OG proposal #1 (June 09) - Cull worthless members?

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by James R, Jun 16, 2009.

?

Should we go ahead and remove useless members?

Poll closed Jun 23, 2009.
  1. Yes.

    10 vote(s)
    38.5%
  2. No.

    9 vote(s)
    34.6%
  3. Abstain.

    7 vote(s)
    26.9%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    do you think the people who voted yes assume its not them and the people who voted no assume it is them?
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    No. I think most would think its not them. Who here would think of themselves as a noob or a woowoo? Woowoo and noobs generally are oblivious that they are behaving as such.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i agree, how are "members" that haven't posted useless?
    if the join date and the number of posts are also included it won't take an advertiser long to realize the list is padded.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    hey uh....dumbo
    the list aint .......padded

    all those that joined but did not post, left in disgust at the periodic witchhunts conducted here
    they said: "we shall have no part in this insanity. our good names shall neither be sullied nor tainted by an unsavory association with the profligate licentiousness and debauchery of these shameless scribblers"

    so they ran
    ran like motherfucking hell
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2009
  8. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    maybe it isn't a witchhunt.
    maybe james wants to know why a certain member should be banned, not necessarily that they should be.

    i realize in the strictest use of the term the members list isn't "padded".
    "hasn't been purged" would be a better term.
     
  9. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Since he is the one who [perma]bans most members , maybe he should tell us his criteria instead?
     
  10. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i would assume his criteria would be the general rules of the site and his bosses.
     
  11. pjdude1219 screw watergate i want to know about zaragate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,938
    i could think of several people here i would describe as useless but wouldn't want them gone. Their train wreck entertaining.
     
  12. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    im sorry to say this but if its to come to pass then i vote draqon. Not for his opinions but rather for the way he turned a whole thread into a "oh woe is me everyone is breaching protcal xx by being mean to me"
     
  13. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Oh bloody hell. Dragon is ok, he's not the only one who's dedicated a thread to him or herself. Cut him some slack why don't ya.
     
  14. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    i think your exadurating a bit there

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Alot of people havent started threads on themselves
     
  15. Liebling Doesn't Need to be Spoonfed. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,532
    We would, but the slacks been all used up, Lucy darling. There just isn't anymore left.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    There is only so much lenience that you can give people before enough is enough really. Being compassionate doesn't always mean being nice. Sometimes, it means being rough and harsh if it's in the best interest in everyone involved. It's hardly as major as everyone is making it out to be, all melodramatic and "save the whales". It's an internet forum, our of hundreds of thousands of forums out there...

    If draqon and Tnerb posted their self-loathing, woe-is-me posts on a blog and came here just to talk about other stuff, it wouldn't even be mentioned. Hell, if a lot of these people left their baggage on their blogs it wouldn't be so hard to get through a whole thread without it being derailed by some sort of meltdown or personal conflict.
     
  16. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    I'll miss you drag:bawl:

    What if he bought us off with good russian vodka?

    Well I wouldn't vote him off. Actually I don't have anyone to vote off.
     
  17. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    ALL from one thread, (a three page thread i might add which initially had nothing do with him), if he wants to complaine about a post (or multiple posts) he is free to use the report button but delibratly disrailing threads is unhelpful to say the least. This isnt the first time he has done it either

    As for buying people drinks, how about he just knocks off the "wow is me you are breaching these rules and im going to go cry about it" all the time.
     
  18. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Were the rules breached? If they were, that may be one of the reasons he continued to cry about it. Or are the rules just there to suit the convenience of the moderators to apply when they wish?
    Silly me. That is exactly how it seems to be done.
     
  19. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    Ophiolite possably, probably not (concidering james was involved in that debate and chose to take no action) however rather than keep posting winey posts why didnt he just hit the report button?

    If a thief was stealing your car you would call the cops not stand there and winge that theft is illegal.
     
  20. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Maybe he felt he could deal with it one on one, no need to cry teacher.
     
  21. takandjive Killer Queen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,361
    Know what, boys? I told you precisely why I'm fine with it until you start saying, "Well, so-n-so didn't need a warning because s/he knows," but someone runs their mouth about molesting a girl, and you simply warn them.

    James, in response to, "Well, you wouldn't like it if you got banned without warning," if I was talking about molesting underaged people, I kind of expect it.

    I guess being "fair" holds most important above all else when it comes to child molestation. Wouldn't want to be unfair and just outright ban him for an unsolicited PM about fingering a young girl. We never said that wasn't okay.

    As I told you earlier: I don't want to tell you how to do your job. I want you to do it. I don't want to be a mod. I want you to use your brain. I consider it part of your job to keep people who commit sex crimes that almost all people agree are atrocious off the boards.

    And that is absolutely all I have to say, now or ever with regard to you, James.
     
  22. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,847
    James has made his pont (once agan)... that opinions on who shud be baned is like azz-holes... almos everbody has one.!!!

    PS
    I say... give James the pat on the head he needs for the adgervaton assoiated wit bein an adminstrater ((((-BIG-PAT-)))... an also... a 1 day ban for startin this thred to "use" members to make/prove his pont insted of jus statin his case.!!!
     
  23. Dr Lou Natic Unnecessary Surgeon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,574
    Asguard and lucifer's angel have to be two of the most useless. Potentially they could be very usefull indeed, but since we're discouraged from insulting them and often punished for doing so, I really don't see any reason for them to be here. They're just ban-bait, only serving to disrupt the forums, ultimately driving good members away due to how incredibly frustrating it is to interact with people like this in a "no insults" environment.

    Like I said though, their potential is outstanding, as far as the internet goes they're diamonds of a brilliance rarely encountered, you can't buy or artificially replicate what they so effortlessly provide, so I'd rather just change the rules.
    This forum is stupidly uptight, no one should ever take the internet as seriously as it is taken on sciforums. All this effort put in to make sciforums "mature" ultimately comes across as extremely immature. Basically if you feel you're too mature to be immature on the internet, you have a lot of growing up to do.
    This is an internet forum, not a courtroom, it exists for entertainment purposes, it should be silly, it should be filled with outlandish comments from strange people that are ridiculous, absurd, inappropriate, overtly offensive, etc, inflammatory, so as to ignite vigorous and hopefully entertaining discussions.
    What people get punished for at sciforums are precisely the qualities that fuel good forums.

    So I guess the most useless members, the most unnecessary, the most counterproductive, well if we're being realistic that would be jamesr, tiassa, plazma, etc. What are our chances of being rid of them?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page