• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Future of the Forum

lionking said:
If the rules are changed significantly, I, and I'm sure many others, will be out of here. They've been good enough for my 7 years here, despite the yellow cards I've received.

In addition, I would not support "priors" being deleted.
Click to expand...

I feel the same way though without any cards.
 
smartcooky said:
Capitalisation of the "A" in the middle of a sentence makes it a noun, not an adjective, and singular not plural. For multiples it would be Anonymouses (not anonymii as you might think)
Click to expand...


Are you seriously not aware of the organization Anonymous?

Or are you trying to claim Apology was not talking about them? I'm confused.


Apology said:
It's not just paranoia either; I saw a Tom Cruise forum completely destroyed by Anonymous in a matter of minutes using this method.
Click to expand...

smartcooky said:
Anonymous, I read in this context to be a a pseudonym for a single user.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
AJM8125 said:
I'll throw in -

Conspiraider (sp?)
Fiona
whatthebutlersaw


They were good ones - I wish them well.

Didn't Rolfe leave too? That'd be another one.
Click to expand...

I think Rolfe is still around. Fiona, love her dearly, will not come back. And I really miss whatthebutlersaw.
 
There could be lots of reasons why seasoned posters leave the forum. It is possible that they simply wanted to spend more time on their real life interests?
 
Foolmewunz said:
We can pull out anecdotal evidence all we want, because I've seen people turn their backs and never come back. "Never" is a long time, but when was the last time anyone saw a post by:

The Atheist
Lothian
CF Larsen
Marquis de Carabas
Slingblade
Schrodinger's Cat
FLS (Linda)
Central Scrutinizer (oh wait... he's just on ignore)

None of those are banned. They are self-exiled. To the best of my knowledge each of them had an issue with either management or treatment by other posters(and thus management).
Click to expand...

Those are some very... varied cases.

Edited by Gaspode: 
Removed breach of rule 12.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chaos said:
Those are some very... varied cases.

Edited by Gaspode: 
Removed breach of rule 12.
Click to expand...

I assume that you know that I know that there are varied reasons (ditto comment from Steenkh).

I really didn't want to post bios of the contretemps surrounding the departure, but was merely countering another poster's interpretation that members who declare they're leaving, and I quote "... and they always crawl back out of boredom". I haven't seen a lot of crawling and I haven't seen any of those posters return for more than a cursory read-through from time to time, if I've noticed them at all. The PTB could tell me if they've seen activity, because I'm not checking on them... but from what little I've seen, most of those people may have left in someone's interpretation of a "huff", but left-and-not-thus-far-returned was the point I'm making. I was not commenting on Moderation Good/Moderation Bad, just the act of splitting.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Edited by Gaspode: 
Removed breach of rule 12.


Most of the others, I'd be happy to see return.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let's just hope that there will not be a process where banned members will be allowed to return based on their popularity.....
 
lionking said:
Let's just hope that there will not be a process where banned members will be allowed to return based on their popularity.....
Click to expand...
While that decision would be up to the new owners, my general assumptions would be that A) their rules will bear a significant similarity to current rules, and therefore B) those people who've already more than adequately demonstrated their lack of ability or desire to follow those rules will not be welcomed back.

I do think it might offer an opportunity for banned members to make an individual appeal...if they can make a convincing case that they should be allowed as members because they will change the behavior that got them banned, it might be worth considering. But if their argument is essentially, "You changed owners, so you should let me back in"...then fergedaboutit.
 
I will just add here that I am in favour of all legacy sanctions and disciplinary records being torched. Just like if a new forum was started. That obviously includes lifting all bans.

The rules would be best if kept the same as they have been.

(I continue to believe on balance that none of the historic forum content will survive)
 
lionking said:
It's only 18GB. Destroying the forum archive would be nothing short of vandalism.
Click to expand...

It's not about volume of data, it's about what that data is. If JREF feels they have no legal right to transfer it, they won't. If JREF believes that it's continued availability on the web constitutes an ongoing risk of litigation, they also won't.
 
Wolfman said:
While that decision would be up to the new owners, my general assumptions would be that A) their rules will bear a significant similarity to current rules, and therefore B) those people who've already more than adequately demonstrated their lack of ability or desire to follow those rules will not be welcomed back.

I do think it might offer an opportunity for banned members to make an individual appeal...if they can make a convincing case that they should be allowed as members because they will change the behavior that got them banned, it might be worth considering. But if their argument is essentially, "You changed owners, so you should let me back in"...then fergedaboutit.
Click to expand...

Basically you are saying people should be considered for re-entry if the rules they broke get remove/modified.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree. The inability to follow the rules as they are in place at that specific place in time is the relevent issue here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom