goemaw.com
General Discussion => Essentially Flyertalk => Topic started by: Dr Rick Daris on September 28, 2010, 09:39:52 PM
-
this place is sucking the last week or two. more than usual. i really started to notice it when this dump hit 1000 posters. should we "rewind" and just ban everybody who signed up after that and cap at 1000? :dunno:
-
i'm gonna make another rebel site bro. you'll probably wanna be checking your pm's in the next couple of days
-
by the way i've been saying that this place is THE EXACT SAME as gopo for like 2 months now
-
by the way i've been saying that this place is THE EXACT SAME as gopo for like 2 months now
really? i kind of imagined gopo being much, much worse. how long have you been a member?
-
by the way i've been saying that this place is THE EXACT SAME as gopo for like 2 months now
really? i kind of imagined gopo being much, much worse. how long have you been a member?
i'm not, so that makes me like triply qualified to make the comparo
-
What have we done to deserve this? :horrorsurprise:
-
:flush:
-
:flush:
:flush:
-
:users:
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.poopprank.com%2Fdog-poop-video%2Fdp7.jpg&hash=02e0c52d0df41c66ef084bb198520ef6eac9dfe5)
-
Remember when CNS Casey was one of the worst posters on here. Geez those were the days.
-
I know we've always had some crap posters, but man, that football board is damn near unreadable anymore. I mena, I'm cool with one crap poster (jtksu) because thats kinda his "thing" now, but this other crap is ridiculous.
Remember when CNS Casey was one of the worst posters on here. Geez those were the days.
I remember those days fondly
-
I am just about done with this crap. its sad but necessary: time to tie this ole dog to the tree and bash its head in...
-
I guess i can see why fff left. :frown:
-
we need someone K-Stateo related to die so that I can weed a bunch of these e-losers out of here.
-
Ya since Frank doesn't like us anymore we might as well just :goodbyecruelworld: this place
http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=6626.0 (http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=6626.0)
-
obvious answer is to shut down the FB board for a few days. being in a bye week, nothing will be missed. after a few days I bet a lot of the crap will forget about this joint.
-
all good things...
:flush:
-
look... guys, i'm sorry. i know i haven't been posting much, but theres no reason to start an entire thread about it. shits just been busy. its not you, its me.
-
Hey guys, great thread. I was just wondering what kind of propane works best in an outdoor grill? Keep on keepin' on! Chiefs 3-ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh!11!!!!!1
-
Hey guys, great thread. I was just wondering what kind of propane works best in an outdoor grill? Keep on keepin' on! Chiefs 3-ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh!11!!!!!1
Depends.
Chicken, steaks, burgers..........smokey mesquite
SW-Mexican............Zesty Chipotle
Asian bbq.................Spicy ginger
-
I am just about done with this crap. its sad but necessary: time to tie this ole dog to the tree and bash its head in...
:lol:
-
i read kstatefans the other day and it was better. quite a bit better, actually. it still totally sucked though.
-
The board has always sucked during football season.
-
The board has always sucked during football season.
I think the fact that we're doing okay also hurts the bbsing.
-
The board has always sucked during football season.
I think the fact that we're doing okay also hurts the bbsing.
You can't have it all. I would kill for shitty bbs'ing if it meant FB
and MBB were consistently elite.
-
I bet you're longing for the glory days of Pitt St. football. Must have been a lot of fun.
-
I think the philosophy of never banning anyone is a little misguided. It's adopted when people get upset about bannings occurring for what they take to be bad reasons. They overreact and decide that no one should ever be banned. But the banning itself wasn't what they really had an issue with. What they really had an issue with was the reason for the banning. So, the appropriate response is to get better reasons for banning. Here are a few examples of good reasons.
Posts like jt.
Is lame.
Reminds me of gpc/kstatefans.
Posts a lot on gpc/kstatefans.
Is on chum1 ban 'em list.
At this point, trying to PI yourself out of this mess is a losing battle. PI is for maintenance only. When you've got an infestation like this, you've got to get down and dirty. Just get rid of people you don't like regardless of when they joined.
-
I think the philosophy of never banning anyone is a little misguided. It's adopted when people get upset about bannings occurring for what they take to be bad reasons. They overreact and decide that no one should ever be banned. But the banning itself wasn't what they really had an issue with. What they really had an issue with was the reason for the banning. So, the appropriate response is to get better reasons for banning. Here are a few examples of good reasons.
Posts like jt.
Is lame.
Reminds me of gpc/kstatefans.
Posts a lot on gpc/kstatefans.
