Quote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 03:53:13 PMQuote from: GAIUS DASSIUS B00TSAR on August 30, 2015, 12:49:00 PMDaily reminder that you people didn't vote for Strict moderation when you had the chance.if you report the post with 'Spoiler - Reason why (if it's not obvious)' then there are enough mods around to see it within a reasonable timeframe.If by reasonable you mean 10 minutes - 3 hours then sure. It's totally reasonable.
Quote from: GAIUS DASSIUS B00TSAR on August 30, 2015, 12:49:00 PMDaily reminder that you people didn't vote for Strict moderation when you had the chance.if you report the post with 'Spoiler - Reason why (if it's not obvious)' then there are enough mods around to see it within a reasonable timeframe.
Daily reminder that you people didn't vote for Strict moderation when you had the chance.
Quote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 04:56:49 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 03:53:13 PMQuote from: GAIUS DASSIUS B00TSAR on August 30, 2015, 12:49:00 PMDaily reminder that you people didn't vote for Strict moderation when you had the chance.if you report the post with 'Spoiler - Reason why (if it's not obvious)' then there are enough mods around to see it within a reasonable timeframe.If by reasonable you mean 10 minutes - 3 hours then sure. It's totally reasonable.You know it's not a full time job right?And that almost all of the staff actually have jobs/lives and the like?I'm just checking because you never know.
Quote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:01:37 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 04:56:49 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 03:53:13 PMQuote from: GAIUS DASSIUS B00TSAR on August 30, 2015, 12:49:00 PMDaily reminder that you people didn't vote for Strict moderation when you had the chance.if you report the post with 'Spoiler - Reason why (if it's not obvious)' then there are enough mods around to see it within a reasonable timeframe.If by reasonable you mean 10 minutes - 3 hours then sure. It's totally reasonable.You know it's not a full time job right?And that almost all of the staff actually have jobs/lives and the like?I'm just checking because you never know.Of course. That's why I proposed (earlier in the thread) that there should be more staff members to cover the people at work. That's pretty common sense if you ask me.
The logical leap it requires to not see anything wrong with making a new rule and then banning people for breaking that rule in the past astounds me.
Quote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:03:37 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:01:37 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 04:56:49 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 03:53:13 PMQuote from: GAIUS DASSIUS B00TSAR on August 30, 2015, 12:49:00 PMDaily reminder that you people didn't vote for Strict moderation when you had the chance.if you report the post with 'Spoiler - Reason why (if it's not obvious)' then there are enough mods around to see it within a reasonable timeframe.If by reasonable you mean 10 minutes - 3 hours then sure. It's totally reasonable.You know it's not a full time job right?And that almost all of the staff actually have jobs/lives and the like?I'm just checking because you never know.Of course. That's why I proposed (earlier in the thread) that there should be more staff members to cover the people at work. That's pretty common sense if you ask me.Picking monitors is one thing, picking moderators is another.Entrusting someone with all of the information and tools that a mod gets given isn't something that should be done lightly.There is a finite number of users on here who would be suitable for the position and most of them are in the roles already. There are a few others that are worth considering but even so, we will never have enough moderators to provide round the clock coverage of every little thing that happens on here, that's just the way of the world.
Stick to the rules 24/7, 365 days a year. "The forum staff reserves the right to remove you, and your content, from the forums for any reason, without warning. This was agreed upon registration to the site." - The Rules
Quote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:05:40 PMThe logical leap it requires to not see anything wrong with making a new rule and then banning people for breaking that rule in the past astounds me.The logical leap it requires to see anything wrong with punishing someone for being malicious--breaching basic social etiquette--astounds me.You can keep saying it's not gonna happen. I'm gonna keep saying that's bullshit.
Quote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:09:23 PMStick to the rules 24/7, 365 days a year. "The forum staff reserves the right to remove you, and your content, from the forums for any reason, without warning. This was agreed upon registration to the site." - The RulesI'd like to point out that one of the requests/complaints was "consistent moderation." What is it we're doing here if not that, TBlocks? Yeah, I could ban Goots to kingdom come because what he did was shitty, but that would be the definition of biased, unfair, and inconsistent moderation.
boo hoo
Quote from: TBlocks on August 29, 2015, 06:40:52 PMQuote from: guts on August 29, 2015, 06:36:46 PMboo hooDude seriously?they were bitching so much about LC supposedly spoiling the game i just had to do it.
Quote from: guts on August 29, 2015, 06:36:46 PMboo hooDude seriously?
