's parade," would my chances of being kicked increase---compared to my telling that to owen?

Let's be real. bb's whitewashing doesn't eliminate the different consequences users face when interacting with the maroons and limes of this world.


To drive the point home: suppose a cop in uniform approached owen, the Black Jesus, and said, "you shouldn't be in the park. Let's not let that happen again." Owen and bystanders object, but the cop says, "Oh, I'm off-duty. I'm just stating my personal opinion." Should we conclude that the off-duty officer was never implying any kind of repercussions for failing to abide by his word? Of course not.

[Dukasaur]

Let's conduct a thought experiment:


If I told blakebowling, "go shit on someone else's parade," would my chances of being kicked increase---compared to my telling that to owen?

Let's be real. bb's whitewashing doesn't eliminate the different consequences users face when interacting with the maroons and limes of this world.


To drive the point home: suppose a cop in uniform approached owen, the Black Jesus, and said, "you shouldn't be in the park. Let's not let that happen again." Owen and bystanders object, but the cop says, "Oh, I'm off-duty. I'm just stating my personal opinion." Should we conclude that the off-duty officer was never implying any kind of repercussions for failing to abide by his word? Of course not.

Actually, it does happen. Cops do sometimes give casual opinions where they are speaking as people and not as cops.

But even if it were not so, it is a long way from this. Cops are designed to look menacing, with their bandoliers of weaponry and torture instruments. Given the implicit threat of violence in their appearance, one could be forgiven for inferring a threat in a cop's words even one there isn't one. There's no reason to infer any such thing in dealing with unarmed CC admins.

I remember a very similar incident in OT about a year ago, when I was a victim of a similar over-reaction by you. I pointed out to someone that they were skirting the line on something, and you had this kind of meltdown. I'm not even a discussions mod; outside of a select few forums I have no special authority, and I certainly wasn't threatening the individual, just pointing out that they were crossing a line, but because I have a coloured nametag you decided I was abusing my non-existent authority.

You've become very negative toward CC of late, and it's starting to distort your perspective. CC mods and admins are first and foremost members of the community. Only rarely and with great reluctance do they invoke any of their disciplinary powers (and most mods don't even have any disciplinary powers) while most of their/our forum interactions are from the point of view of an ordinary member.

[BigBallinStalin]

Let's conduct a thought experiment:


If I told blakebowling, "go shit on someone else's parade," would my chances of being kicked increase---compared to my telling that to owen?

Let's be real. bb's whitewashing doesn't eliminate the different consequences users face when interacting with the maroons and limes of this world.


To drive the point home: suppose a cop in uniform approached owen, the Black Jesus, and said, "you shouldn't be in the park. Let's not let that happen again." Owen and bystanders object, but the cop says, "Oh, I'm off-duty. I'm just stating my personal opinion." Should we conclude that the off-duty officer was never implying any kind of repercussions for failing to abide by his word? Of course not.

Actually, it does happen. Cops do sometimes give casual opinions where they are speaking as people and not as cops.

But even if it were not so, it is a long way from this. Cops are designed to look menacing, with their bandoliers of weaponry and torture instruments. Given the implicit threat of violence in their appearance, one could be forgiven for inferring a threat in a cop's words even one there isn't one. There's no reason to infer any such thing in dealing with unarmed CC admins.

I remember a very similar incident in OT about a year ago, when I was a victim of a similar over-reaction by you. I pointed out to someone that they were skirting the line on something, and you had this kind of meltdown. I'm not even a discussions mod; outside of a select few forums I have no special authority, and I certainly wasn't threatening the individual, just pointing out that they were crossing a line, but because I have a coloured nametag you decided I was abusing my non-existent authority.

You've become very negative toward CC of late, and it's starting to distort your perspective. CC mods and admins are first and foremost members of the community. Only rarely and with great reluctance do they invoke any of their disciplinary powers (and most mods don't even have any disciplinary powers) while most of their/our forum interactions are from the point of view of an ordinary member.

Given the context here, I don't find your exception about some number of cops to be applicable. When a cop says, "don't let X continue," you know his word is backed by enforcement; otherwise, no one would care so much about what cops tell them. I recall blake having a history of intervening at unnecessary moments, so why would I expect him to have changed? His later whitewashing isn't convincing.

RE: the last two paragraphs, note: "maroons and limes." I didn't include all the colors, so that should signal my updating.

If you'd like to support the underlined claim, please do. Remember to separate my jokes from my serious comments.

[blakebowling]

Let's conduct a thought experiment:


If I told blakebowling, "go shit on someone else's parade," would my chances of being kicked increase---compared to my telling that to owen?

Let's be real. bb's whitewashing doesn't eliminate the different consequences users face when interacting with the maroons and limes of this world.


To drive the point home: suppose a cop in uniform approached owen, the Black Jesus, and said, "you shouldn't be in the park. Let's not let that happen again." Owen and bystanders object, but the cop says, "Oh, I'm off-duty. I'm just stating my personal opinion." Should we conclude that the off-duty officer was never implying any kind of repercussions for failing to abide by his word? Of course not.

Actually, it does happen. Cops do sometimes give casual opinions where they are speaking as people and not as cops.

But even if it were not so, it is a long way from this. Cops are designed to look menacing, with their bandoliers of weaponry and torture instruments. Given the implicit threat of violence in their appearance, one could be forgiven for inferring a threat in a cop's words even one there isn't one. There's no reason to infer any such thing in dealing with unarmed CC admins.

