so like,

[Pittcat]

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.

[jtksu]

I bet you're longing for the glory days of Pitt St. football.  Must have been a lot of fun.

[chum1]

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.

[Pete]

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....

[fatty fat fat]

[chum1]

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.)

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

congrats fats, she's adorable.

[cas4ksu]

ban the posters that suck?

just a thought.

[bubbles4ksu]

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?

[pissclams]

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

[steve dave]

Is this being built up too much?  (Impossible, I say.)

Wow, agree.  Could be just what goEMAW needs to get itself out of the shithole it's dug itself into.

[Dr Rick Daris]

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.

[Pete]

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.   

[WillieWatanabe]

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.   

guess i'll just be lurking the next week or so.

[chum1]

agree on the excitement. would also enhance image of exclusivity. that's gotta be good, right?

[Dr 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? 

[pissclams]

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? 

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.

[Dr 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? 

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" 

[pissclams]

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? 

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" 

that's a rough ridin' stupid idea.  retract my nomi for royalswild, sub with (p)rick daris.

[Dr 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? 

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" 

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. 

[steve dave]

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!

[OK_Cat]

things aren't looking good for rick daris!!!   

[pissclams]

i want to vote for (p)rick daris, no pm needed. 

[steve dave]

Votes so far:

clams:  98
chum:  112
rick daris:  356
jtksu:  2
clams:  103

 

[Dr Rick Daris]

Votes so far:

clams:  98
chum:  112
rick daris:  356
jtksu:  2
clams:  103

 

given that there are two clams and chum is a clam sock, this is actually a close vote so far.