Quote from: TBlocks on August 29, 2015, 06:46:45 PMQuote from: guts on August 29, 2015, 06:43:39 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 29, 2015, 06:40:52 PMQuote from: guts on August 29, 2015, 06:36:46 PMboo hooDude seriously?they were bitching so much about LC supposedly spoiling the game i just had to do it. Yup. There was an extraterrestrial force pushing you towards the post button.there was no force making me doing anything, i could see how important the game is to them and i did it regardless because their rage would be entertaining
Quote from: guts on August 29, 2015, 06:43:39 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 29, 2015, 06:40:52 PMQuote from: guts on August 29, 2015, 06:36:46 PMboo hooDude seriously?they were bitching so much about LC supposedly spoiling the game i just had to do it. Yup. There was an extraterrestrial force pushing you towards the post button.
Quote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:08:28 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:03:37 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:01:37 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 04:56:49 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 03:53:13 PMQuote from: GAIUS DASSIUS B00TSAR on August 30, 2015, 12:49:00 PMDaily reminder that you people didn't vote for Strict moderation when you had the chance.if you report the post with 'Spoiler - Reason why (if it's not obvious)' then there are enough mods around to see it within a reasonable timeframe.If by reasonable you mean 10 minutes - 3 hours then sure. It's totally reasonable.You know it's not a full time job right?And that almost all of the staff actually have jobs/lives and the like?I'm just checking because you never know.Of course. That's why I proposed (earlier in the thread) that there should be more staff members to cover the people at work. That's pretty common sense if you ask me.Picking monitors is one thing, picking moderators is another.Entrusting someone with all of the information and tools that a mod gets given isn't something that should be done lightly.There is a finite number of users on here who would be suitable for the position and most of them are in the roles already. There are a few others that are worth considering but even so, we will never have enough moderators to provide round the clock coverage of every little thing that happens on here, that's just the way of the world.You're telling me, that out of 1028 total members (most of which aren't active I know) only 5 people are able to handle the enormous duty of moderating an internet forum. 1 of which is barely active anyway!Well you got me beat there Psy. if we can't fix the problem entirely why try to fix it at all?
Quote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:13:42 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:08:28 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:03:37 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:01:37 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 04:56:49 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 03:53:13 PMQuote from: GAIUS DASSIUS B00TSAR on August 30, 2015, 12:49:00 PMDaily reminder that you people didn't vote for Strict moderation when you had the chance.if you report the post with 'Spoiler - Reason why (if it's not obvious)' then there are enough mods around to see it within a reasonable timeframe.If by reasonable you mean 10 minutes - 3 hours then sure. It's totally reasonable.You know it's not a full time job right?And that almost all of the staff actually have jobs/lives and the like?I'm just checking because you never know.Of course. That's why I proposed (earlier in the thread) that there should be more staff members to cover the people at work. That's pretty common sense if you ask me.Picking monitors is one thing, picking moderators is another.Entrusting someone with all of the information and tools that a mod gets given isn't something that should be done lightly.There is a finite number of users on here who would be suitable for the position and most of them are in the roles already. There are a few others that are worth considering but even so, we will never have enough moderators to provide round the clock coverage of every little thing that happens on here, that's just the way of the world.You're telling me, that out of 1028 total members (most of which aren't active I know) only 5 people are able to handle the enormous duty of moderating an internet forum. 1 of which is barely active anyway!Well you got me beat there Psy. if we can't fix the problem entirely why try to fix it at all?Considering most of them are dead accounts at this point, if we have an active userpool of around 150 users then that's a bit more of a realistic comparison.Minus the 10 people already on staff and you are down to 140.Then take away the shitposters, then discount the people who flamewar incessantly, then the drama vampires and you start to have a much smaller number of people who could do the job. And then an even smaller number of people who could do the job well.
And then an even smaller number of people who could do the job well.
Quote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:22:07 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:13:42 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:08:28 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:03:37 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:01:37 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 04:56:49 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 03:53:13 PMQuote from: GAIUS DASSIUS B00TSAR on August 30, 2015, 12:49:00 PMDaily reminder that you people didn't vote for Strict moderation when you had the chance.if you report the post with 'Spoiler - Reason why (if it's not obvious)' then there are enough mods around to see it within a reasonable timeframe.If by reasonable you mean 10 minutes - 3 hours then sure. It's totally reasonable.You know it's not a full time job right?And that almost all of the staff actually have jobs/lives and the like?I'm just checking because you never know.Of course. That's why I proposed (earlier in the thread) that there should be more staff members to cover the people at work. That's pretty common sense if you ask me.Picking monitors is one thing, picking moderators is another.Entrusting someone with all of the information and tools that a mod gets given isn't something that should be done lightly.There is a finite number of users on here who would be suitable for the position and most of them are in the roles already. There are a few others that are worth considering but even so, we will never have enough moderators to provide round the clock coverage of every little thing that happens on here, that's just the way of the world.You're telling me, that out of 1028 total members (most of which aren't active I know) only 5 people are able to handle the enormous duty of moderating an internet forum. 1 of which is barely active anyway!Well you got me beat there Psy. if we can't fix the problem entirely why try to fix it at all?Considering most of them are dead accounts at this point, if we have an active userpool of around 150 users then that's a bit more of a realistic comparison.Minus the 10 people already on staff and you are down to 140.Then take away the shitposters, then discount the people who flamewar incessantly, then the drama vampires and you start to have a much smaller number of people who could do the job. And then an even smaller number of people who could do the job well.You would whittle that number down to 5? Only 5 people who are competent enough to handle an internet forum? Also if you seriously think 150 people is the user base then I can see why the ban and warning times are so small.