I remember a very similar incident in OT about a year ago, when I was a victim of a similar over-reaction by you. I pointed out to someone that they were skirting the line on something, and you had this kind of meltdown. I'm not even a discussions mod; outside of a select few forums I have no special authority, and I certainly wasn't threatening the individual, just pointing out that they were crossing a line, but because I have a coloured nametag you decided I was abusing my non-existent authority.

You've become very negative toward CC of late, and it's starting to distort your perspective. CC mods and admins are first and foremost members of the community. Only rarely and with great reluctance do they invoke any of their disciplinary powers (and most mods don't even have any disciplinary powers) while most of their/our forum interactions are from the point of view of an ordinary member.

Given the context here, I don't find your exception about some number of cops to be applicable. When a cop says, "don't let X continue," you know his word is backed by enforcement; otherwise, no one would care so much about what cops tell them. I recall blake having a history of intervening at unnecessary moments, so why would I expect him to have changed? His later whitewashing isn't convincing.

RE: the last two paragraphs, note: "maroons and limes." I didn't include all the colors, so that should signal my updating.

If you'd like to support the underlined claim, please do. Remember to separate my jokes from my serious comments.

People change. I suppose if I looked through your post history I wouldn't find anything that is uncharacteristic of your attitude and behavior today?

It may do you some good to not attempt to find something wrong with every post made by TeamCC members. Realize that saying "Let's not keep up this trend" isn't the same thing as saying "Don't do this or I'll ban you".

[BigBallinStalin]

If you can't see (or are unwilling to admit) that your comment doesn't convey a warning and that your status doesn't influence enforcement decisions, then I'm not sure what to tell ya. (haha, you even mentioned that you could've locked the thread but didn't. Sure, you could lock it later; we know that). Somehow, user-user interactions are magically the same as admin/mod-user interactions.

Back to the main point: does implicitly warning people to the letter of the law (no necrobumping) foster greater liveliness in the fora? Does discouraging joke bumps somehow discourage new threads and comments?

[Dukasaur]

If you can't see (or are unwilling to admit) that your comment doesn't convey a warning and that your status doesn't influence enforcement decisions, then I'm not sure what to tell ya. (haha, you even mentioned that you could've locked the thread but didn't. Sure, you could lock it later; we know that). Somehow, user-user interactions are magically the same as admin/mod-user interactions.

There is an implicit level of intimidation in every human interaction.\

Let's say I'm sitting in a parking lot and I throw my hamburger wrapper on the ground. If Mike Tyson comes along and says "Littering is bad. You should pick that up," I'm much more likely to consider his suggestion than if Mike Myers comes along and says "Littering is bad. You should pick that up."

You'll never eliminate the intimidation factor from human interactions, because you'll never have a situation where two people are perfectly equal in every way. And yet, we live in a world where it's generally accepted that Mike Tyson will keep his hands to himself except in certain clearly-defined situations, and where CC admins leave their ban hammers in the bottom drawer unless they are desperately needed. If you get angry at work and call your boss an asshole, you might get fired, and yet I know of several cases where somebody got angry, called their boss an asshole, and no firing occurred. Assuming that everyone who has disciplinary power will abuse it is just paranoia. People are capable of behaving reasonably most of the time, or society would not exist.

Back to the main point: does implicitly warning people to the letter of the law (no necrobumping) foster greater liveliness in the fora? Does discouraging joke bumps somehow discourage new threads and comments?

Joke bumps occur all the time, and nobody discourages them. However, if they got so common that people had to start searching on Page 2 of the forum to find the topic they were discussing yesterday, that would be very annoying to the users. It's all a matter of reasonable balance. Spam live chat with a row of hearts, and it's cute. Spam live chat with a row of hearts over and over and over again, and it's tremendously annoying. Humour is all about timing, and it's not just about knowing when to start, it's also about knowing when to stop.

[BigBallinStalin]

How old is the last thread on this forum? Late March.

Currently, there's been no good arguments favoring less entertainment in GD.

[ManBungalow]

Somebody go to the suggestions forum and suggest a rule which demands that anybody posting to GD must be naked.

[Dukasaur]

Somebody go to the suggestions forum and suggest a rule which demands that anybody posting to GD must be naked.

I was naked when I posted. Were you?

[notyou2]

Duk, you know that I personally bumped several old threads about 6 weeks ago. I believe it was in OT, but absolutely nothing was said.

It appears that one or more individuals complained when this thread was bumped.

Bumping an old thread is harmless. Why is the rule there is it's not going to be enforced?

Why was it created in the first place?

Why is the tail wagging the dog?

Surely mods have better things to do than react when a repeat complainer whines about something harmless and frivolous?

Is there an incessant complainer rule? There should be.

If you repeatedly call 911 for frivolous reasons you get fined because it is using resources that could be used elsewhere. How is this different?

[owenshooter]

Duk, you know that I personally bumped several old threads about 6 weeks ago. I believe it was in OT, but absolutely nothing was said.

It appears that one or more individuals complained when this thread was bumped.

Bumping an old thread is harmless. Why is the rule there is it's not going to be enforced?

Why was it created in the first place?

Why is the tail wagging the dog?

Surely mods have better things to do than react when a repeat complainer whines about something harmless and frivolous?

Is there an incessant complainer rule? There should be.

If you repeatedly call 911 for frivolous reasons you get fined because it is using resources that could be used elsewhere. How is this different?

rules are rules... OT is not GD, does the difference need to be explained to you? still have not heard a great argument for a dead thread being bumped... however, i do love your admission of multiple infractions of this rule over the past few weeks... hopefully, you will find a friendly warning in your inbox... the black jesus has spoken...-el Jesus negro

p.s.-nice to know that one of my stalkers has kept a personal record of every report and infraction i have ever made/received... i enjoy being someone's hobby...