Log in

View Full Version : Back in my day...


Erasmus
May 2nd, 2009, 11:25 AM
Back in my day all these was fields, son!

Well, that's not strictly true.

Back in my day (circa. 2006) this forum was a bustling hive of debate, with awesome, sexy people exchanging views and pronouncements and making the pretty cool feel merely slightly above average.

Then a plague struck.

The Ministers, a benevolent council of men and women in robes and sporting long, flowing beards (which looked pretty strange on the women, but that's political correctness for you) turned EVIL. Corrupted by elitism and their decedent private forum, they began allowing evil and cretinous members access to the sanctum sanctorum of this proud Internet edifice.

These were the dark days. Corrupted by their power, and deformed of mind and body, admins and mods left, ne'er to return, or fought private, bloody battles over the skies of the forums! Blood rained from the heavens, like rain made of blood! Mod decisions, lacking backing from admins, were reversed; the super-admins, like the Roman Titans chased hence by their Godly children, fled the flames and wreckage.

As the clever and fantastic forumites ran from a world ravaged by stupidity, their place was taken by the hordes of cretinous, angry Interneteers who had been kept at bay by careful moderating. And, y'know, standards. Angry teenage atheists, whose entire anti-religious argument consisted of the words "JESUS WOZ A FAG", flooded the boards, and burnt what credibility the forums had left. Forced from our niche, the last of the old guard fled before the evil doers.

But I have returned now! Perhaps things have reached stability, and maybe some of the dribbling retards have been driven from this land. Maybe the mods are more interested in keeping the peace than countermanding each other at every turn. Maybe Ministers are no longer elitist gibbons, and finally have something relevant to do or say. And thus I will reintroduce myself...


hey guyz im erasmus watz goin on in dis forum?! 2006 team REPRESENT!! lOl !! :D :D :)

Will.
May 2nd, 2009, 11:37 AM
Back in my day, the only thread you talked about was "NOT SO FAST YOUNG MAN, I just bought those pants for you yesterday, and look, a loose thread."

Soo.... Yeah.

Erasmus
May 2nd, 2009, 11:42 AM
Don't you sass me, young man!

Do you know how painful a zimmer frame to the head is? Pretty fucking painful.

Will.
May 2nd, 2009, 02:58 PM
Woah now, better than cuttin a thatch.

sudikics
May 2nd, 2009, 04:05 PM
*is mucho confused*

Er, hi Erasmus!

Will.
May 2nd, 2009, 04:19 PM
O.o Never had to cut yer own piece o willow' eh?

strategist01
May 2nd, 2009, 06:24 PM
Hello. pleased to meet you. I am also new here, so it actually is like a new introduction. *waves* :)

Tsar Phalanxia
May 2nd, 2009, 07:41 PM
Hai Erasmus. Wb. Although our chat channel did go down a few weeks ago.

The Good Reverend Roger
May 2nd, 2009, 07:49 PM
The Ministers, a benevolent council of men and women in robes and sporting long, flowing beards (which looked pretty strange on the women, but that's political correctness for you) turned EVIL. Corrupted by elitism and their decedent private forum, they began allowing evil and cretinous members access to the sanctum sanctorum of this proud Internet edifice.


We fixed that shit for you.

Tsar Phalanxia
May 2nd, 2009, 07:54 PM
Oh yeah, and the forum is still as messed up as ever. Just so you know.

Erasmus
May 2nd, 2009, 07:59 PM
Hai Erasmus. Wb. Although our chat channel did go down a few weeks ago.

Nope, the channel still exists, the JAVA client that was hosted on this site has disappeared. Which is a bit annoying since it took me ages to put it there and stuff BUT OH WELL I'M SURE THE CURRENT ADMINS KNOW BEST.

http://webchat.quakenet.org/ << Click this, enter a nickname in the nickname box, put #googlism in the channels box, click connect and chat like a mofo.

EDIT: Yeah, I see the forums are still fucked. Oh well, they're at least better than they were.

rmw
May 2nd, 2009, 09:31 PM
Meh. With the exception of one really obnoxious troll, they're not too bad. I've been to worse.

DrM
May 2nd, 2009, 09:31 PM
IM glad we have more people willing to help fix up the forums. They are messed up. But we are working on it. Its actually a lot better than it looks.

Erasmus
May 2nd, 2009, 09:43 PM
IM glad we have more people willing to help fix up the forums. They are messed up. But we are working on it. Its actually a lot better than it looks.

Really?

I see at least two members whose only posts seem to be trolling or troll-bait, and they're allowed to run unchecked, arguments and naysaying between mods (which anyone who actually understands how moderating is meant to work will tell you is idiotic, mods need to back each other up in public and disagree in private, you never reverse another mod's decisions, if he isn't qualified to make them he wouldn't be a mod), adult material on an ostensibly 13+ site, absolutely no debates; just a few angry, petty arguments with more profanity than thought, hundreds of posts and threads with inane or pointless subject matter which will stop anyone seriously interested in the site joining up or contributing, and a volume of flaming and hate-mongering in the guest area that would make a white-supremacist forum admin feel embarrassed.

Seriously now, if it weren't for the memory of how great this forum used to be, and the slim chance it might return to that, I would be goned'd. Hurry up with that fixing, would you?

Tsar Phalanxia
May 2nd, 2009, 11:41 PM
Really?

I see at least two members whose only posts seem to be trolling or troll-bait, and they're allowed to run unchecked, arguments and naysaying between mods (which anyone who actually understands how moderating is meant to work will tell you is idiotic, mods need to back each other up in public and disagree in private, you never reverse another mod's decisions, if he isn't qualified to make them he wouldn't be a mod), adult material on an ostensibly 13+ site, absolutely no debates; just a few angry, petty arguments with more profanity than thought, hundreds of posts and threads with inane or pointless subject matter which will stop anyone seriously interested in the site joining up or contributing, and a volume of flaming and hate-mongering in the guest area that would make a white-supremacist forum admin feel embarrassed.

Seriously now, if it weren't for the memory of how great this forum used to be, and the slim chance it might return to that, I would be goned'd. Hurry up with that fixing, would you?
OMG OMG OMG THIS

Daruko
May 3rd, 2009, 12:06 AM
OOH! I know! How about MOAR RULES? Like an infraction system, maybe?

Nah, j/k. I think it'd be sweet to disable the guest posting temporarily. That would make the "new posts" function much more useful.

DrM
May 3rd, 2009, 01:39 AM
Really?

I see at least two members whose only posts seem to be trolling or troll-bait, and they're allowed to run unchecked, arguments and naysaying between mods (which anyone who actually understands how moderating is meant to work will tell you is idiotic, mods need to back each other up in public and disagree in private, you never reverse another mod's decisions, if he isn't qualified to make them he wouldn't be a mod), adult material on an ostensibly 13+ site, absolutely no debates; just a few angry, petty arguments with more profanity than thought, hundreds of posts and threads with inane or pointless subject matter which will stop anyone seriously interested in the site joining up or contributing, and a volume of flaming and hate-mongering in the guest area that would make a white-supremacist forum admin feel embarrassed.

Seriously now, if it weren't for the memory of how great this forum used to be, and the slim chance it might return to that, I would be goned'd. Hurry up with that fixing, would you?


We do have a troll problem correct.
The modding is not coordinated correct.
The adult material should be ousted correct.
we do have debates. Look at the serious discussion, there are a few that were not derailed, and they are just about all that i pay attention to. It was to that which i was refering to. Seriously, if you just ignore everything else, then the forum is pretty nice.
The guest area is messed up correct.

So yes you are correct that this forum is gonna take a lot more work (an understatement), but there is at least a part of it that is ok. Of which i am glad. Im not a mod and im pretty new so i cant change a lot of the stuff, but i agree with you that stuff should be changed.

Erasmus
May 3rd, 2009, 01:44 AM
The infraction system is laughably insane. Like a puppy that spins in circles trying to eat its own tail, it doesn't achieve anything at all but it's quite fun to watch.

Hey Rimmer, I can still view the Ministers forum, I assume I can post there too but I haven't tried yet.

Loki
May 3rd, 2009, 02:12 AM
My fault I suppose. I'm a crap admin who never wanted the job in the first place.

I'd just hate the idea that CoG turns into another atheist back-slapping frotteur haven.

And to be frank - I'm sick to fucking death of the pseudo-intellectual children who think a few years of school puts them in a position to criticise ( in a fuck off kind of way) the opinions of others.

Anyone want the job? Other than scikidus.

Erasmus
May 3rd, 2009, 02:28 AM
Did I just accidently start major forum drama? I'd take that job, at least for the time until I get back to work in a few weeks. But shouldn't you ask Method_X?

sudikics
May 3rd, 2009, 02:28 AM
My fault I suppose. I'm a crap admin who never wanted the job in the first place.

I'd just hate the idea that CoG turns into another atheist back-slapping frotteur haven.

And to be frank - I'm sick to fucking death of the pseudo-intellectual children who think a few years of school puts them in a position to criticise ( in a fuck off kind of way) the opinions of others.

Anyone want the job? Other than scikidus.
Dammit! You had me tagging along until the very end. :icon_lol:

Well, this forum's fucked. Can anyone give me some good reasons why I shouldn't skedaddle? Keep in mind the "things will get better" argument doesn't really apply, since things have not improved since September, when we starting saying that things would improve.

Really, the only reason I hang out here anymore is because of people who make insightful comments. I suppose it wouldn't be too difficult to just take those people's IM info and head over to a functioning forum.

To make everyone feel worse:
1. The owner of this website is actually Zaphod Beeblebrox, President of the Galaxy, explaining why he spends more time partying in exotic locations than even checking this website.

2. As quoted above, the sole remaining admin never wanted this job, and doesn't want it anymore.

3. Ever since our "little" PD problem back in September, this forum has been essentially unmoderated. Any forms of normal moderation beyond spam and porn removal have been treated as hostilites, despite the obvious point that such moderation is minimal on every other self-respecting board online.

4. A specific case of #3 is the massive derailing of this forum's purpose to sexuality. The idea of a "mod-free forum" has been abused.

5. Loki: right now I'd rather have militant atheists than no one at all. Actually, forget atheism: let's bring in anyone, anyone, with a differing opinion. Yuiel and Al Farabi have had some philisophical debates, and rzm has his own views on abortion, but we're all in agreement here. This forum used to thrive on reactions from people too closed-minded and sheltered in their world-views. Now we sit and tiddle our thumbs idlely, waiting for customers who aren't goign to come.

6. Have I brought before that the main page has nto been updated in 14.5 months? I have? OK then.
But shouldn't you ask Method_X?
Who?

Daruko
May 3rd, 2009, 03:09 AM
Give it to Tag or Sis or another semi-sane regular, or just hang on Loki. Take a break.

Daruko
May 3rd, 2009, 06:05 AM
Just to recommend it one moar time: Cut off guest posting for a bit. Telling ya. That'll help.