Is on chum1 ban 'em list.
At this point, trying to PI yourself out of this mess is a losing battle. PI is for maintenance only. When you've got an infestation like this, you've got to get down and dirty. Just get rid of people you don't like regardless of when they joined.
You may have something here.
I'm going to sleep on this....
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg694.imageshack.us%2Fimg694%2F3678%2Fviss.jpg&hash=b76e183bd846261914810f08e321e2173c7af66d)
-
If people were scared of being banned, maybe they wouldn't post "When's the NU game ... not soon enough." I'd just leave it to the mods, though, as opposed to votes from the community. Otherwise, you'll get outnumbered by the future shirt tucks.
Is this being built up too much? (Impossible, I say.)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg694.imageshack.us%2Fimg694%2F3678%2Fviss.jpg&hash=b76e183bd846261914810f08e321e2173c7af66d)
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg694.imageshack.us%2Fimg694%2F3678%2Fviss.jpg&hash=b76e183bd846261914810f08e321e2173c7af66d)
congrats fats, she's adorable.
-
ban the posters that suck?
just a thought.
-
If/when the administration decides to ban someone, can we have a countdown thread where everyone gets to hurl insults/fruit/stones at the condemned?
-
If/when the administration decides to ban someone, can we have a countdown thread where everyone gets to hurl insults/fruit/stones at the condemned?
the fruits/stones etc should be hurled regardless
-
Is this being built up too much? (Impossible, I say.)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg694.imageshack.us%2Fimg694%2F3678%2Fviss.jpg&hash=b76e183bd846261914810f08e321e2173c7af66d)
Wow, agree. Could be just what goEMAW needs to get itself out of the shithole it's dug itself into.
-
I think the philosophy of never banning anyone is a little misguided. It's adopted when people get upset about bannings occurring for what they take to be bad reasons. They overreact and decide that no one should ever be banned. But the banning itself wasn't what they really had an issue with. What they really had an issue with was the reason for the banning. So, the appropriate response is to get better reasons for banning. Here are a few examples of good reasons.
Posts like jt.
Is lame.
Reminds me of gpc/kstatefans.
Posts a lot on gpc/kstatefans.
Is on chum1 ban 'em list.
At this point, trying to PI yourself out of this mess is a losing battle. PI is for maintenance only. When you've got an infestation like this, you've got to get down and dirty. Just get rid of people you don't like regardless of when they joined.
i had this same epiphany around a month ago. i think it was actually discussed for a second or two during uclapak but can't remember. in hindsight, it might have been naive to think that simply PI'ing would be enough.
-
I think the philosophy of never banning anyone is a little misguided. It's adopted when people get upset about bannings occurring for what they take to be bad reasons. They overreact and decide that no one should ever be banned. But the banning itself wasn't what they really had an issue with. What they really had an issue with was the reason for the banning. So, the appropriate response is to get better reasons for banning. Here are a few examples of good reasons.
Posts like jt.
Is lame.
Reminds me of gpc/kstatefans.
Posts a lot on gpc/kstatefans.
Is on chum1 ban 'em list.
At this point, trying to PI yourself out of this mess is a losing battle. PI is for maintenance only. When you've got an infestation like this, you've got to get down and dirty. Just get rid of people you don't like regardless of when they joined.
i had this same epiphany around a month ago. i think it was actually discussed for a second or two during uclapak but can't remember. in hindsight, it might have been naive to think that simply PI'ing would be enough.
Man, I love a good witch hunt....this is really going to add some excitement to the site. :pbj:
-
I think the philosophy of never banning anyone is a little misguided. It's adopted when people get upset about bannings occurring for what they take to be bad reasons. They overreact and decide that no one should ever be banned. But the banning itself wasn't what they really had an issue with. What they really had an issue with was the reason for the banning. So, the appropriate response is to get better reasons for banning. Here are a few examples of good reasons.
Posts like jt.
Is lame.
Reminds me of gpc/kstatefans.
Posts a lot on gpc/kstatefans.
Is on chum1 ban 'em list.
At this point, trying to PI yourself out of this mess is a losing battle. PI is for maintenance only. When you've got an infestation like this, you've got to get down and dirty. Just get rid of people you don't like regardless of when they joined.
i had this same epiphany around a month ago. i think it was actually discussed for a second or two during uclapak but can't remember. in hindsight, it might have been naive to think that simply PI'ing would be enough.
Man, I love a good witch hunt....this is really going to add some excitement to the site. :pbj:
guess i'll just be lurking the next week or so. :ohno:
-
agree on the excitement. would also enhance image of exclusivity. that's gotta be good, right?