Quote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:22:07 PMAnd then an even smaller number of people who could do the job well.you already mentioned the people who are already on staff
Quote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:24:02 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:22:07 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:13:42 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:08:28 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:03:37 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:01:37 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 04:56:49 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 03:53:13 PMQuote from: GAIUS DASSIUS B00TSAR on August 30, 2015, 12:49:00 PMDaily reminder that you people didn't vote for Strict moderation when you had the chance.if you report the post with 'Spoiler - Reason why (if it's not obvious)' then there are enough mods around to see it within a reasonable timeframe.If by reasonable you mean 10 minutes - 3 hours then sure. It's totally reasonable.You know it's not a full time job right?And that almost all of the staff actually have jobs/lives and the like?I'm just checking because you never know.Of course. That's why I proposed (earlier in the thread) that there should be more staff members to cover the people at work. That's pretty common sense if you ask me.Picking monitors is one thing, picking moderators is another.Entrusting someone with all of the information and tools that a mod gets given isn't something that should be done lightly.There is a finite number of users on here who would be suitable for the position and most of them are in the roles already. There are a few others that are worth considering but even so, we will never have enough moderators to provide round the clock coverage of every little thing that happens on here, that's just the way of the world.You're telling me, that out of 1028 total members (most of which aren't active I know) only 5 people are able to handle the enormous duty of moderating an internet forum. 1 of which is barely active anyway!Well you got me beat there Psy. if we can't fix the problem entirely why try to fix it at all?Considering most of them are dead accounts at this point, if we have an active userpool of around 150 users then that's a bit more of a realistic comparison.Minus the 10 people already on staff and you are down to 140.Then take away the shitposters, then discount the people who flamewar incessantly, then the drama vampires and you start to have a much smaller number of people who could do the job. And then an even smaller number of people who could do the job well.You would whittle that number down to 5? Only 5 people who are competent enough to handle an internet forum? Also if you seriously think 150 people is the user base then I can see why the ban and warning times are so small.Currently four, or five because DC is still a mod even though I think he's left given the length of the AFK now, is working acceptably.
Tblocks you're not going to become a mod.
Quote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:28:44 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:24:02 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:22:07 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:13:42 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:08:28 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:03:37 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:01:37 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 04:56:49 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 03:53:13 PMQuote from: GAIUS DASSIUS B00TSAR on August 30, 2015, 12:49:00 PMDaily reminder that you people didn't vote for Strict moderation when you had the chance.if you report the post with 'Spoiler - Reason why (if it's not obvious)' then there are enough mods around to see it within a reasonable timeframe.If by reasonable you mean 10 minutes - 3 hours then sure. It's totally reasonable.You know it's not a full time job right?And that almost all of the staff actually have jobs/lives and the like?I'm just checking because you never know.Of course. That's why I proposed (earlier in the thread) that there should be more staff members to cover the people at work. That's pretty common sense if you ask me.Picking monitors is one thing, picking moderators is another.Entrusting someone with all of the information and tools that a mod gets given isn't something that should be done lightly.There is a finite number of users on here who would be suitable for the position and most of them are in the roles already. There are a few others that are worth considering but even so, we will never have enough moderators to provide round the clock coverage of every little thing that happens on here, that's just the way of the world.You're telling me, that out of 1028 total members (most of which aren't active I know) only 5 people are able to handle the enormous duty of moderating an internet forum. 1 of which is barely active anyway!Well you got me beat there Psy. if we can't fix the problem entirely why try to fix it at all?Considering most of them are dead accounts at this point, if we have an active userpool of around 150 users then that's a bit more of a realistic comparison.Minus the 10 people already on staff and you are down to 140.Then take away the shitposters, then discount the people who flamewar incessantly, then the drama vampires and you start to have a much smaller number of people who could do the job. And then an even smaller number of people who could do the job well.You would whittle that number down to 5? Only 5 people who are competent enough to handle an internet forum? Also if you seriously think 150 people is the user base then I can see why the ban and warning times are so small.Currently four, or five because DC is still a mod even though I think he's left given the length of the AFK now, is working acceptably. Well given the recent situation... that statement seems to be in question.