DrM
May 3rd, 2009, 08:19 AM
I think that like skicky said, Zaphod needs to step down or become more active, we need an additional or replacement admin, we should reform the main page, the unmoderated forums should be canceled for now, guest posting should be removed for now (or extremely limited), and the explicit content needs to be removed and destroyed every time. When poeple complain about such changes to their posts and forums, (like the pillow-biters thread) they should be ignored, giving them sympathy or even discussing it is what they want. As for the trolls, when they realize that the shit they post is being removed, and everything else they post is being ignored, they will get bored and leave.

Dr Goofy Mofo
May 3rd, 2009, 08:33 AM
Man this site is a sin wave of stupidity and debate. The ministers are no longer elite just there really. The site fights all the time, I leave for a week and I think things got worse. I sometimes wish there was a reboot button.

Give it to Tag or Sis or another semi-sane regular, or just hang on Loki. Take a break.

:( I see how it is.

DrM
May 3rd, 2009, 08:57 AM
Doc gets my vote.

fomenter
May 3rd, 2009, 09:04 AM
Doc gets my vote.
he gets my vote too
and tag is ok

Erasmus
May 3rd, 2009, 11:01 AM
the unmoderated forums should be canceled for now, guest posting should be removed for now (or extremely limited)

No no no, unmoderated forums are good. They just can't really be unmoderated, because trusting person x on the Internet to be responsible for their own actions is akin to giving a dangerous psychiatric patient a large hammer and putting him in charge of an orphanage.

The thing about 'unmoderated' forums is they allow a place for all the stupider threads to be kept in one place, out of the way. You just need the standard base rules (No adult material, no abuse, etc.)

Guest posting is a nice idea, but then perhaps the psychiatric patient mentioned above seems like a really nice guy, but now he's asking for a box of matches. With the best of intentions, it's all going to end in tears.

The infraction system needs to go, not sure if anyone here knows vB well enough to remove it, but it shouldn't be hard. Rules should be enforced, there's no need to let rule-breakers keep score, since that's all the infraction system is, a scorecard. If someone breaks a rule, warn then short ban then long ban then permanent ban, do not arbitrarily increment a number he's never going to look at.

Does anyone have the FTP password these days? I don't think it's been around since the days of Alice Shade, though in those heady days I was given leave to use it to update the main pages. Turned out this was sacrilege and everything got rolled back pretty swiftly, but oh well. Just to give you an idea of the stagnation here, the additional proof that I submitted way back when I joined, which was going to be added "as soon as possible", is still hiding away, and the "promote us" page, which was (apparently) in the process of being updated at that same time, never changed.

I feel like we're going 'round in circles. I was making these exact same complaints before anyone who has posted in this thread so far was even a member, that is how long the problems have been going for. I wonder if anyone will do anything this time... but yeah, here's a quote of my two-and-a-half year old complaint, since I can't be bothered to paraphrase it for the ninetieth time.

I'm worried about the direction the site, and subsequently the forum, is taking. We've been without an update to the site for a long time, and the forum seems to be deteriorating quite rapidly in Matt's absence. He doesn't seem to be reachable through PM or email. If the website isn't updated then the site gets less traffic, and if the site gets less traffic the forum gets no new members.

It's no surprise that only one of the top ten posters isn't a minister. For a forum that used to thrive on debate we're going straight down hill, with only our own team represented by all the active members. There are fewer proper debates

Apart from that the site should be updated to reflect debate on the forum. For instance in this thread: http://thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=864&start=0 it was debated that the first and second proofs on the site are inaccurate, and they should be edited to make them right again, otherwise we're just stagnating.

If Matt is too busy to update the site, and that's fair enough, could he not split the burden a bit? I can't ask him in person as I can't contact him, and if any of you can contact him directly I would ask you to, not on my behalf, but on the COG's, to perhaps allow some of the 'senior' members of the forum a chance to edit the main site, at least as a reversible trial.

On the forum my concerns are more in the moderating field. The system now is effective but inefficient. Threads like Let's Troll a Christian Forum! (http://thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=840&start=0) are being allowed to continue, even though it's in direct opposition to some of our rules.

[quote]The Church of Google believes we should be tolerant of everyone's beliefs

Trolling means to post in an inflammatory manner in order to elicit a reaction. The thread is a call to arms against a Christian forum, and should have been stopped immediately. Debate on a forum that welcomes debate is fine, but invasion is not.

And after several posts like this, sexydream still isn't banned:





mmm... lovely spam.

It's not that the mod team is being lax (spambots are taken care of in good time) but there just aren't enough of them.

4 mods for a forum this size, with 3 of them being admins is insane. (Note, I may be wrong about the number of admins there)

For a forum this size (14 forums, >600 members) you need, say, 2 admins for banning, and a single moderator for each subforum, or possibly 2 for the popular ones (barring Church News, Suggestion/Idea Box, Religious Jokes & Other Humour and I'm Feeling Unlucky, as they're unmoderated or don't get posted in enough)

We've got more than enough ministers for this, and it would cut down on spam, trolling, and it would get rid of spambots faster. Apart from that it would take the strain of moderating every single forum off the admins. Global moderating just isn't a good system, and most forums don't use it so excessively.

So, rant over.

These are just my suggestions, I just think that if we take such action now we could improve things. Plus, at this early stage in the forum's life it's easy enough to test a new system and remove it if it doesn't work well.

Well, the mod problem has changed somewhat, we no long longer have enough members to justify a big mod team, and the problems arise not from too few moderators, more a difference of ideals and an unwillingness to moderate.

But will anyone make a change this time around? My breath, she is baited!

Tsar Phalanxia
May 3rd, 2009, 02:44 PM
I'd just hate the idea that CoG turns into another atheist back-slapping frotteur haven.

Hey, I don't want that either. However, the state we're in at the moment is hardly better.


And to be frank - I'm sick to fucking death of the pseudo-intellectual children who think a few years of school puts them in a position to criticise ( in a fuck off kind of way) the opinions of others..
Loki, I might disagree with you on how the site should be run, but I've never criticised you personally. You're a great guy, and you add a lot to the forum. I just disagree with you on how the forum should be run.

Anyone want the job? Other than scikidus.
I guess you also meant me as well. FH or Geoff would be great, but the mess we're in has scared them off :\

Did I just accidently start major forum drama? I'd take that job, at least for the time until I get back to work in a few weeks. But shouldn't you ask Method_X?
No, this has been a long time coming. You were just a catalyst.

Well, this forum's fucked. Can anyone give me some good reasons why I shouldn't skedaddle? Keep in mind the "things will get better" argument doesn't really apply, since things have not improved since September, when we starting saying that things would improve.

Well, they didn't improve because we didn't do anything. We just sat it out, without actually sorting out the problems we have.


3. Ever since our "little" PD problem back in September, this forum has been essentially unmoderated. Any forms of normal moderation beyond spam and porn removal have been treated as hostilites, despite the obvious point that such moderation is minimal on every other self-respecting board online.

Well why is that? And if that's the cause of our problem, it wouldn't be too hard to enforce it.


4. A specific case of #3 is the massive derailing of this forum's purpose to sexuality. The idea of a "mod-free forum" has been abused.

Exactly. Nowhere in the proofs of Googlism does it mention genitalia.


5. Loki: right now I'd rather have militant atheists than no one at all. Actually, forget atheism: let's bring in anyone, anyone, with a differing opinion. Yuiel and Al Farabi have had some philisophical debates, and rzm has his own views on abortion, but we're all in agreement here. This forum used to thrive on reactions from people too closed-minded and sheltered in their world-views. Now we sit and tiddle our thumbs idlely, waiting for customers who aren't goign to come.

The key to getting more people in is going to be through raising awareness. DrM's proposal of the Colbert show was brilliant, but Colbert, or any other semi-professional organisation isnt going to come near this place in the state it is now.

6. Have I brought before that the main page has nto been updated in 14.5 months? I have? OK then.

Well, what should we update it with?
Man this site is a sin wave of stupidity and debate. The ministers are no longer elite just there really. The site fights all the time, I leave for a week and I think things got worse. I sometimes wish there was a reboot button.



:( I see how it is.
I know. I don't like it either. I don't wanna see the CoG die.

rmw
May 3rd, 2009, 03:57 PM
Tsar, I think Goofy was referring to the fact that Daruko didn't mention his name as possible admin.

Daruko
May 3rd, 2009, 04:18 PM
I see how it is
Oh, sorry Goofy. I considered you implied by the second part. I would absolutely endorse you as an admin.
what should we update it with
There are quite enough creative people to start producing new material on this site. Wait until after finals, and that's where I'll be devoting most of my effort on this forum.

Tsar Phalanxia
May 3rd, 2009, 04:29 PM
Tsar, I think Goofy was referring to the fact that Daruko didn't mention his name as possible admin.
Oh. I was thinking that Erasmus would make a good admin, since he/she is unbiased, responsible and already a minister.

There are quite enough creative people to start producing new material on this site. Wait until after finals, and that's where I'll be devoting most of my effort on this forum.
Any brainwaves already?

Erasmus
May 3rd, 2009, 04:34 PM
I might still have the changes I made, which were rolled back.

Really I only updated a couple of the proofs that were having the same few (valid) arguments thrown against them repeatedly, and corrected the few spelling and grammar issues, but it's a start!

Adding things to the 'propoganda' page is pretty simple also, but this does rely on an FTP password none of us have, doesn't it?

Daruko
May 3rd, 2009, 04:36 PM
Oh. I was thinking that Erasmus would make a good admin, since he/she is unbiased, responsible and already a minister.

Any brainwaves already?
Sorta kinda, yeah. But we need to frame some good starting point ideas and get everyone in on it together, so we can all have creative input. I'd really like to see us get more organized, and I think it's definitely possible. I just got a new part-time job, have finals, moved into new house, etc. Gimme two weeks or less and I'll give your brainwaves something to bounce off of.

Dr Goofy Mofo
May 3rd, 2009, 05:03 PM
I might still have the changes I made, which were rolled back.

Really I only updated a couple of the proofs that were having the same few (valid) arguments thrown against them repeatedly, and corrected the few spelling and grammar issues, but it's a start!

Adding things to the 'propoganda' page is pretty simple also, but this does rely on an FTP password none of us have, doesn't it?

Yup no one has it. If we were to rebuild this site it would take that and a strategic plan that would be formed by active members as to what they wish this site to be, with approval of Matt IMO because he pays are bills.

fomenter
May 3rd, 2009, 05:06 PM
an unmoderated forum is great but in-order to work it needs to follow a rational anarchist style self moderation

"We don't have laws," I said. "Never been allowed to. Have customs, but aren't written and aren't enforced—or could say they are self-enforcing because are simply way things have to be, conditions being what they are. Could say our customs are natural laws because are way people have to behave to stay alive.