-
agree on the excitement. would also enhance image of exclusivity. that's gotta be good, right?
we could maybe nominate five people every week to get the boot and then kickoff the one with the most votes? :dunno:
-
agree on the excitement. would also enhance image of exclusivity. that's gotta be good, right?
we could maybe nominate five people every week to get the boot and then kickoff the one with the most votes? :dunno:
we could call it "Tribal Council" and have the 5 people who are on the chopping block vote off the person they want to leave "the island".
i vote for royalswild to leave the island.
-
agree on the excitement. would also enhance image of exclusivity. that's gotta be good, right?
we could maybe nominate five people every week to get the boot and then kickoff the one with the most votes? :dunno:
we could call it "Tribal Council" and have the 5 people who are on the chopping block vote off the person they want to leave "the island".
i vote for royalswild to leave the island.
we could nominate ten people and give them increasingly difficult math problems and the first person to get an incrrect answer has to leave.
"addition by subtraction" :lol:
-
agree on the excitement. would also enhance image of exclusivity. that's gotta be good, right?
we could maybe nominate five people every week to get the boot and then kickoff the one with the most votes? :dunno:
we could call it "Tribal Council" and have the 5 people who are on the chopping block vote off the person they want to leave "the island".
i vote for royalswild to leave the island.
we could nominate ten people and give them increasingly difficult math problems and the first person to get an incrrect answer has to leave.
"addition by subtraction" :lol:
that's a rough ridin' stupid idea. retract my nomi for royalswild, sub with (p)rick daris.
-
agree on the excitement. would also enhance image of exclusivity. that's gotta be good, right?
we could maybe nominate five people every week to get the boot and then kickoff the one with the most votes? :dunno:
we could call it "Tribal Council" and have the 5 people who are on the chopping block vote off the person they want to leave "the island".
i vote for royalswild to leave the island.
we could nominate ten people and give them increasingly difficult math problems and the first person to get an incrrect answer has to leave.
"addition by subtraction" :lol:
that's a fracking stupid idea. retract my nomi for royalswild, sub with (p)rick daris.
we could try to make this place better by getting rid of all genetic abnormality type people. ex-people with six fingers, three eyeballs, etc.
first group of people we target- freakish giants who have been genetically engineered to dislike cilantro. currently taking nominations.
-
OK, the verdict is in. We are doing the island vote off deal and the final 5 (as voted by the board in general) are:
chum
clams
rick daris
jtksu
clams
everyone PM me your votes and, once I have a majority of the registered votes tallied, I'll ban the hell out of the loser. GO!
-
things aren't looking good for rick daris!!! :horrorsurprise:
-
i want to vote for (p)rick daris, no pm needed.
-
Votes so far:
clams: 98
chum: 112
rick daris: 356
jtksu: 2
clams: 103
:users:
-
Votes so far:
clams: 98
chum: 112
rick daris: 356
jtksu: 2
clams: 103
:users:
given that there are two clams and chum is a clam sock, this is actually a close vote so far.
-
I vote OK_Cat. We can't have him around if we want to continue our tradition of being a bbs that is fun for the whole family
-
I think the philosophy of never banning anyone is a little misguided. It's adopted when people get upset about bannings occurring for what they take to be bad reasons. They overreact and decide that no one should ever be banned. But the banning itself wasn't what they really had an issue with. What they really had an issue with was the reason for the banning. So, the appropriate response is to get better reasons for banning. Here are a few examples of good reasons.
Posts like jt.
Is lame.
Reminds me of gpc/kstatefans.
Posts a lot on gpc/kstatefans.
Is on chum1 ban 'em list.
At this point, trying to PI yourself out of this mess is a losing battle. PI is for maintenance only. When you've got an infestation like this, you've got to get down and dirty. Just get rid of people you don't like regardless of when they joined.
i had this same epiphany around a month ago. i think it was actually discussed for a second or two during uclapak but can't remember. in hindsight, it might have been naive to think that simply PI'ing would be enough.
I like this idea. The Gawker sites use/have used something similar with their starred commenter system. Used to be you had to "audition" by making a few non-tard comments to get approved. Now there's an option where you can view only comments by starred (consistently quality) posters and comments those posters have replied to or promoted. (Is that something feasible with this board software?)
Every few months their "Comment Ninja" puts everyone on warning and goes through for a couple of days banning commenters who make tard posts. People get banned for: referencing lame memes, "First!", being stupid instead of funny, etc.
