Heh. nods I guess so. Maybe the members don’t like being reminded of that?
What’s the matter, raindog, not getting enough attention in the ATMB thread? It’s funny that you think your irritation is so important as to merit its own thread while you trivialize and misrepresent everyone else’s.
I agree with you that some people are probably being overly dramatic, and I know far better than you that Ed does not have the nefarious intentions some are attributing to him. That said, people have the right to express their feelings on this, so shut the fuck up already. You’ve posted 50 times in the ATMB thread so far. We’ve heard your opinion. You’re not the only person here.
You may feel that the new rules are perfectly clear, but obviously not everyone agrees, myself included. When it comes to moderation, the devil is in the details, and the time to work these issues out is when the rule is introduced. I think the staff is doing a very poor job of working through the confusion with the community – I suspect they, like you, have written the whole response off as the overreaction of a few drama queens. This is a huge mistake, IMO. Ignore the few posters who have gone a bit over the top and you still have a large number of people expressing legitimate confusion and concern.
So give it a rest, you sanctimonious twat. Christ.
Think of it this way:
Popular local pub has a smoking lounge in the rear. When it gets taken away, the smokers will voice dissent.
Edit: They may not have chosen the bar soley for the smoking lounge (but the great mixed drinks instead), but it is still a change to something they got to like, maybe.
where else do you generally do most of the things that people do on a message board? People don’t generally strike up heated discussions on politics and religion and such with their coworkers at lunch. well, some do but those people are generally considered to be tools.
Sure, but that’s because they now have to walk outside to smoke. How are the dissenters inconvenienced in this case?
Have I posted 50 times in that thread. or is that creative license? Because even if it was 50 times (which I doubt) it is 5.3% of the current thread count.
Lemme guess how many times you’ve told the people you agree with to chill…
I cannot understand how you see no difference between being able to do something, and then no longer being able to do something…
Funny, coming from the guy’s who’s been more insulting than every other poster in the original thread, combined.
Oh, right, but “abusive” and “insulting” are different. How they’re different, no one can actually say. Judging by the attempts to moderate this new rule, the difference between the two words changes on an hourly basis. But that’s no reason to do something as silly as call the new rule inconsistent, poorly considered, or badly implemented! Anyone who does that is being childish!
You malignant cock.
What’s the magic number you must reach before we can say you’ve posted (in the other thread) more than necessary to make your point… 10%?
Raindog, you scrofulous quim. I dislike you.
51, as of right now. (Click on the number of posts to get a breakdown of who has posted how many times in a given thread.) And 5.3% is a huge percentage when the thread is about a new board policy that affects everyone.
Ah, I see, I’m being mean to you because I can’t tolerate opinions which are different than mine. Righto.
I posted what I did to you because you’re being an annoying little prick. Well, that and because you opened a new thread which was perfect for pointing out your obnoxiousness and hypocrisy. I have no problem with your opinion itself, just shut the fuck up about it already.
Am I the only person who has been completely unaffected by the rules change? Outside of reading threads about the rules change of course.
It’s benign, afaik.
Do you really want us to believe that we took 1000 posts to ask if we could have some good will motivated clarification?
C’mon Miller. You know better. This was a silly tactic to show up the new rule as unworkable. I agree that clarification is needed, but we have 1000 posts, the bulk of which are dramatic and many hysterical.
This wasn’t about clarification, as much as it was using whatever ambiguity to use as wedge to stop the new rule, as opposed to clarify/improve the new rule.
Get real dude. How many of those posts were in agreement with the spirit or principle of the new rule and simply wanted it refined, as opposed to those who were insisting it be scrapped?
But I’ll throw you this: To any poster in the previous thread who was posting rationally and simply wanted clarification and supported the new rule and just wanted to help in it’s effective implementation, *I apologize. ***
**
All three of you.
They can still do it. They can’t do it as much or as vociferously, and for the truly overwrought there are at least three off-board SDMB-related fora. The point is that they don’t have to walk somewhere else, or go home- they just have to click over to a new window.
Perhaps you missed the other 879 posts while scouring the thread for mine.
Shut about it already, is right.
And if i post my rant in the youtube forums or anywhere else, how can I tell the other posters of the SDMB so they can read it?, do i post a link? would it be admissible?, wouldnt be better if we had a forum in the SDMB where the posters could see my rant and… oh yes we HAD one.
Of course you are.
It was creative license actually. It’s 51 times. You condescending shit.
I didn’t scour anything, as I just told you. If you click on the number of posts, it tells you who posted how many times. Get it?
Dumbass. (If it’s good enough for Red Forman, it’s good enough for me.) There was no scouring involved. It’s not hard to see who’s posted to a thread and how many times.
For instance, you realize you’ve posted twice as much in that thread as the next most prolific poster?
No.