4)"Oh, not at all! But eliminating isn't against some law; are no laws—except Warden's regulations—and Warden doesn't care what one loonie does to another"


the wardens rules are no spam no porn nothing illegal

the loonies YOU enforce the customs, if you don't want B/tard humor or kids spouting atheist pseudo intellectual masturbatory twaddle, you the forum users are responsible for jumping in and letting them know, tear holes in there silly argument make fun of there lame jokes, you have to troll them out the airlock

some other things you have to do to get this place fixed

do away with serious discussion its a joke, the top of the forum should be COG discussion, general discussion can have a philosophy, religion and politics sections for those topics,
do away with the ministers and the ministers lounge, respect must be earned it has nothing to do with a title or post count you will be judged by the contribution you make period no "privileged forum" it is shit and must go. mods can pm or chat to communicate

do away with the guest forum its unnecessary, add a comments or questions email for the front page, a guest forum is a stupid invitation to troll and to have anonymous fights amongst yourselves ditch it

and finally the most important thing and the topic you should discus in the COG discussion at the top of the forum, WHAT IS THE POINT OF AND THE GOALS FOR COG so far all you have is the one observation that google is similar to a god in some ways, what do you want to do with that observation? FSM has a fight with creationism in schools what is the reason for coG? expand on the google god connection and make this more than a one observation joke..

Daruko
May 3rd, 2009, 05:21 PM
I like the idea of satirizing our objectives. Conduct shameless self-promotion for the church which exploits the flaws of serious evangelism while also challenging an open-mind and promoting absurdity and humor. I mean, it's a parody religion, and one of the reasons I really like Sis's coat of arms idea is because there does seem to be a somewhat uniting principle among parody religions, and the growing diversity and popularity of parody religions is a significant social movement. Just as FSM has demanded it be taken srsly in the school system while everyone knows it isn't srs at all, we should demand to be taken srsly everywhere.

The Good Reverend Roger
May 3rd, 2009, 05:26 PM
My fault I suppose. I'm a crap admin who never wanted the job in the first place.

I'd just hate the idea that CoG turns into another atheist back-slapping frotteur haven.

And to be frank - I'm sick to fucking death of the pseudo-intellectual children who think a few years of school puts them in a position to criticise ( in a fuck off kind of way) the opinions of others.

Anyone want the job? Other than scikidus.

Yeah.

Muhaha

The Good Reverend Roger
May 3rd, 2009, 05:27 PM
Oh yeah, and the forum is still as messed up as ever. Just so you know.

I didn't say we fixed the board. I said we fixed a particular problem.

Daruko
May 3rd, 2009, 05:31 PM
Yeah.
No.

fomenter
May 3rd, 2009, 05:32 PM
i vote for TGRR as mod

and nominate myself as well :icon_evil:

The Good Reverend Roger
May 3rd, 2009, 05:37 PM
i vote for TGRR as mod

and nominate myself as well :icon_evil:


You, me, and Loki.

That would be fucking HILARIOUS.

Tsar would lose his fucking mind.

EDIT: Also, we'd get some decent emotes for once.

The Good Reverend Roger
May 3rd, 2009, 05:37 PM
No.

It turns out you have no say in the matter. Doesn't that just suck? :icon_lol:

Dr Goofy Mofo
May 3rd, 2009, 05:38 PM
The only Mod backing him is Sciky.

Daruko
May 3rd, 2009, 05:41 PM
It turns out you have no say in the matter. Doesn't that just suck? :icon_lol:
It'd be disappointing if you gained admin rights here, but I'd just fuck off forever. Not the end of the world.

fomenter
May 3rd, 2009, 05:43 PM
You, me, and Loki.

That would be fucking HILARIOUS.

Tsar would lose his fucking mind.

EDIT: Also, we'd get some decent emotes for once.
yes
let the new rein begin

The Good Reverend Roger
May 3rd, 2009, 05:45 PM
It'd be disappointing if you gained admin rights here, but I'd just fuck off forever. Not the end of the world.

Yes, we know you hate decent emotes.

The Good Reverend Roger
May 3rd, 2009, 05:46 PM
The only Mod backing him is Sciky.

Backing whom?

The Good Reverend Roger
May 3rd, 2009, 05:46 PM
yes
let the new rein begin

WE SHALL MARCH ON A ROAD OF BONES!

Daruko
May 3rd, 2009, 05:46 PM
Yes, we know you hate decent emotes.
haha no i like those. i've tried to talk them into it myself.

The Good Reverend Roger
May 3rd, 2009, 05:47 PM
haha no i like those. i've tried to talk them into it myself.

Then I can't see why you'd object to our enlightened and benevolent tyranny.

Dr Goofy Mofo
May 3rd, 2009, 05:48 PM
Tsar oh well I have been gone for a business week maybe I should not comment on affairs

fomenter
May 3rd, 2009, 05:49 PM
tsar i think, he has been running round french kissing ass to curry favor

Daruko
May 3rd, 2009, 05:51 PM
Then I can't see why you'd object to our enlightened and benevolent tyranny.
You'd ban me down the road anyway. Why would I stick around for that?

The Good Reverend Roger
May 3rd, 2009, 05:52 PM
tsar i think, he has been running round french kissing ass to curry favor

He has it in his head that Loki is about to quit.

So he's jammed his head up Erasmus' colon, because he's hoping things will go back to the old ways (ie, banning anyone who disagrees with him or his buddies).

The Good Reverend Roger
May 3rd, 2009, 05:52 PM
You'd ban me down the road anyway. Why would I stick around for that?

I didn't ban you. Please attempt to be more honest.

fomenter
May 3rd, 2009, 05:55 PM
He has it in his head that Loki is about to quit.

So he's jammed his head up Erasmus' colon, because he's hoping things will go back to the old ways (ie, banning anyone who disagrees with him or his buddies).

sounds right, he has given his colon colored approval of everything the mods say or do..

The Good Reverend Roger
May 3rd, 2009, 05:58 PM
sounds right, he has given his colon colored approval of everything the mods say or do..

We could fix that.

Daruko
May 3rd, 2009, 06:03 PM
I didn't ban you. Please attempt to be more honest.
I'd probably delete my profile immediately, as well.
And I wasn't implying anything dishonest. I honestly think you would.

Erasmus
May 3rd, 2009, 06:03 PM
He has it in his head that Loki is about to quit.

So he's jammed his head up Erasmus' colon, because he's hoping things will go back to the old ways (ie, banning anyone who disagrees with him or his buddies).

I don't see how that would work. We've never had contact before yesterday, and I am hardly in favour of banning everyone, or even anyone.

Apart from which I have no authority, and I'm in no position to enforce any rules he might want enforced. So exactly how does trying to get on my goodside help him in any way? It would be more useful for his agenda to try and contact Matt.

It seems more likely that we just happen to agree on a few things, and you disagree so you're trying to imply ulterior motives where none exist.

The Good Reverend Roger
May 3rd, 2009, 06:04 PM
I'd probably delete my profile immediately, as well.
And I wasn't implying anything dishonest. I honestly think you would.

If I didn't ban you at PD, I wouldn't ban you period.

You probably should stop whining. Just saying.

The Good Reverend Roger
May 3rd, 2009, 06:08 PM
I don't see how that would work. We've never had contact before yesterday, and I am hardly in favour of banning everyone, or even anyone.

I wasn't attributing these motivations to you, Erasmus. I was speaking of Tsar's obvious desperation in screeching for Loki to quit and for you to be the new admin. He BELIEVES things will go back to controlled speech.


Apart from which I have no authority, and I'm in no position to enforce any rules he might want enforced. So exactly how does trying to get on my goodside help him in any way? It would be more useful for his agenda to try and contact Matt.

As I understand it, at least one person HAS contacted Matt concerning the lack of Draconian discipline under the Loki regime. IIRC, that person was told to piss up a fucking rope and stop bothering him (Matt) about a stupid board on the internets.


It seems more likely that we just happen to agree on a few things, and you disagree so you're trying to imply ulterior motives where none exist.

It seems more likely that you keep insisting I am talking about YOU, when I'm talking about Tsar.

Erasmus
May 3rd, 2009, 06:29 PM
I wasn't attributing these motivations to you, Erasmus. I was speaking of Tsar's obvious desperation in screeching for Loki to quit and for you to be the new admin. He BELIEVES things will go back to controlled speech.



As I understand it, at least one person HAS contacted Matt concerning the lack of Draconian discipline under the Loki regime. IIRC, that person was told to piss up a fucking rope and stop bothering him (Matt) about a stupid board on the internets.



It seems more likely that you keep insisting I am talking about YOU, when I'm talking about Tsar.

I didn't say, or even imply, that you were talking about me. I was talking about Tsar's motives, not mine, and how sucking up to me does not advance them.

The Good Reverend Roger
May 3rd, 2009, 06:32 PM
I didn't say, or even imply, that you were talking about me. I was talking about Tsar's motives, not mine, and how sucking up to me does not advance them.

Of course they don't. Tell him that.

fomenter
May 3rd, 2009, 06:35 PM
you are not the only one he sucks up to, he is offering a free rimjob to anyone with a mod status including you (even if it doesn't help him) and a few ministers...

Tsar Phalanxia
May 4th, 2009, 12:14 AM
I like the idea of satirizing our objectives. Conduct shameless self-promotion for the church which exploits the flaws of serious evangelism while also challenging an open-mind and promoting absurdity and humor. I mean, it's a parody religion, and one of the reasons I really like Sis's coat of arms idea is because there does seem to be a somewhat uniting principle among parody religions, and the growing diversity and popularity of parody religions is a significant social movement. Just as FSM has demanded it be taken srsly in the school system while everyone knows it isn't srs at all, we should demand to be taken srsly everywhere.
Langford Baptist Style?

Tsar oh well I have been gone for a business week maybe I should not comment on affairs
Huh?
He has it in his head that Loki is about to quit.

Loki has said that he wants to quit, if I'm not mistaken.
I wasn't attributing these motivations to you, Erasmus. I was speaking of Tsar's obvious desperation in screeching for Loki to quit and for you to be the new admin. He BELIEVES things will go back to controlled speech.

I don't want them to go back to that tiny period of time wherein you got banned.


As I understand it, at least one person HAS contacted Matt concerning the lack of Draconian discipline under the Loki regime. IIRC, that person was told to piss up a fucking rope and stop bothering him (Matt) about a stupid board on the internets..
Ha, I hadn't heard about that.

It seems more likely that you keep insisting I am talking about YOU, when I'm talking about Tsar.
It's always back to me isn't it. Never to the rest of the ministry who feel the same way.

PROTIP: I'm being made a scapegoat, despite perviously agreeing to bury the hatchet with Roger, because Roger doesn't have any arguments to justify why the current system should stay, because it benefits him so much.

