This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Mr. Psychologist
Pages: 1 ... 214215216 217218 ... 569
6451
« on: August 30, 2015, 07:26:52 PM »
And the point of this topic is
Parodying a post I made either last night or this morning which was to the effect of the above. I don't really remember when/where/why though.
6452
« on: August 30, 2015, 07:11:41 PM »
oh
6453
« on: August 30, 2015, 06:55:53 PM »
Given that I've just smacked someone for derailing, it seems amusing that people are so INTENT ON DOING IN HERE RIGHT UNDER MY NOSE.
Can we not, please, gentlemen.
6454
« on: August 30, 2015, 06:42:04 PM »
Good Good, I'm glad this was resolved somewhat satisfactorily <.<
6455
« on: August 30, 2015, 06:31:39 PM »
In plain english though, upon reviewing the rules and the like - despite icy not including the right section of part of it (GG) regarding reposting content that has been removed the following has been applied to him
-Derailing -Reposting deleted images
The latter might be unfamiliar because it's a relatively recent addition to the ruleset, maybe a month or so ago. Basically it just means don't repost shit we've cleaned up.
The spoiler rules add-on should be rolled out tonight, depending on whether Icy gets time to do it when he gets home. But hopefully that somewhat resolves the issue.
I'm sure people will want to see more, and I do sympathise to some extent because you can't exactly unspoil something once it's been spoiled but I think this is the best way to approach it from a neutral standpoint (my position on the matter) because retroactive bans isn't a thing as I've said but he's been hit for the rules he did break last night all the same.
So yeah, uh... questions I guess? Or if people are somewhat happy then that's also good.
I'm not under the illusion that this is going to make it all flowers and rainbows but yeah, this is what'll happen for now.
6456
« on: August 30, 2015, 06:24:42 PM »
GATSBY BEAT THE CASE
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
Well he beat the civil suit but the sharia court has found him guilty on two counts of being a sunni kuffir Bas-Tud.
6457
« on: August 30, 2015, 06:04:10 PM »
i'm just saying--i don't think this needed to be a 400 reply thread
we've overcomplicated such a simple issue--we're such a bureaucracy
It probably didn't but I think the first 10 pages or so were erm, complaint airing. I kinda just skipped them <.<
The twirling of the red tape began on page 3, when icy started posting--and exhibited a highly difficult, uncooperative, and obtuse demeanor, unconducive to anything that could rationally be considered justice or even progress. At least until LC showed up--but he's basically just Icy with power.
Ah well, I guess I didn't miss too much then. Well despite the red tape, we do have a workable thread/plan in HQ at present and I think it will be rolled out shortly. I'm going to look at the rules now, see if anything fits in a reasonable manner. I mean, I get that people want to see him hang for being a dick but at the same time it has to be somewhat proportionate. If we had the spoiler rules in effect, yeah that'd be a battering but without them it's down to the more mundane sections. Like escaping murder charges and going into manslaughter etc.
6458
« on: August 30, 2015, 06:01:27 PM »
Can you Africans stop notifying me?
oh
Alright I shall, I ought to go and look at the rules anyway. See if there is a boot that fits.
I'll tell you where I'll fit, boy.
oh
6459
« on: August 30, 2015, 05:49:35 PM »
Can you Africans stop notifying me?
oh Alright I shall, I ought to go and look at the rules anyway. See if there is a boot that fits.
6460
« on: August 30, 2015, 05:48:53 PM »
Daily 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.
5. You Have No Rights. Play Nice. Well would ya look at that.
boo hoo
Dude 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
Well 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?
Strange that you would put that in the official rules then.
Yeah I know, it's really weird how we put little bits of humour into things on the site. I can't imagine why we wouldn't be 110% serious all the time, I mean I sure do love having a telephone pole as a second spine.
6461
« on: August 30, 2015, 05:46:44 PM »
Guys, pls.
I'm itching to shoot something so let's hope it's enemies in a video game and not folks on the forum <_<
Reported to the FBI for potential terrorist threats
I've been on their watchlist since I first read the quran, I don't think your reporting of me will do much.
6462
« on: August 30, 2015, 05:45:13 PM »
Daily 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.
5. You Have No Rights. Play Nice. Well would ya look at that.
boo hoo
Dude 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
Well 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?
6463
« on: August 30, 2015, 05:40:47 PM »
i'm just saying--i don't think this needed to be a 400 reply thread
we've overcomplicated such a simple issue--we're such a bureaucracy
It probably didn't but I think the first 10 pages or so were erm, complaint airing. I kinda just skipped them <.<
6464
« on: August 30, 2015, 05:38:38 PM »
Daily 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.