i'm just saying--i don't think this needed to be a 400 reply threadwe've overcomplicated such a simple issue--we're such a bureaucracy
Quote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:35:56 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:28:44 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:24:02 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:22:07 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:13:42 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:08:28 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:03:37 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:01:37 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 04:56:49 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 03:53:13 PMQuote from: GAIUS DASSIUS B00TSAR on August 30, 2015, 12:49:00 PMDaily reminder that you people didn't vote for Strict moderation when you had the chance.if you report the post with 'Spoiler - Reason why (if it's not obvious)' then there are enough mods around to see it within a reasonable timeframe.If by reasonable you mean 10 minutes - 3 hours then sure. It's totally reasonable.You know it's not a full time job right?And that almost all of the staff actually have jobs/lives and the like?I'm just checking because you never know.Of course. That's why I proposed (earlier in the thread) that there should be more staff members to cover the people at work. That's pretty common sense if you ask me.Picking monitors is one thing, picking moderators is another.Entrusting someone with all of the information and tools that a mod gets given isn't something that should be done lightly.There is a finite number of users on here who would be suitable for the position and most of them are in the roles already. There are a few others that are worth considering but even so, we will never have enough moderators to provide round the clock coverage of every little thing that happens on here, that's just the way of the world.You're telling me, that out of 1028 total members (most of which aren't active I know) only 5 people are able to handle the enormous duty of moderating an internet forum. 1 of which is barely active anyway!Well you got me beat there Psy. if we can't fix the problem entirely why try to fix it at all?Considering most of them are dead accounts at this point, if we have an active userpool of around 150 users then that's a bit more of a realistic comparison.Minus the 10 people already on staff and you are down to 140.Then take away the shitposters, then discount the people who flamewar incessantly, then the drama vampires and you start to have a much smaller number of people who could do the job. And then an even smaller number of people who could do the job well.You would whittle that number down to 5? Only 5 people who are competent enough to handle an internet forum? Also if you seriously think 150 people is the user base then I can see why the ban and warning times are so small.Currently four, or five because DC is still a mod even though I think he's left given the length of the AFK now, is working acceptably. Well given the recent situation... that statement seems to be in question.In what way?As I recall the pictures were being edited out/deleted reasonably quickly considering most of the staff were busy at the time. Certainly none were left there for three hours.Or do you perhaps refer to how we haven't just shot gatsby for the nonexistant rule he didn't break?Because when I get five minutes I'm going to look over the rules thread and see if any of them fit the situation from another angle.
5. You Have No Rights. Play Nice.
Quote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:38:38 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:35:56 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:28:44 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:24:02 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:22:07 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:13:42 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:08:28 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:03:37 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:01:37 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 04:56:49 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 03:53:13 PMQuote from: GAIUS DASSIUS B00TSAR on August 30, 2015, 12:49:00 PMDaily reminder that you people didn't vote for Strict moderation when you had the chance.if you report the post with 'Spoiler - Reason why (if it's not obvious)' then there are enough mods around to see it within a reasonable timeframe.If by reasonable you mean 10 minutes - 3 hours then sure. It's totally reasonable.You know it's not a full time job right?And that almost all of the staff actually have jobs/lives and the like?I'm just checking because you never know.Of course. That's why I proposed (earlier in the thread) that there should be more staff members to cover the people at work. That's pretty common sense if you ask me.Picking monitors is one thing, picking moderators is another.Entrusting someone with all of the information and tools that a mod gets given isn't something that should be done lightly.There is a finite number of users on here who would be suitable for the position and most of them are in the roles already. There are a few others that are worth considering but even so, we will never have enough moderators to provide round the clock coverage of every little thing that happens on here, that's just the way of the world.You're telling me, that out of 1028 total members (most of which aren't active I know) only 5 people are able to handle the enormous duty of moderating an internet forum. 