Daruko
May 4th, 2009, 12:39 AM
Langford Baptist Style?
I dunno what that is.
PROTIP: I'm being made a scapegoat, despite perviously agreeing to bury the hatchet with Roger, because Roger doesn't have any arguments to justify why the current system should stay, because it benefits him so much.
Protip: This is a protip. You're doing it wrong. Also, Pick your arguments better. ;)

Tsar Phalanxia
May 4th, 2009, 12:43 AM
I dunno what that is.

http://www.landoverbaptist.org
Sorry, I meant Landover. My bad.
Protip: This is a protip. You're doing it wrong.
Pff, who's going to enforce that, the Internet Police?
Also, Pick your arguments better. ;)
How so? I think it's quite accurate?

Daruko
May 4th, 2009, 12:55 AM
http://www.landoverbaptist.org
Sorry, I meant Landover. My bad.

Well, I suppose... but I'd rather it not influence our ideas.
Pff, who's going to enforce that, the Internet Police?
Just saying. It looks silly when you do it wrong.
How so? I think it's quite accurate?
It's not always wise to argue every point.
And it sounds like you're supporting censored speech.

Tsar Phalanxia
May 4th, 2009, 01:17 AM
Well, I suppose... but I'd rather it not influence our ideas.

I suppose we don't want to end up as a mirror of them.


Just saying. It looks silly when you do it wrong.

I know. But I can't be bothered to change it.


It's not always wise to argue every point.
And it sounds like you're supporting censored speech.
How so?

Daruko
May 4th, 2009, 01:52 AM
Roger said you want it to go back to the censored format, and you argued that he's scapegoating you in order to defend the current system, which is not censored. That's how it read for me, but I don't really care at this point. I'm curious what Loki's up to.

Loki
May 4th, 2009, 02:07 AM
I'm curious what Loki's up to.

I know, it's odd isn't it :D

And what do you mean by "up to"? I never do anything without letting people know. Ever!

Much


Well, sometimes I do

When I feel like it :D

DrM
May 4th, 2009, 04:16 AM
AHA!
Loki, love your way of saying things without saying anything at all. =D

Regardless, the prior conversation was getting nowhere, I couldn't understand most of it.

Loki
May 4th, 2009, 04:21 AM
AHA!
Loki, love your way of saying things without saying anything at all. =D


Training :D Never give a answer that can be used against you in a Court of Law :D

Tsar Phalanxia
May 4th, 2009, 12:10 PM
Roger said you want it to go back to the censored format, and you argued that he's scapegoating you in order to defend the current system, which is not censored. That's how it read for me, but I don't really care at this point. I'm curious what Loki's up to.

I've said before that I don't want to return to the tiny period of time wherin Roger got banned. I just want more moderation so as for it to be productive and encourage people to visit.

The Good Reverend Roger
May 5th, 2009, 04:37 AM
I've said before that I don't want to return to the tiny period of time wherin Roger got banned. I just want more moderation so as for it to be productive and encourage people to visit.


If you want production, be productive.

The Good Reverend Roger
May 5th, 2009, 04:39 AM
PROTIP: I'm being made a scapegoat, despite perviously agreeing to bury the hatchet with Roger, because Roger doesn't have any arguments to justify why the current system should stay, because it benefits him so much.

I don't need any scapegoats.

And despite your assurances, I remember the bad old days. You were howling for blood as people got banned.

And the current system is working just fine. I don't have to justify it.

It seems to me that the proponents of change have yet to make their case.

Erasmus
May 5th, 2009, 08:31 AM
I don't need any scapegoats.

And despite your assurances, I remember the bad old days. You were howling for blood as people got banned.

And the current system is working just fine. I don't have to justify it.

It seems to me that the proponents of change have yet to make their case.

Unless you remember Alice Shade's brief period of adminship you don't remember the 'bad old days'. She actually greeting people on MSN with "Heil!"

You don't seem to realise just how small this community is, compared with its height in early 2007. Back then there were a great number of active posters and debaters, including Christians, Jews and even a few Mormons. There was also SAVAGE but you can't have everything.

Actually, the way SAVAGE was handled is a prime example of things that are wrong with the way this forum is run. MeTHoD-x banned him for trolling and being abusive. He immediately made a new account, called SAVAGE2 as I recall, came back to the board and bitched and whined about how he was being "censored". Instead of having his new account banned, or his IP range banned, his demands to have his original account released were met simply to shut him up.

Then he was made into a super mod. That didn't work out as well as it might have done.

I can't help noticing that none of the people from back then are still around. Reaching them on MSN, or seeing their last posts shows that the great majority of them left because they were disgusted with the way things were being run, and it is undeniable that because of the way the forum is run its numbers have dwindled to almost nothing. If the number of members making constructive posts and opening discussions is falling, then something is being done wrong. In this case it's quite obvious what, since everyone who has left has said the same thing.

I can't really comment on the Discordian invasion directly, I wasn't here; however I got a whole lot of flack through IM from (now former) Googlists. Apparently if you're a friend of Loki's from another forum you're not only above the law, you get a free ride to the top! You can see why that would drive people away, can't you? People have worked and been an active part of the community to become Ministers, trying to build up support for an idea they like, and when a group of screaming trolls arrive to pull it all down, some of them are given the same rights. Just because of who they know. Personally I wouldn't have cared too much; Ministership became a meaningless title long before that, but it still shows the kind of problems there are.

You, TGRR, like to call people in favour of moderation "Nazis". I wonder how good your history is.

After Hitler invaded Austria... the rest of Europe refused to rebuke him. After Hitler invaded Sudetenland... the rest of Europe signed it over to him in the hope he would be appeased. After Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia... the rest of Europe did nothing.

Seems to me that the current moderation resembles Europe being slowly dismembered by the Nazis, and that policy of appeasment really worked out, uh-huh yes indeed. We'll do anything to avoid enforcing a rule, anything to avoid apparent "censorship", even at cost to the community.

You seem to like trying to cast ulterior motives at Tsar, saying he is "howling for blood". Your motives are just as plain. You only remained unbanned through "The Bad Old Days", and got your position as a Minister, because the current administration let you.

You can't sit atop the spoils of war with a bemused smile on your face, proclaiming, "what war? Whatever are you talking about?"

I'm not saying you're a bad addition to the forum here, just that your constant denial that there is any problem at all, no sir everything is howdy-doodly-awesome-couldn'tbebetter is quite annoying.

[NOTE: That's not saying I'm in favour of demoting or banning anyone here, I like having an opposing influence in such discussions, and Ministership is empty enough a position that I don't care who has it. Jus' sayin' 'cos I know some peeps be misrepresentin']

Loki
May 6th, 2009, 07:38 PM
Unless you remember Alice Shade's brief period of adminship you don't remember the 'bad old days'. She actually greeting people on MSN with "Heil!"

I remember Alice very well - she threatened to kill me :D


Actually, the way SAVAGE was handled is a prime example of things that are wrong with the way this forum is run. MeTHoD-x banned him for trolling and being abusive. He immediately made a new account, called SAVAGE2 as I recall, came back to the board and bitched and whined about how he was being "censored". Instead of having his new account banned, or his IP range banned, his demands to have his original account released were met simply to shut him up.

Then he was made into a super mod. That didn't work out as well as it might have done.

Take that one up with Geoff, Erasmus. I've no idea why SAVAGE buggered off - apart from me. He hated me at the end. I was a bad boy and stopped him running wild.
Probably my fault again :D

I can't help noticing that none of the people from back then are still around. ...great majority of them left because they were disgusted with the way things were being run, and it is undeniable that because of the way the forum is run its numbers have dwindled to almost nothing. If the number of members making constructive posts and opening discussions is falling, then something is being done wrong. In this case it's quite obvious what, since everyone who has left has said the same thing.

Again - before my reign of terror for the most :D
Erm - Correlation does not imply causation???

And those that have left have said what? Loki did it? The evil Alchemist doesn't act like a good atheist and stamp on dissent? That CoG is not a serious site?
Guilty M'Lord!

Apparently if you're a friend of Loki's from another forum you're not only above the law, you get a free ride to the top!


Now that is crap! Who's got to the top because they're from another forum I used to post at? LOL - I can guess who you've been talking to.

Just to put the record straight ... The people I appointed as moderators are people I know who will disagree with me - and with one exception (rmw) we met on CoG - yes, here.
As to whom I gave moderation powers to - let's see - tag (met him here) Sister Faith (met her here), rmw - (met her on CoFSM), Goofy (met him here) That's it I think.

Ministers? Stupid! Make someone a Minister but give them nothing - apart from access to a forum that no-one else can access.

And FYI - I was the one that changed all of the admin permissions to the same - previously they were doled out in accordance with the Russian Theory.

...some of them are given the same rights. Just because of who they know.
Nope - see above.
If you mean Roger - sorry, he has no rights above those of other posters.

As to him being a Minister...you said it yourself - what does that give you? Nada.

Erasmus
May 6th, 2009, 09:04 PM
Jeez Loki, you can't just ignore parts of my post and pretend they don't exist.

Take that one up with Geoff, Erasmus. I've no idea why SAVAGE buggered off - apart from me. He hated me at the end. I was a bad boy and stopped him running wild.
Probably my fault again :D

It is not the modding and him leaving that was important, obviously. It was the rescinding of his ban, which set a model of moderation which is still being followed; one of almost complete passiveness.

Again - before my reign of terror for the most :D
Erm - Correlation does not imply causation???

Causation is implied by the fact I'm still in contact with many of them, and they all agree that the forum was let down by the abusive or spam posts that were never removed or rebuked. Causality is implied by the fact that's why I decided to leave. Causality is implied by the fact nothing else about the site has changed, and yet no-one from that time is still posting. Do you realise just how rare that is? Every other forum I belong to has regulars from the days it began, which in some cases means nine-year veterans. This forum hasn't held anyone for three years. That means that something is being done very, very wrong. If it's not what I'm suggesting, what is it?

And those that have left have said what? Loki did it? The evil Alchemist doesn't act like a good atheist and stamp on dissent? That CoG is not a serious site?
Guilty M'Lord!

It's not a serious site, but it used to be a good one. And maybe you shouldn't act like a "good atheist" and "stamp on dissent" (says the dissenter), but you should act like a good admin and enforce the rules.

Now that is crap! Who's got to the top because they're from another forum I used to post at? LOL - I can guess who you've been talking to.

I meant to Ministerhood. You can tell because I wrote it:

People have worked and been an active part of the community to become Ministers, trying to build up support for an idea they like, and when a group of screaming trolls arrive to pull it all down, some of them are given the same rights.

People liked being Ministers, not because it gave them power, but because it meant they had contributed something. That meaning got watered down as more people got the position for little reason, but when it was given to someone who had done come with an invading force, it must have rankled. That was my point, I have nothing against any of the moderators, or you, or Roger. I would just like to see some impartiality and a slightly heavier fist in the "serious" forums.

I am just looking for a compromise no-one seems willing to offer.

Loki
May 6th, 2009, 10:04 PM
Jeez Loki, you can't just ignore parts of my post and pretend they don't exist.