6465
« on: August 30, 2015, 05:35:58 PM »
Lock Requested, I can't imagine why.
6466
« on: August 30, 2015, 05:35:12 PM »
Guys, pls.
I'm itching to shoot something so let's hope it's enemies in a video game and not folks on the forum <_<
U N T O U C H A B L E
Do you really think meta just went on holiday and left serious like that?
6467
« on: August 30, 2015, 05:32:22 PM »
And then an even smaller number of people who could do the job well. you already mentioned the people who are already on staff
True, I mean I'm sure my opinion might be a bit biased but on the whole I think most of the mods/staff do a good job and none really throw up any warning lights. There were a few issues with some former staff but that saga doesn't really need digging over. Even so, there are certainly a few users on here that are either close enough to be worth giving a shot or need a bit of shaping to be mod material so we do keep our eyes peeled for fresh meat even when there isn't an announcement going on <.< Edit for the edit, I guess I should have seen that coming but anyway. My points still stand in my view, you are of course free to disagree.
6468
« on: August 30, 2015, 05:28:44 PM »
Daily 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.
How many moderators did Bnet have? For how many thousands of users? The userbase is small, relatively speaking, but it's consistent on the whole. If we had a surge of new users, we'd get more moderators. 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. We might bump another one up in the near future but we just took in two new monitors so we need to make sure that goes fine before we add any more in.
6469
« on: August 30, 2015, 05:26:23 PM »
Guys, pls.
I'm itching to shoot something so let's hope it's enemies in a video game and not folks on the forum <_<
6470
« on: August 30, 2015, 05:22:07 PM »
Daily 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.
6471
« on: August 30, 2015, 05:17:22 PM »
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.
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.
I'm saying he's not going to be hit with the new spoiler rules, that doesn't mean there aren't any other categories it might fall under. Because of the excessive focus on spoilers, I don't think anyone has actually looked into if there are any other sections that would apply here.
6472
« on: August 30, 2015, 05:15:48 PM »
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
Uhuh and maybe it's because I'm a little tired right now, but I'm not seeing the relevance of this. Of course everyone should stick to the rules, the reason we are moderators is because they don't all do so. And that disclaimer is standard shite really, we have never nor are we likely to ever just up and lynch someone from the forums because it's such an absurdly shitty way to manage a community that it would probably kill off the site overnight. 'Oh hey, don't mind that guy he just died because the staff didn't like him' 'Boy I sure do feel safe on this forum' etc
6473
« on: August 30, 2015, 05:08:28 PM »
Daily 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.
6474
« on: August 30, 2015, 05:05:40 PM »
Retroactive Punishments have never been a thing, nor will they be.
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.
Goots found a loophole, we're closing it/have closed it. If it happens again then whoever does it is in line for whatever punishment is finalised.
6475
« on: August 30, 2015, 05:01:37 PM »
Daily 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.
6476
« on: August 30, 2015, 04:18:17 PM »
Unrelated to this completely but there is a logo change inbound soon
Who asked for it and why do we need it?
Spoiler I know the answers are "no one" and "we don't", but I'm curious all the same
Well as soon as I find someone with photoshop to stick a swastika in the middle of the O then we are good e.e (It's a joke)
6477
« on: August 30, 2015, 03:53:53 PM »
I don't get it
You can't answer the riddle because there is no answer, so the only correct answers are either 'no, I can't' or 'God' because god can do anything.
The final line of the riddle asks if you can guess at the answer. Anyone can make a guess, so yes is also the answer.
no
6478
« on: August 30, 2015, 03:53:13 PM »
Daily reminder that you people didn't vote for Strict moderation when you had the chance.
Unrelated to this completely but there is a logo change inbound soon and martial law is also likely to be implemented for the greater good. /Sieg Heiling +++ Whilst a unique position is unlikely to be made for this, there is no reason why the posts containing spoilers cannot be reported via the normal functions, 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. With the new Spoiler rules being implemented fairly soon, this should at least solve that problem/close the loophole.
6479
« on: August 30, 2015, 03:46:35 PM »
I don't get it
You can't answer the riddle because there is no answer, so the only correct answers are either 'no, I can't' or 'God' because god can do anything.
6480
« on: August 30, 2015, 03:44:10 PM »
I haven't been drinking, it's just been a long day at work and I forgot I posted ITT already.
GG
Pages: 1 ... 214215216 217218 ... 569
|