-
I think the philosophy of never banning anyone is a little misguided. It's adopted when people get upset about bannings occurring for what they take to be bad reasons. They overreact and decide that no one should ever be banned. But the banning itself wasn't what they really had an issue with. What they really had an issue with was the reason for the banning. So, the appropriate response is to get better reasons for banning. Here are a few examples of good reasons.
Posts like jt.
Is lame.
Reminds me of gpc/kstatefans.
Posts a lot on gpc/kstatefans.
Is on chum1 ban 'em list.
At this point, trying to PI yourself out of this mess is a losing battle. PI is for maintenance only. When you've got an infestation like this, you've got to get down and dirty. Just get rid of people you don't like regardless of when they joined.
i had this same epiphany around a month ago. i think it was actually discussed for a second or two during uclapak but can't remember. in hindsight, it might have been naive to think that simply PI'ing would be enough.
I like this idea. The Gawker sites use/have used something similar with their starred commenter system. Used to be you had to "audition" by making a few non-tard comments to get approved. Now there's an option where you can view only comments by starred (consistently quality) posters and comments those posters have replied to or promoted. (Is that something feasible with this board software?)
Every few months their "Comment Ninja" puts everyone on warning and goes through for a couple of days banning commenters who make tard posts. People get banned for: referencing lame memes, "First!", being stupid instead of funny, etc.
Do they have an arbitrary island vote off? If not, no thanks.
UPDATE:
clams: 571
chum: 784
rick daris: 21,242
jtksu: 2
clams: 953
-
OMFG, (p)rick daris leads the vote. sorry bud, go eat a sandwich and quench your sorrows bud, looks like the tribe has spoken.
:users:
-
Looks like the new posters on the football board are voting often.
-
I think the philosophy of never banning anyone is a little misguided. It's adopted when people get upset about bannings occurring for what they take to be bad reasons. They overreact and decide that no one should ever be banned. But the banning itself wasn't what they really had an issue with. What they really had an issue with was the reason for the banning. So, the appropriate response is to get better reasons for banning. Here are a few examples of good reasons.
Posts like jt.
Is lame.
Reminds me of gpc/kstatefans.
Posts a lot on gpc/kstatefans.
Is on chum1 ban 'em list.
At this point, trying to PI yourself out of this mess is a losing battle. PI is for maintenance only. When you've got an infestation like this, you've got to get down and dirty. Just get rid of people you don't like regardless of when they joined.
i had this same epiphany around a month ago. i think it was actually discussed for a second or two during uclapak but can't remember. in hindsight, it might have been naive to think that simply PI'ing would be enough.
I like this idea. The Gawker sites use/have used something similar with their starred commenter system. Used to be you had to "audition" by making a few non-tard comments to get approved. Now there's an option where you can view only comments by starred (consistently quality) posters and comments those posters have replied to or promoted. (Is that something feasible with this board software?)
Every few months their "Comment Ninja" puts everyone on warning and goes through for a couple of days banning commenters who make tard posts. People get banned for: referencing lame memes, "First!", being stupid instead of funny, etc.
Do they have an arbitrary island vote off? If not, no thanks.
UPDATE:
clams: 571
chum: 784
rick daris: 21,242
jtksu: 2
clams: 953
looks like a lot of squawks voting so far. let's hear from you now, kansas state fans!
-
I think the philosophy of never banning anyone is a little misguided. It's adopted when people get upset about bannings occurring for what they take to be bad reasons. They overreact and decide that no one should ever be banned. But the banning itself wasn't what they really had an issue with. What they really had an issue with was the reason for the banning. So, the appropriate response is to get better reasons for banning. Here are a few examples of good reasons.
Posts like jt.
Is lame.
Reminds me of gpc/kstatefans.
Posts a lot on gpc/kstatefans.
Is on chum1 ban 'em list.
At this point, trying to PI yourself out of this mess is a losing battle. PI is for maintenance only. When you've got an infestation like this, you've got to get down and dirty. Just get rid of people you don't like regardless of when they joined.
i had this same epiphany around a month ago. i think it was actually discussed for a second or two during uclapak but can't remember. in hindsight, it might have been naive to think that simply PI'ing would be enough.
I like this idea. The Gawker sites use/have used something similar with their starred commenter system. Used to be you had to "audition" by making a few non-tard comments to get approved. Now there's an option where you can view only comments by starred (consistently quality) posters and comments those posters have replied to or promoted. (Is that something feasible with this board software?)