I answered the parts I thought were relevant to me - if I've missed any comments that you want me to answer then please re-iterate.
It wasn't deliberate.



It is not the modding and him leaving that was important, obviously. It was the rescinding of his ban, which set a model of moderation which is still being followed; one of almost complete passiveness.

Not sure where you're getting your information from Erasmus. I didn't rescind his ban.
I had no ability to do that. And Alice was around then.
Trust me on this - I couldn't stand the little fuck.

And yes - I should have said something when he was nominated for Minister - I think I did once.
But Geoff made him a Minister, not me! Throw your accusation net a little further and you'll find a number of current and past Ministers who also agreed that SAV should be a Minister.




Causation is implied by the fact I'm still in contact with many of them, and they all agree that the forum was let down by the abusive or spam posts that were never removed or rebuked. Causality is implied by the fact that's why I decided to leave. Causality is implied by the fact nothing else about the site has changed, and yet no-one from that time is still posting. Do you realise just how rare that is? Every other forum I belong to has regulars from the days it began, which in some cases means nine-year veterans. This forum hasn't held anyone for three years. That means that something is being done very, very wrong. If it's not what I'm suggesting, what is it?

Let me have a guess - Lord Jereth, Rimmer, scikidus, Tsar...?

Causality is implied by the fact nothing else about the site has changed, and yet no-one from that time is still posting. Do you realise just how rare that is?
Funny thing - a while ago I asked the same question. I was told that's what happens. Geoff told me that.
I was worried that my laid back attitude put people off - he said it wasn't.
So did Matt.

I miss some of the posters from when I joined Erasmus - but I'm in contact with the ones I got on with - even if they don't post here.

Yes - some of them don't post any more because CoG is no longer a purely atheist site.
And FYI - I've had more complaints about the attitude of the regulars to new posters (especially theists) than I have from anyone else.
If we're talking straight here ... :D




It's not a serious site, but it used to be a good one. And maybe you shouldn't act like a "good atheist" and "stamp on dissent" (says the dissenter), but you should act like a good admin and enforce the rules.

If it was so good why did Matt and Alice raid CoFSM to recruit new members?



I meant to Ministerhood. You can tell because I wrote it:

If I could tell then I'd not have made that mistake! You talked about getting to the top.
And you failed to comment on those that have made it to the "top"

OK - so, Ministers - same answer!
I'm sure you wont believe me so ask another who I've made Minister. You might be surprised.



People liked being Ministers, not because it gave them power, but because it meant they had contributed something. That meaning got watered down as more people got the position for little reason, but when it was given to someone who had done come with an invading force, it must have rankled.

Like the time I was made a Minister? Or rzm61? Or scikidus?...

Are you placing all of this on me? :D
And I made Roger a Minister for a reason - I wanted to keep the peace between the two groups.

You'd be amazed how reasonable Roger can be.

And that goes for the rest of the Discordians - a quiet word does wonders. I've no idea how that works but, apparently, shouting at people to feck off can cause problems - yet a bit of reason doesn't.
Buggered if I know why :D

I would just like to see some impartiality and a slightly heavier fist in the "serious" forums.
Oh heck - I'll bite anyone - Roger included. I'm an equal opportunities dictator.
But it doesn't work like that - the regulars think they have more of a right to slag people off.
Read some of their welcomes! Nice aren't they?

I am just looking for a compromise no-one seems willing to offer.
I can compromise - I've been trying to do that for months. Look beyond your MSN mates and read the posts of those who have emailed you.
Then talk of compromise!

Dr Goofy Mofo
May 6th, 2009, 10:08 PM
I think the Discordians arn't the problems its the trolls from elsewhere but that maybe just me.

Tsar Phalanxia
May 6th, 2009, 11:18 PM
I've had several thoughts

1. Making Roger a minister did not turn out to be nearly as disastrous as I'd hoped, and actually worked very well as a concession to both sides.

2. Everyone is part of the problem. That includes Me, Rzm, Roger etc. However, we are all also part of the solution, if we act reasonably. This could be achieved through

A. Stopping the PD vs Daruko flames that spring up every other day. Seriously guys, it's boring, it doesn't make us attractive to new members and it's a bit immature.

B. The fact that some posters are more problematic than others. E.g. Will is behaving like a spoilt brat at the minute, simply because his thread was merged (Oh noes) And that action should be taken against them.

C. That the rules that we have should be at least referenced to more. I'm not advocating the creation of new rules, or even the rigid enforcement of them. I just feel that if we want this place to grow, and ultimately, get on US Media (First Croatia, next, the world!). Because I do not feel that we can attain that level of recognition with the state the board is in at the minute. It's more the amount of ape shit flying around the place than any fundamental problem with the forum, so if we all just calmed down and maybe deleted some of the more questionable threads (E.g. The vagoo thread) I think we'll have a lot more to offer everyone.

Dr Goofy Mofo
May 6th, 2009, 11:37 PM
You know all these problems could be fixed by posters, there is no need for mod intervention

Loki
May 6th, 2009, 11:47 PM
That requires a community effort by the very people who are the problem. Good luck.

You mean the adults?

rmw
May 7th, 2009, 12:36 AM
You know all these problems could be fixed by posters, there is no need for mod intervention

I agree with Goofy on this one. When people aren't busy flaming each other, you can get some good conversation and debate going. I also think heavy-handed moderation would back-fire. I've been on a couple forums that I left because of warnings, temporary bans, etc. from mods because of topic drift, "teh internetz iz srs business" attitudes and the like. And given the events of last autumn, I'd be worried that people would become overzealous in their moderation and we would wind up with yet another clusterfuck on our hands.

Sister Faith
May 7th, 2009, 02:59 AM
I agree with Goofy on this one. When people aren't busy flaming each other, you can get some good conversation and debate going. I also think heavy-handed moderation would back-fire. I've been on a couple forums that I left because of warnings, temporary bans, etc. from mods because of topic drift, "teh internetz iz srs business" attitudes and the like. And given the events of last autumn, I'd be worried that people would become overzealous in their moderation and we would wind up with yet another clusterfuck on our hands.

I also agree with Doc (& Loki about having a quiet word), but that only works to a certain point & only with certain people, then moderating is needed.

No one is talking about implementing 'heavy handed' moderation but must that mean NO moderation at all? Clearing the clutter, merging/moving threads etc, is housecleaning not censoring free speech.

"I'd be worried that people would become overzealous in their moderation"

If they had been operating as a team this wouldn't have happened. ALL the mods need to be on the same page about procedures and code of conduct. As a result, everyone went off half-cocked and in different directions.

"and we would wind up with yet another clusterfuck on our hands."

Cluster-fucked if we do, cluster-fucked if we don't. I say we do, and let the cluster-fucks fall where they may.
Why should we apologize for enforcing a few informal rules on our own forum just because of some juvenile whiners? I mean, what could they do about it? Cancel Xmas? :icon_rolleyes:

Daruko
May 7th, 2009, 03:11 AM
I'm with Sis.

The Good Reverend Roger
May 7th, 2009, 03:45 AM
Apparently if you're a friend of Loki's from another forum you're not only above the law, you get a free ride to the top!

Yes, and you took that at face value, right?

I think any productive discussion just ceased. Kindly choke on a dick.

The Good Reverend Roger
May 7th, 2009, 03:46 AM
I don't know the age of the trolls.

Ah, I see. We didn't slavishly suck a dick, so we're "trolls".

Fuck you, too.

Erasmus
May 7th, 2009, 09:56 AM
Yes, and you took that at face value, right?

I think any productive discussion just ceased. Kindly choke on a dick.

I think it ceased several pages back.

If what I am saying is incorrect - which it might be since it is pieced together from secondhand accounts and what little I read through the occasional lurking - then please set me straight. If my comments are unwarrnated I'll withdraw them with apologies.

Tsar Phalanxia
May 7th, 2009, 11:16 AM
Yes, and you took that at face value, right?

I think any productive discussion just ceased. Kindly choke on a dick.

Ah, I see. We didn't slavishly suck a dick, so we're "trolls".

Fuck you, too.

So, it's ceased because you want it to? Umm, that's helpful.

Loki
May 7th, 2009, 09:30 PM
I've had several thoughts



A. Stopping the PD vs Daruko flames that spring up every other day. Seriously guys, it's boring, it doesn't make us attractive to new members and it's a bit immature.

B. The fact that some posters are more problematic than others. E.g. Will is behaving like a spoilt brat at the minute, simply because his thread was merged (Oh noes) And that action should be taken against them.

C. That the rules that we have should be at least referenced to more. I'm not advocating the creation of new rules, or even the rigid enforcement of them. I just feel that if we want this place to grow, and ultimately, get on US Media (First Croatia, next, the world!). Because I do not feel that we can attain that level of recognition with the state the board is in at the minute. It's more the amount of ape shit flying around the place than any fundamental problem with the forum, so if we all just calmed down and maybe deleted some of the more questionable threads (E.g. The vagoo thread) I think we'll have a lot more to offer everyone.

That's not a bad compromise to be honest Phal.
I'd like a definition of "more questionable" though. That's a bit of a get out clause me thinks :D

Seriously, I think than now IFU is invisible to all but registered members we can relax a bit there.
Although I'm not be all that keen on it being filled with "my tampon is stuck!" threads either.

How about if we let the poster know that there's already a thread about whatever they've posted and point them to it. If they don't get the message re-direct it?

Any objections to that anyone?

sudikics
May 8th, 2009, 02:11 AM
Sounds good. Also, Loki, could you (while you're tinkering in the admin panel):

1. Disable unreg's ability to post links
2. Cut IFU posts out of the "New Posts" button (sounds extreme, but that'll prevent most of the vagoo thread sightings)
3. Maybe disable IFU posts from counting towards your post count? (*waits for rzm's post count to drop* :D)

rmw
May 8th, 2009, 02:16 AM
...

Any objections to that anyone?

Sounds fair to me.

Dr Goofy Mofo
May 8th, 2009, 02:17 AM
Sounds good. Also, Loki, could you (while you're tinkering in the admin panel):

1. Disable unreg's ability to post links

This is point less and I have said that on several accounts. just because there is no link doesn't mean they can't post www.google.com


2. Cut IFU posts out of the "New Posts" button (sounds extreme, but that'll prevent most of the vagoo thread sightings)


That is not necessary you can cut that out by not clicking the link, there are still good ifu threads.


3. Maybe disable IFU posts from counting towards your post count? (*waits for rzm's post count to drop* :D)

Who cares about post count?

The Good Reverend Roger
May 8th, 2009, 03:56 AM
So, it's ceased because you want it to? Umm, that's helpful.

So what? Erasmus came here with his mind made up. Fuck him.

DrM
May 8th, 2009, 06:14 AM
First off, Erasmus, dont listen to Roger, I think the discussion is still going strong.
Second, I think we should just delete the "vagoo threads" and their ilk. Seriously, at this point, there are too many of them to flimsily hide behind a registered members only sign. we need to get a clean slate. Doc suggested to leave it to the posters, i wouldn't mind that, just give them a clean slate to do so on. (if people see vagoo threads they will definitely think its ok through precedent.)