1 of which is barely active anyway!Well you got me beat there Psy. if we can't fix the problem entirely why try to fix it at all?Considering most of them are dead accounts at this point, if we have an active userpool of around 150 users then that's a bit more of a realistic comparison.Minus the 10 people already on staff and you are down to 140.Then take away the shitposters, then discount the people who flamewar incessantly, then the drama vampires and you start to have a much smaller number of people who could do the job. And then an even smaller number of people who could do the job well.You would whittle that number down to 5? Only 5 people who are competent enough to handle an internet forum? Also if you seriously think 150 people is the user base then I can see why the ban and warning times are so small.Currently four, or five because DC is still a mod even though I think he's left given the length of the AFK now, is working acceptably. Well given the recent situation... that statement seems to be in question.In what way?As I recall the pictures were being edited out/deleted reasonably quickly considering most of the staff were busy at the time. Certainly none were left there for three hours.Or do you perhaps refer to how we haven't just shot gatsby for the nonexistant rule he didn't break?Because when I get five minutes I'm going to look over the rules thread and see if any of them fit the situation from another angle.I'll do it for you.Quote5. You Have No Rights. Play Nice.Well would ya look at that. Quote from: guts on August 29, 2015, 06:51:32 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 29, 2015, 06:46:45 PMQuote from: guts on August 29, 2015, 06:43:39 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 29, 2015, 06:40:52 PMQuote from: guts on August 29, 2015, 06:36:46 PMboo hooDude seriously?they were bitching so much about LC supposedly spoiling the game i just had to do it. Yup. There was an extraterrestrial force pushing you towards the post button.there was no force making me doing anything, i could see how important the game is to them and i did it regardless because their rage would be entertaining
Quote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:42:22 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:38:38 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:35:56 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:28:44 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:24:02 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:22:07 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:13:42 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:08:28 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 05:03:37 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 05:01:37 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 30, 2015, 04:56:49 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on August 30, 2015, 03:53:13 PMQuote from: GAIUS DASSIUS B00TSAR on August 30, 2015, 12:49:00 PMDaily reminder that you people didn't vote for Strict moderation when you had the chance.if you report the post with 'Spoiler - Reason why (if it's not obvious)' then there are enough mods around to see it within a reasonable timeframe.If by reasonable you mean 10 minutes - 3 hours then sure. It's totally reasonable.You know it's not a full time job right?And that almost all of the staff actually have jobs/lives and the like?I'm just checking because you never know.Of course. That's why I proposed (earlier in the thread) that there should be more staff members to cover the people at work. That's pretty common sense if you ask me.Picking monitors is one thing, picking moderators is another.Entrusting someone with all of the information and tools that a mod gets given isn't something that should be done lightly.There is a finite number of users on here who would be suitable for the position and most of them are in the roles already. There are a few others that are worth considering but even so, we will never have enough moderators to provide round the clock coverage of every little thing that happens on here, that's just the way of the world.You're telling me, that out of 1028 total members (most of which aren't active I know) only 5 people are able to handle the enormous duty of moderating an internet forum. 1 of which is barely active anyway!Well you got me beat there Psy. if we can't fix the problem entirely why try to fix it at all?Considering most of them are dead accounts at this point, if we have an active userpool of around 150 users then that's a bit more of a realistic comparison.Minus the 10 people already on staff and you are down to 140.Then take away the shitposters, then discount the people who flamewar incessantly, then the drama vampires and you start to have a much smaller number of people who could do the job. And then an even smaller number of people who could do the job well.You would whittle that number down to 5? Only 5 people who are competent enough to handle an internet forum? Also if you seriously think 150 people is the user base then I can see why the ban and warning times are so small.Currently four, or five because DC is still a mod even though I think he's left given the length of the AFK now, is working acceptably. Well given the recent situation... that statement seems to be in question.In what way?As I recall the pictures were being edited out/deleted reasonably quickly considering most of the staff were busy at the time. Certainly none were left there for three hours.Or do you perhaps refer to how we haven't just shot gatsby for the nonexistant rule he didn't break?Because when I get five minutes I'm going to look over the rules thread and see if any of them fit the situation from another angle.I'll do it for you.Quote5. You Have No Rights. Play Nice.Well would ya look at that. Quote from: guts on August 29, 2015, 06:51:32 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 29, 2015, 06:46:45 PMQuote from: guts on August 29, 2015, 06:43:39 PMQuote from: TBlocks on August 29, 2015, 06:40:52 PMQuote from: guts on August 29, 2015, 06:36:46 PMboo hooDude seriously?they were bitching so much about LC supposedly spoiling the game i just had to do it. Yup. There was an extraterrestrial force pushing you towards the post button.there was no force making me doing anything, i could see how important the game is to them and i did it regardless because their rage would be entertainingWell that's incredibly helpful of you, could you point me to the enforceable part of the old bnet disclaimer?Where it says what kind of punishment that invokes?Or am I correct in thinking that bit is completely useless and is more a reference to where we came from in the first place?
Regarding Spoilers