Every few months their "Comment Ninja" puts everyone on warning and goes through for a couple of days banning commenters who make tard posts. People get banned for: referencing lame memes, "First!", being stupid instead of funny, etc.
Do they have an arbitrary island vote off? If not, no thanks.
UPDATE:
clams: 571
chum: 784
rick daris: 21,242
jtksu: 2
clams: 953
looks like a lot of squawks voting so far. let's hear from you now, kansas state fans!
go back to Tardville, n00b.
-
I think the philosophy of never banning anyone is a little misguided. It's adopted when people get upset about bannings occurring for what they take to be bad reasons. They overreact and decide that no one should ever be banned. But the banning itself wasn't what they really had an issue with. What they really had an issue with was the reason for the banning. So, the appropriate response is to get better reasons for banning. Here are a few examples of good reasons.
Posts like jt.
Is lame.
Reminds me of gpc/kstatefans.
Posts a lot on gpc/kstatefans.
Is on chum1 ban 'em list.
At this point, trying to PI yourself out of this mess is a losing battle. PI is for maintenance only. When you've got an infestation like this, you've got to get down and dirty. Just get rid of people you don't like regardless of when they joined.
i had this same epiphany around a month ago. i think it was actually discussed for a second or two during uclapak but can't remember. in hindsight, it might have been naive to think that simply PI'ing would be enough.
I like this idea. The Gawker sites use/have used something similar with their starred commenter system. Used to be you had to "audition" by making a few non-tard comments to get approved. Now there's an option where you can view only comments by starred (consistently quality) posters and comments those posters have replied to or promoted. (Is that something feasible with this board software?)
Every few months their "Comment Ninja" puts everyone on warning and goes through for a couple of days banning commenters who make tard posts. People get banned for: referencing lame memes, "First!", being stupid instead of funny, etc.
Do they have an arbitrary island vote off? If not, no thanks.
UPDATE:
clams: 571
chum: 784
rick daris: 21,242
jtksu: 2
clams: 953
looks like a lot of squawks voting so far. let's hear from you now, kansas state fans!
go back to Tardville, n00b.
uh oh. looks like this thing was too confusing for most of the folks around here. i've been sifting through pms since this voting started and all of them are from people saying that they voted for me and hope that i win. it seems like people are voting for who should stay or who they think is the best. we better ratchet this thing down for the time being and then start a new poll when we get the "kinks" worked out.
-
:users:
-
Hell, I would ban almost everybody, including over half of the so-called mods around here.
-
Hell, I would ban almost everybody, including over half of the so-called mods around here.
chings voted for clams fwiw
-
so, just so we're all on the same page...it looks like i'll go ahead and meet with everyone privately over the next week and we'll "hammer" out something better than this convoluted, poorly thought out/executed nomination and voting process that seemed to only confuse the masses. live and learn on this one guys.
-
I bet over 200 of our members are spambots. Just a "fwiw" from IchabodCat.
-
I bet over 200 of our members are spambots. Just a "fwiw" from IchabodCat.
saul voted for rick daris
-
Well let's just do this then.
rd is BANNED
-
Well let's just do this then.
rd is BANNED
good luck here. seems like somebody is forgetting whos sister is married to bsac. you guys could never pull it off even if you wanted to.
-
Rick Daris is evading our BAN's. eff. Will have to "IP Ban" him.
-
whoever took away my ability to mod and see the secret board better change it back before the end of the day. completely serious.
-
I bet over 200 of our members are spambots. Just a "fwiw" from IchabodCat.
those are our best posters.
-
:users:
-
Kinda thinking about having Kobach sue this board b/c my vote didn't count
-
i thought we were voting on who was bringing rice krispies to school tomorrow. :dunno:
-
Connection Problems
Sorry, SMF was unable to connect to the database. This may be caused by the server being busy. Please try again later.
JFC, guys! Was that a warning shot?????????
-
RD sock?
http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=6684.0 (http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=6684.0)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.websmileys.com%2Fsm%2Fanimal%2F460.gif&hash=67140947365f5aa3db928caddec3d5d4ba6161f3)
-
Wow. This is getting pretty ugly. I just received my second death threat of the week.
-
Hell, I would ban almost everybody, including over half of the so-called mods around here.
I know youre mad that some people dont like your made up polls Chings, but you cant go around banning everyone
-
Randomly pick a time today and ban everyone on the FB board = 99.9% of mess cleaned up.
-
Who let OK_Cat vote twice?
-
Wow. This is getting pretty ugly. I just received my second death threat of the week.
[/quote
Did they mention how they were going to do it? :ohno: (ftp://:ohno:)