Smelly Vagoo
May 8th, 2009, 06:43 AM
First off, Erasmus, dont listen to Roger, I think the discussion is still going strong.
Second, I think we should just delete the "vagoo threads" and their ilk. Seriously, at this point, there are too many of them to flimsily hide behind a registered members only sign. we need to get a clean slate. Doc suggested to leave it to the posters, i wouldn't mind that, just give them a clean slate to do so on. (if people see vagoo threads they will definitely think its ok through precedent.)

what are you whining about? the smelly vagoo threads got douched days ago? the thread names were changed there is only one thread left dealing with these important and serious topics. are you that scared by the vagina? do you get all red faced and bothered when someone dares speak of vagina? does our little googlest have a bit of the religious prude in him or is it a lack of familiarity with vagina that has set him off? embarrassed that you don't know enough about the topic of vagina to jump in to the conversation afraid you may say something that reveals you inadequacies in the vagina subject?
i think you should support the vagina threads, don't be embarrass by your lack of experience, we will help you out and we promise not to make fun, come join the vagina thread discussion and learn all about the wonderful vagina. i know you wont regret it.

DrM
May 8th, 2009, 07:03 AM
The above is exactly what i was referring too. BTW your claims that i am afraid of the vagina are pretty groundless, because my statement applied to all sexual content. not just vaginas...
this is a 13+ site and we should respect our younger members.

Smelly Vagoo
May 8th, 2009, 07:13 AM
The above is exactly what i was referring too. BTW your claims that i am afraid of the vagina are pretty groundless, because my statement applied to all sexual content. not just vaginas...
this is a 13+ site and we should respect our younger members.

i didn't call you a cheese dick for a reason, if cheese dicks were the issue the thread had all the necessary advice to cure the problem and you would be fixed up by now, and so by processes of elimination it must be the vagina.

Tsar Phalanxia
May 8th, 2009, 09:40 AM
This is point less and I have said that on several accounts. just because there is no link doesn't mean they can't post www.google.com
If they really want/need to post a link, they can register. It's not like we're asking for their first born son or anything.

That is not necessary you can cut that out by not clicking the link, there are still good ifu threads.
Not when that thread shows up on the screen in College. Highly questionable.

Who cares about post count?
Yeah, I was puzzled by this too. Methinks that Sciki wants to get above Rzm :D
That's not a bad compromise to be honest Phal.
I'd like a definition of "more questionable" though. That's a bit of a get out clause me thinks :D

Seriously, I think than now IFU is invisible to all but registered members we can relax a bit there.
Although I'm not be all that keen on it being filled with "my tampon is stuck!" threads either.

How about if we let the poster know that there's already a thread about whatever they've posted and point them to it. If they don't get the message re-direct it?

Any objections to that anyone?

Well, I was thinking that the above posts involving that vagoo person are a perfect example, in my opinion. However, if someone does complain against something like that, then the ministers should take a vote on whether it is questionable or not, and the action to take.

Erasmus
May 8th, 2009, 10:31 AM
So what? Erasmus came here with his mind made up. Fuck him.

Well, obviously not, since I just offered to hear your side of the story and re-evaluate my opinions. If you're not going to answer, then I have to assume I was right the first time. In the absence of contrary evidence, etc, etc.

But actually explaining what I got wrong would lack the drama of flouncing off in a huff shouting "fuck you", I guess.

Tsar Phalanxia
May 8th, 2009, 10:37 AM
So what? Erasmus came here with his mind made up. Fuck him.

Well, obviously not, since I just offered to hear your side of the story and re-evaluate my opinions. If you're not going to answer, then I have to assume I was right the first time. In the absence of contrary evidence, etc, etc.

But actually explaining what I got wrong would lack the drama of flouncing off in a huff shouting "fuck you", I guess.

Calm down children. Stuff like that isn't helpful.

fomenter
May 8th, 2009, 03:52 PM
realizing that this is a site for thirteen year old's explains a lot of the "well thought out" atheist philosophy around here..

Tsar Phalanxia
May 8th, 2009, 03:56 PM
corrupting the young...take your hemlock...and die!
Right back at you
realizing that this is a site for thirteen year old's explains a lot of the "well thought out" atheist philosophy around here..
So, you're a fundamentalist agnostic? I've never met one of them before.

fomenter
May 8th, 2009, 04:07 PM
So, you're a fundamentalist agnostic? I've never met one of them before.

let me rephrase for you

realizing that this is a site for thirteen year old's explains a lot of the "lame ass attempts" at trolling around here..

DrM
May 8th, 2009, 04:17 PM
as much as formenter looks a fundamentalist agnostic, i dont think being a fundamentalist agnostic is possible. Since the definition is "not having an established opinion"... Where are the fundamentals in that?
Regardless, Fomenter, STOP IT WITH THE ANTI-ATHEIST JABBERING!!!
Regardless of how much they deserve it, or how wrong (and juvenile) they may be, dont make fun of them! make fun of there ideas when they present them on the debate floor. U know, when its effective, and serves a purpose other than shit-flinging.
Besides, your starting to annoy me personally. =D

Secondly, Erasmus, dont worry about TGRR, he'll probably go away if he doesnt have an arguement against your case to change, and if he doesnt go away, we can/should ignore him. But if he does have an arguement we should listen to it just like any other poster.
Thirdly TGRR, dont worry about Erasmus, he is just trying to bring change that will improve the site! we obviously need it. If you disagree, then show that with evidence like Erasmus has done with his arguement, then some people will probably support it.

BTW, anyone opposed to making a clean slate? (other than a pussy?)

Erasmus
May 8th, 2009, 04:25 PM
Calm down children. Stuff like that isn't helpful.

Don't patronise us, Tsar.

I am entirely calm, but that doesn't mean I'm going to ignore confrontational posts, and I wouldn't expect Roger to do so either.

Anyway... I was talking to formenter about this style of moderation he suggested earlier (apparently it's what PD uses but I've never visited the forum area):

an unmoderated forum is great but in-order to work it needs to follow a rational anarchist style self moderation

"We don't have laws," I said. "Never been allowed to. Have customs, but aren't written and aren't enforced—or could say they are self-enforcing because are simply way things have to be, conditions being what they are. Could say our customs are natural laws because are way people have to behave to stay alive.

4)"Oh, not at all! But eliminating isn't against some law; are no laws—except Warden's regulations—and Warden doesn't care what one loonie does to another"


the wardens rules are no spam no porn nothing illegal

the loonies YOU enforce the customs, if you don't want B/tard humor or kids spouting atheist pseudo intellectual masturbatory twaddle, you the forum users are responsible for jumping in and letting them know, tear holes in there silly argument make fun of there lame jokes, you have to troll them out the airlock

I really like this idea, but don't see it working in the serious discussion boards.

What I would suggest (though I don't know how difficult it would be) is a compromise in which both the anti-authoritarian gang get a corner to stick it to the man, and the pro-authoritarian gang get a place to give up all their rights and baa at each other. Or whatever.

Split the forum into two distinct sections.

In the first serious discussions go, offtopic posts are deleted, rules are enforced and people can post within a semi-rigid structure. Debates boards, general chat and introductions forums go here.

In the second section there are no set rules, and no moderation beyond removing the illegal. Promote someone to admin of this section to make stickies or edit the forum layout as the community demands, or to remove illegal posts and adult material, and nothing beyond these things. Forum layout in this section would have to be discussed, I imagine.

You could also remove IFU under these conditions, since it would be obsolete.

Then both parties get their area to work the way they want.

I dunno, it's not a fully formed idea, but what do people think?

DrM
May 8th, 2009, 04:36 PM
I think that is a stunning idea, but if were gonna seperate the site into two sections... That just brings to mind the question, "why not just make two sites?"

Although i can see how it would work, and it would be better than making two sites because people dont have to post in only one section. I would completely agree, as long as this guy: "Promote someone to admin of this section to make stickies or edit the forum layout as the community demands, or to remove illegal posts and adult material, and nothing beyond these things." is extremely responsible and comes down hard on illegal posts and adult material. We cant get someone who is lax and will just let everything slide. Personally, i would suggest Fomenter he would make a good warden, a second nominee would be cain. He will keep people shaking in there boots. (for obvious reasons). But i would also think a warden would have too much power, it could get easy for this "anarchist forum" to become totalitarian.

And i like the idea of the IFU being deleted, its a shit hole.

Daruko
May 8th, 2009, 04:46 PM
Personally, i would suggest Fomenter he would make a good warden, a second nominee would be cain. He will keep people shaking in there boots. (for obvious reasons). But i would also think a warden would have too much power, it could get easy for this "anarchist forum" to become totalitarian.

And i like the idea of the IFU being deleted, its a shit hole.
The ideas quoted here are all terrible.

Guest posts are a bad idea, and trolls like Pclamb should be IP banzored.

IFU is a NECESSARY evil. And under NO circumstances should PD elites be given admin powers here. If the free speech thing was upheld, sure it would work, but it would be extremely naive to believe either of those two are honest people. All they would do is turn the CoG into another PD. If you want things run like PD, GO TO FUCKING PD.

Also, if you want to make SD and GD better, why don't you go make some interesting threads.

Also, we don't need a new admin. Loki is doing just fine, and we as a forum are doing just fine, especially now that the IFU is registration only. If Loki hands over modship, it should go to a COG REGULAR like Goofy, Sis, Tag, etc... not a PD troll.

PD doesn't allow ppl on their site whose only aim is to completely destroy, change, or take over their forum. We do. But, why the fuck would we give them Admin?

DrM
May 8th, 2009, 05:02 PM
Well daruko, I agree that lamb should get the banhammer, and that guest posts are unnecessary. (although highly regulated, [deleting unnecessary and vulgar threads] guest posts COULD be a place for theists to explain there beliefs...) I agree loki is doing fine, but i also think we should get an aditional admin. And i agree that it should be given to a CoG regular (goofy sis tag possibly a few others).

Secondly, i was just showing that i thought that should such an anarchist forum created, Fomenter would be the MOST equipped to be the mod; since it was his idea in the first place. (note that i never said admin)
Let me put it this way Daruko; whats wrong with having a mini PD in our site, as long as it keeps the PD'ers out of the rest of the site! O and the only reason we said to delete the IFU is because it becomes obsolete when we create a forum similar to the IFU, but where the idiot posters get wripped to shreds by the competent ones. (not to mention the benifit of having the new IFU almost vulgarity free [assuming the warden does his job])
Believe me Daruko i have as many doubts as you do on this idea, but as long as the mod of that forum is regulated well, and knows his place in the larger forum; it could work.

Erasmus
May 8th, 2009, 05:16 PM
I can't really comment on who would make a good admin since I don't know anyone here particularly well yet, but I would say people who have joined so recently are probably bad choices. Sorry, DrM.

A possibly more interesting method of selecting the admins of an anarchistically run forum would be to have, for the sake of argument, 3 admins, and give them the right to demote an admin if the other 2 vote to. That way if any of them overstep their bounds the other two can chuck him or her out. Though this is possibly entering the land of the needlessly complex.

And DrM, I wasn't suggesting we split the forum in this manner so we have a handy corner to put the PDers in and forget them. I would like having somewhere to go for a bit of unstructured posting as well as somewhere for a serious debate. At the moment everything is a bit of both, which wouldn't be so bad except it seems to be the worst bit of both.

Daruko
May 8th, 2009, 05:44 PM
Looks like Lambchop is back with another acct btw: Semenupper

fomenter
May 8th, 2009, 06:05 PM
I would like having somewhere to go for a bit of unstructured posting as well as somewhere for a serious debate. At the moment everything is a bit of both, which wouldn't be so bad except it seems to be the worst bit of both.

you might be surprised to find the serious debate gets better when it is unstructured (i wouldn't expect miracles it takes time to grow a culture of self regulation or customs)

also i wouldn't delete unnecessary or vulgar threads if the forum goes through a format shift archive them to get them out of the way but keep them around to remember how it used to be (deleting threads is weak)

as for having both a heavy regulated side and a self regulated side to the forum i cant say if that would work or not..

coG needs creativity to grow and thrive and regulation tends to kill it, lack of regulation without a group who are part of a community and uphold its customs doesn't get anywhere either.

there were some other suggestions in the post i made that Erasmus is referring to including 86ing the guest section (sorry daruko i agree with you on that) there are better ways to let random passersby have a voice.

Tsar Phalanxia
May 8th, 2009, 08:02 PM
Don't patronise us, Tsar.

I am entirely calm, but that doesn't mean I'm going to ignore confrontational posts, and I wouldn't expect Roger to do so either.

Hey, if I wanted to patronise you, I could be a lot more cutting. I was half joking :D


I really like this idea, but don't see it working in the serious discussion boards.

What I would suggest (though I don't know how difficult it would be) is a compromise in which both the anti-authoritarian gang get a corner to stick it to the man, and the pro-authoritarian gang get a place to give up all their rights and baa at each other. Or whatever.

Split the forum into two distinct sections.

In the first serious discussions go, offtopic posts are deleted, rules are enforced and people can post within a semi-rigid structure. Debates boards, general chat and introductions forums go here.

In the second section there are no set rules, and no moderation beyond removing the illegal. Promote someone to admin of this section to make stickies or edit the forum layout as the community demands, or to remove illegal posts and adult material, and nothing beyond these things. Forum layout in this section would have to be discussed, I imagine.

You could also remove IFU under these conditions, since it would be obsolete.

Then both parties get their area to work the way they want.

I dunno, it's not a fully formed idea, but what do people think?
As DrM said, this would have the equivalent of splitting the Church into two separate sections. Which has already happened before.
(http://churchofgoogle.net/)

Erasmus
May 8th, 2009, 08:14 PM
As DrM said, this would have the equivalent of splitting the Church into two separate sections. Which has already happened before.
(http://churchofgoogle.net/)

No, it wouldn't. You're being melodramatic.

Obviously you never noticed, but COG forum already has three sections: Community, Other and No Registration Required. And those have different levels of moderation too. So by your logic COG is already split into three different schisms.

I'm just suggesting a slight reshuffling of what we already have, and a bit of alteration/clarification on rules for each section. This is not even slightly analogous to a splinter forum.

SirRuben
May 8th, 2009, 08:47 PM
Hi guise, wats goin' on in here?

Erasmus
May 8th, 2009, 08:53 PM
Hi guise, wats goin' on in here?

Hey dewd!

It's pretty easy man, we're just being aggressively opinionated at each other. Want to join in?

SirRuben
May 8th, 2009, 08:55 PM
Sure, i love being oppinionated against.

sudikics
May 8th, 2009, 11:21 PM
This is point less and I have said that on several accounts. just because there is no link doesn't mean they can't post www.google.com
Except it disables the temporary link to their page, and it removes the spam from the site more easily. Plus, the ability is only abused, and it just makes sense to remove it.
That is not necessary you can cut that out by not clicking the link, there are still good ifu threads.
Tsar responded first. I don't need to be looking at New Posts and have my school server notice the page I'm on mentions vagoo 20 times.
Who cares about post count?
Just an idea. Thought it would convey a message, but forget about it.
Methinks that Sciki wants to get above Rzm :D
Hah. Also, hah.
realizing that this is a site for thirteen year old's explains a lot of the "well thought out" atheist philosophy around here..
So, as Tsar said, you're a militant agnostic?
realizing that this is a site for thirteen year old's explains a lot of the "lame ass-attempts" at trolling around here..
Fix'd. (http://xkcd.com/37/)
That just brings to mind the question, "why not just make two sites?"
Think lifeboats.
Hi guise, wats goin' on in here?
Hey dewd!

It's pretty easy man, we're just being aggressively opinionated at each other. Want to join in?
Sure, i love being oppinionated against.
Hey SirRuben! (Erasmus, are you the one making all of these older members come out fo the woodwork?)

Erasmus
May 8th, 2009, 11:27 PM
As much as I like Ruben I wouldn't describe him as an "all". But yeah, I might have mentioned the forum to him on MSN.

Paul Vii
May 9th, 2009, 05:44 AM
First off, Erasmus, dont listen to Roger, I think the discussion is still going strong.
Second, I think we should just delete the "vagoo threads" and their ilk. Seriously, at this point, there are too many of them to flimsily hide behind a registered members only sign. we need to get a clean slate. Doc suggested to leave it to the posters, i wouldn't mind that, just give them a clean slate to do so on. (if people see vagoo threads they will definitely think its ok through precedent.)

excuse me. who the fuck are you to be telling anyone to ignore anyone else?!?!? are you the leader here? "DrM master of the idiots"? i think not. i think we should make you, and all 13 year-olds for that matter leave here. and come back when you're at least 28 years old. no-one will miss you, i promise. good by now, good by.

The Good Reverend Roger
May 9th, 2009, 07:14 AM
The above is exactly what i was referring too. BTW your claims that i am afraid of the vagina are pretty groundless, because my statement applied to all sexual content. not just vaginas...
this is a 13+ site and we should respect our younger members.

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

:icon_lol: :icon_lol: :icon_lol:

DrM
May 9th, 2009, 07:16 AM
Why thank you Roger! =D

The Good Reverend Roger
May 9th, 2009, 07:17 AM
Let me put it this way Daruko; whats wrong with having a mini PD in our site, as long as it keeps the PD'ers out of the rest of the site!

And that's how we get the free exchange of ideas, kids! :icon_lol:

You fucking Nazi. :icon_lol:

The Good Reverend Roger
May 9th, 2009, 07:18 AM
Why thank you Roger! =D

No problem. So when do you want to ship all the PDers off to the metaphorical camps, you fucked up little man?

Paul Vii
May 9th, 2009, 07:18 AM
THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

:icon_lol: :icon_lol: :icon_lol:

children with no Vagoos oh the shame

The Good Reverend Roger
May 9th, 2009, 07:19 AM
children with no Vagoos oh the shame

STOP STOP THINK OF THE CHILDREN! YOU JUST KILLED ALL THE 13 YEAR OLDS, YOU BASTARD!

Paul Vii
May 9th, 2009, 07:22 AM
STOP STOP THINK OF THE CHILDREN! YOU JUST KILLED ALL THE 13 YEAR OLDS, YOU BASTARD!

Dang! Well you know, stuff happens :(

Smelly Vagoo
May 9th, 2009, 07:22 AM
STOP STOP THINK OF THE CHILDREN! YOU JUST KILLED ALL THE 13 YEAR OLDS, YOU BASTARD!

there is a long standing history of protecting the 13yr old's, see the thread i just bumped sweetie.

The Good Reverend Roger
May 9th, 2009, 07:23 AM
Dang! Well you know, stuff happens :(


You're as bad as Iason, some days. :icon_evil:

The Good Reverend Roger
May 9th, 2009, 07:25 AM
there is a long standing history of protecting the 13yr old's, see the thread i just bumped sweetie.


:icon_lol:

Paul Vii
May 9th, 2009, 07:26 AM
You're as bad as Iason, some days. :icon_evil:

i'll try har to befetter myself.

Paul Vii
May 9th, 2009, 08:11 AM
Why thank you Roger! =D

so, little cunt rag. are you better more adjusted to this site yet? just curious?

sudikics
May 9th, 2009, 02:34 PM
So, is everyone enjoying this fine Saturday? Good.

Guys, cut out the flaming. This is Introductions. If you wanna flame, take it to IFU and start a new thread there.

Daruko
May 9th, 2009, 03:11 PM
No problem. So when do you want to ship all the PDers off to the metaphorical camps, you fucked up little man?
Hopefully, very very soon. You guys only come here to flame and piss off our members, make threads about vaginas and penises, and then turn around and say you're the solution to the problems you create. You are stupid worthless fucking hypocrites, and you deserve the banhammer ten times more than I ever did from PD.

sudikics
May 9th, 2009, 03:26 PM
Hopefully, very very soon. You guys only come here to flame and piss off our members, make threads about vaginas and penises, and then turn around and say you're the solution to the problems you create. You are stupid worthless fucking hypocrites, and you deserve the banhammer ten times more than I ever did from PD.
Same goes for you. Cut out the name-calling and make a new thread.

Daruko
May 9th, 2009, 03:29 PM
Whatever Scik. I posted one response to the childish posts ITT.

sudikics
May 9th, 2009, 03:32 PM
Whatever Scik. I posted one response to the childish posts ITT.
One is too many.

In other news, I'm raising the chocolate ration to 300mg per month! Rejoice!

The Good Reverend Roger
May 9th, 2009, 04:25 PM
Hopefully, very very soon. You guys only come here to flame and piss off our members, make threads about vaginas and penises, and then turn around and say you're the solution to the problems you create. You are stupid worthless fucking hypocrites, and you deserve the banhammer ten times more than I ever did from PD.

I did what? :icon_lol:

Daruko
May 9th, 2009, 04:52 PM
I did what? :icon_lol:
Fuck, I fail. I'm in pain and out of it this morning. I srsly responded to your post thinking you were Paul what's-his-ass. You pretty much only attack posters and have stated ill intentions toward the forum, but you at least don't leave heaping stinky piles of boring useless shit all over the forum. I'll give you credit for not being a troll about 1% of the time, give or take. Your mates, whom I meant to address, are/havebeen fouling up the place with garbage, every post since they've entered, and quite intentionally.

The Good Reverend Roger
May 9th, 2009, 04:56 PM
Fuck, I fail. I'm in pain and out of it this morning. I srsly responded to your post thinking you were Paul what's-his-ass. You pretty much only attack posters and have stated ill intentions toward the forum, but you at least don't leave heaping stinky piles of boring useless shit all over the forum. I'll give you credit for not being a troll about 1% of the time, give or take. Your mates, whom I meant to address, are/havebeen fouling up the place with garbage, every post since they've entered, and quite intentionally.

I'm not responsible for their acts.

Can't say I haven't been laughing, though.

Tsar Phalanxia
May 9th, 2009, 06:00 PM
However, no-one is fool enough to think that you don't have considerable influence among them. Can you as a whole at least cut out the irrelevant crap and the World vs Daruko that you post on the forum please? If I wanted to visit a clone of PD, I'd visit PD itself. And this goes for anyone who may or may not be a PDer, including Vagoo (Who I suspect is, and maybe Paul) and Lamb (Who I suspect isn't). This isn't an order from The Tsar, this is just a request.

The Good Reverend Roger
May 9th, 2009, 06:06 PM
However, no-one is fool enough to think that you don't have considerable influence among them. Can you as a whole at least cut out the irrelevant crap and the World vs Daruko that you post on the forum please? If I wanted to visit a clone of PD, I'd visit PD itself. And this goes for anyone who may or may not be a PDer, including Vagoo (Who I suspect is, and maybe Paul) and Lamb (Who I suspect isn't). This isn't an order from The Tsar, this is just a request.


1. Any influence I have is because I think pretty much the same as they do. I am not inclined to alter the course of their behavior, even if I could.

2. Fucking with Daruko isn't a clone of PD, because he isn't at PD.

3. Not sure what you're after, Tsar.

Tsar Phalanxia
May 9th, 2009, 07:25 PM
1. Any influence I have is because I think pretty much the same as they do. I am not inclined to alter the course of their behaviour
That's why I'm asking you.

even if I could.


Oh, come off it. Why did all the PDers turn up after you got mistakenly banned? Because you have influence within PD.


2. Fucking with Daruko isn't a clone of PD, because he isn't at PD.
.
Judging from what I can see about your past history, it was at some point in the past.


3. Not sure what you're after, Tsar.

What do you mean?

The Good Reverend Roger
May 9th, 2009, 07:43 PM
Oh, come off it. Why did all the PDers turn up after you got mistakenly banned? Because you have influence within PD.


I can start shit, sometimes. I have never successfully stopped it. Of course, I've never tried. But don't get the idea that I'm sort of leader, that's not how Discordianism works.

The Good Reverend Roger
May 9th, 2009, 07:44 PM
What do you mean?

I mean, what is your desired end result for this board? Specifically?

Tsar Phalanxia
May 9th, 2009, 07:47 PM
I can start shit, sometimes. I have never successfully stopped it. Of course, I've never tried.
Don't you think now might be a good time?
But don't get the idea that I'm sort of leader, that's not how Discordianism works.
Oh, I know that. I'm not daft. However, you are high up in the pecking order.
I mean, what is your desired end result for this board? Specifically?
Desired end result? Wellll... my ultimate aim is for the CoG to be at least as well known as Pastafarianism. And I don't think the Church in it's current form will ever achieve that.

The Laughing Man
May 9th, 2009, 07:51 PM
Don't you think now might be a good time?

It doesn't work that way.

Besides, we haven't really done anything yet.

The Good Reverend Roger
May 9th, 2009, 07:57 PM
Don't you think now might be a good time?

Not particularly.


Oh, I know that. I'm not daft. However, you are high up in the pecking order.

What pecking order? There is no heirarchy. Here's how it works: I make a suggestion to come back over here and address a couple of people that can't shut the fuck up about ancient history. Some people think that would be funny, so they go along with it. Gee, now I want them to stop. They don't think that would be funny, so they tell me to piss up a rope.


Desired end result? Wellll... my ultimate aim is for the CoG to be at least as well known as Pastafarianism. And I don't think the Church in it's current form will ever achieve that.

And the best way to deal with that is to suck all the fun out of it with authoritarianism? Oh, and just for fun, go over to Veganza and look at how much "fun" they have.

Lastly, what on Earth do you benefit from it being "well known"? Is it an ego thing?

If you want the church to have more members, make people want to be members. You will NOT do that with somber, ultra-serious discussion, however, as people can already get that on a regular old political board.

Stop trying to force things, and just write/podcast/whatever. If your ideas are good, people will pay attention. Endlessly reorganizing will accomplish nothing but to ensure that the Church consists of 6 bitter fuckwads who spend all their time "regulating" conversations that don't exist, and occasionally mumbling sophist drivel about "the meaning of life".

Sound familiar?

fomenter
May 9th, 2009, 08:19 PM
Not particularly.



What pecking order? There is no heirarchy. Here's how it works: I make a suggestion to come back over here and address a couple of people that can't shut the fuck up about ancient history. Some people think that would be funny, so they go along with it. Gee, now I want them to stop. They don't think that would be funny, so they tell me to piss up a rope.
piss up a rope


And the best way to deal with that is to suck all the fun out of it with authoritarianism? Oh, and just for fun, go over to Veganza and look at how much "fun" they have. but if you kiss enough ass the will make you a mod and you can decide which posts are good and get to move or delete the ones that are not

Lastly, what on Earth do you benefit from it being "well known"? Is it an ego thing?

If you want the church to have more members, make people want to be members. You will NOT do that with somber, ultra-serious discussion, however, as people can already get that on a regular old political board.

Stop trying to force things, and just write/podcast/whatever. If your ideas are good, people will pay attention. Endlessly reorganizing will accomplish nothing but to ensure that the Church consists of 6 bitter fuckwads who spend all their time "regulating" conversations that don't exist, and occasionally mumbling sophist drivel about "the meaning of life".

Sound familiar? THIS

The Good Reverend Roger
May 9th, 2009, 08:21 PM
Because, you know, people always come to a joke religion to be totally serious.

That's what killed Pastafarianism.

Tsar Phalanxia
May 9th, 2009, 08:24 PM
Not particularly.



That's why I'm asking


What pecking order? There is no heirarchy. Here's how it works: I make a suggestion to come back over here and address a couple of people that can't shut the fuck up about ancient history. Some people think that would be funny, so they go along with it. Gee, now I want them to stop. They don't think that would be funny, so they tell me to piss up a rope.

Pecking order was the wrong word. But still, correct me if I'm wrong, but you're a mod/admin at PD.


Also, talking about Ancient History sounds fun.


And the best way to deal with that is to suck all the fun out of it with authoritarianism? Oh, and just for fun, go over to Veganza and look at how much "fun" they have.


I didn't say become the CoFSM. I said well known. Because we all know that the CoFSM is a pile of bollocks.


Lastly, what on Earth do you benefit from it being "well known"? Is it an ego thing?

Hell, there's not exactly any other goal for this site, right?


If you want the church to have more members, make people want to be members. You will NOT do that with somber, ultra-serious discussion, however, as people can already get that on a regular old political board.

Still, some people liek that kind of thing.


Stop trying to force things, and just write/podcast/whatever. If your ideas are good, people will pay attention. Endlessly reorganizing will accomplish nothing but to ensure that the Church consists of 6 bitter fuckwads who spend all their time "regulating" conversations that don't exist, and occasionally mumbling sophist drivel about "the meaning of life".

Hm. Ok then. I won't try and "enforce" moderation. However, I will draw attention to what I think is questionable content, e.g. the NSFW thread.

Btw, podcasts is a great idea

The Good Reverend Roger
May 9th, 2009, 08:25 PM
Btw, podcasts is a great idea


We've been doing them at PD for quite some time.

Tsar Phalanxia
May 9th, 2009, 08:26 PM
What do you usually do them on?

The Good Reverend Roger
May 9th, 2009, 08:27 PM
What do you usually do them on?


MS Moviemaker, then dump them on Youtube. They're stickied over at PD in Or Kill Me. There's about 3 threads of them.

Tsar Phalanxia
May 9th, 2009, 08:27 PM
Oh no, I meant subjects and the like. Although that's helpful too.

The Good Reverend Roger
May 10th, 2009, 06:51 AM
Oh no, I meant subjects and the like. Although that's helpful too.

Whatever comes up. We've done them on:

Fucking with Sister Gothique.
Epic shits.
The Bailouts.
Scientology.
TGRR as "Beautiful Fairy Princess" (don't ask).
Etc.

rmw
May 14th, 2009, 02:54 AM
Whatever comes up. We've done them on:

Fucking with Sister Gothique.
Epic shits.
The Bailouts.
Scientology.
TGRR as "Beautiful Fairy Princess" (don't ask).
Etc.

Sorry, but I have to ask: "Beautiful Fairy Princess"? :icon_eek: :icon_lol:

Dolores
May 14th, 2009, 04:16 AM
TGRR as "Beautiful Fairy Princess" (don't ask).


That was my FAVORITE.

The Good Reverend Roger
May 14th, 2009, 04:55 AM
Sorry, but I have to ask: "Beautiful Fairy Princess"? :icon_eek: :icon_lol:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNpt9Ev12Fo

Toldja not to ask.

rmw
May 14th, 2009, 04:57 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNpt9Ev12Fo

Toldja not to ask.

:icon_lol:

I suppose, one of these, I'll learn. BTW, I was digging the head-gear.

The Good Reverend Roger
May 14th, 2009, 05:01 AM
:icon_lol:

I suppose, one of these, I'll learn. BTW, I was digging the head-gear.

We princesses have to have tiaras, you know. So the peasants know when to tug on their forelocks.

Tsar Phalanxia
May 14th, 2009, 11:16 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNpt9Ev12Fo

Toldja not to ask.

O.O

Sister Faith
May 15th, 2009, 01:34 AM
We princesses have to have tiaras, you know. So the peasants know when to tug on their forelocks.

That was a tiara? :icon_eek:
It looked uncannily like a crown of thorns. :icon_twisted:

The Good Reverend Roger
May 15th, 2009, 04:09 AM
That was a tiara? :icon_eek:
It looked uncannily like a crown of thorns. :icon_twisted:


Technically still a tiara.

Dr Goofy Mofo
May 15th, 2009, 04:11 AM
So Jesus wasn't king of the jews he was princess of the jews?

The Good Reverend Roger
May 15th, 2009, 04:16 AM
O.O


I blame society.

And the drugs.

The Good Reverend Roger
May 15th, 2009, 04:16 AM
So Jesus wasn't king of the jews he was princess of the jews?


BEAUTIFUL JEWISH PRINCESS.

Tsar Phalanxia
May 15th, 2009, 08:54 AM
BEAUTIFUL JEWISH PRINCESS.

I want a nasty little Jewish Princess *La-la-la*

The Good Reverend Roger
May 16th, 2009, 08:02 AM
I want a nasty little Jewish Princess *La-la-la*


She'll only break your little shayguts heart.

Tsar Phalanxia
May 16th, 2009, 01:28 PM
Did you miss the reference?