A thread about a man named Xabi

[dave u]

This place is becoming a joke, a clean up is needed.

 

It has been suggested to me that we introduce a big brother style eviction process, where the ten biggest douchebags on the forum are selected and eventually voted out one by one until only one is left, and that forumite is allowed to stay.

 

I'm not entirely convinced by the idea, but it does have some appeal and would be pretty interesting. The format would need some sorting out though.

 

If enough people want it, I'll do it. If you don't, I won't.

 

Also, I've just banned attacking_play because several people have asked me to, and because I think he was a WUM.

[Spy Bee]

He was a jamook. Like that Nasty Nick off the first series.

[RedKnight]

He was a jamook. Like that Nasty Nick off the first series.

 

Jamook should be in the forum motto. It's a top quality word.

[Stouffer]

Big brother evictions would be good shit, until somebody started doing an annoying Geordie voiceover parody.

[Neil G]

A good idea, but I'm not sure about picking ten people regardless. There might only be eight whoppers, and the ninth person to be 'evicted' might be bearable.

 

A better system might be to put people up for eviction if a certain number of other posters nominate them, like Momo was first time round. There could be a poll, and the only votes that would be counted would be those from people with a minimum number of posts (100 perhaps?). If Dave doesn't have time to check this then a mod could be assigned to each poll to do it.

 

I know that looks like a two-tier justice system, but it's the only way to prevent annoying trolls being saved by aliases and lurkers. I think that contributing to the forum over a certain amount of time and making an effort to maintain its standards should entitle people to have a bit more of a say in how it's run. This principle already exists with mods, who have the power to edit and delete threads. Newbies with a handful of posts to their name aren't given mod status, so it's not as if a new precedent would be being set.

 

A bit complicated perhaps, but worth the effort to improve the forum. As you say Dave, something needs to be done.

[Vincent Vega]

I was guilty of lowering the tone last night, so my apologies to all.

 

I really shouldn't come on here when I'm bevvied as I'm far more likely to get wound up by some of the muppets who frequent the site.

[dave u]

I was guilty of lowering the tone last night, so my apologies to all.

 

I really shouldn't come on here when I'm bevvied as I'm far more likely to get wound up by some of the muppets who frequent the site.

 

 

Drunken posts don't count, so you're ok!

[Section_31]

Why don't you put a ban on new members for a short while? The shite clogginbg the place up is three or four people re-regsitering again and again.

[dave u]

Some very good points by Neil G. Maybe ten is too many? It's also only fair that the people who've been around a while are the ones who get the biggest say. It's for their sake I think we need a cull. Those who remember the good old days and who are sick of what's been happening on here recently.

 

I'll leave it to you all to come up with ideas for how it can be done, and then we'll set about implementing something.

[dave u]

Why don't you put a ban on new members for a short while? The shite clogginbg the place up is three or four people re-regsitering again and again.

 

 

It's not though. Momo has had loads of aliases, which is why I've allowed his latest one to stay, at least until he oversteps the mark again. I don't think many other banned users have kept coming back though.

 

The problem with banning new members, is that many of them have a lot to contribute. I think the way to go is the eviction process, where you all get to decide who you want rid of.

[Section_31]

It's not though. Momo has had loads of aliases, which is why I've allowed his latest one to stay, at least until he oversteps the mark again. I don't think many other banned users have kept coming back though.

 

The problem with banning new members, is that many of them have a lot to contribute. I think the way to go is the eviction process, where you all get to decide who you want rid of.

 

 

Fair enough, heven't been on for a while so i don't know whats been going on, but a while back there was Tactics Truck, Brendan, Pablo B and Momo getting banned and registering again, it became a guessing game as to who this new Wum was by his writing style!

[Bellflower]

Uh, oh. get the ammo in Rash, you're gonna be below the parapet for a while, the Open Agenda mob will be coming your way..........................

[Captain]

I think Neil G hit the nail on the head in his post.

[05 Milan]

If we do it Big Brother style, can we watch them having sex on live webcam? I think it would be pretty funny to see a pissed-up Momo/Raddy trying to get under attacking_play's skirt.

[kop]

A clean up is needed, I agree with that. I'm not sure if this is the way to do it though. You've always had a policy when it comes to behavour and freedom of speech, that is a very tolerant one and also respected by many, me included. You are now taking a stand where you say enough is enough. I can respect that policy aswell, as I've seen what's happenig to this forum through the current policy.

 

I do not think the way is through a "big brother style eviction" -process though. What you need to do is make your new policy clear to everyone on here and make the decisions on who deserves a ban yourself. Run a strict line, stricter in the beginning that after a while, and ban those you think deserves it. If you ban people after a nominationprocess and then a poll, you are risking the credibility of your forum in my opinion. It will be great entertainment, I can see that, but it will also be shortsighted.

[Mr Moustache]

Some of the threads that get started are just lame. New members or WUM's just going over old ground. I liked the idea about one single thread for a post-match discussion. Sometimes I come on here and I'm not sure which one to rant in!

 

I tend not to start too many threads myself because frankly I dont think I've got anything different or radically original to say to what some of the really articulate and passionate people on here come up with.

[airbags]

A clean up is needed, I agree with that. I'm not sure if this is the way to do it though. You've always had a policy when it comes to behavour and freedom of speech, that is a very tolerant one and also respected by many, me included. You are now taking a stand where you say enough is enough. I can respect that policy aswell, as I've seen what's happenig to this forum through the current policy.

 

I do not think the way is through a "big brother style eviction" -process though. What you need to do is make your new policy clear to everyone on here and make the decisions on who deserves a ban yourself. Run a strict line, stricter in the beginning that after a while, and ban those you think deserves it. If you ban people after a nominationprocess and then a poll, you are risking the credibility of your forum in my opinion. It will be great entertainment, I can see that, but it will also be shortsighted.

 

 

That's all you needed to say, Big Brother Elimination it is.

[philyhamann]

Can't people just re-register straight away?

[dave u]

Can't people just re-register straight away?

 

 

Some can, some can't. Depends on their ip addresses. If they have a static one, they can be banned permanently.

[Paul]

A clean up is needed, I agree with that. I'm not sure if this is the way to do it though. You've always had a policy when it comes to behavour and freedom of speech, that is a very tolerant one and also respected by many, me included. You are now taking a stand where you say enough is enough. I can respect that policy aswell, as I've seen what's happenig to this forum through the current policy.

 

I do not think the way is through a "big brother style eviction" -process though. What you need to do is make your new policy clear to everyone on here and make the decisions on who deserves a ban yourself. Run a strict line, stricter in the beginning that after a while, and ban those you think deserves it. If you ban people after a nominationprocess and then a poll, you are risking the credibility of your forum in my opinion. It will be great entertainment, I can see that, but it will also be shortsighted.

Wise words from Brother Knut, as per.

[Carradona]

Dave, who are the people that would be put up for the vote?

[Spy Bee]

Dave, who are the people that would be put up for the vote?

We need an airhead with big tits, someone with endearing tourettes, a puff, an irish guy, and someone who thinks cheese grows on plants.

[Carradona]

We need an airhead with big tits, someone with endearing tourettes, a puff, an irish guy, and someone who thinks cheese grows on plants.

And a tranny or some sort of weird he/she

[Cath]

We need an airhead with big tits, someone with endearing tourettes, a puff, an irish guy, and someone who thinks cheese grows on plants.

Hyypiagirl, Momo, TomR, Gav and Red Nick it is then.

[The-Sir]

The thing is, people like Rash and Momo usually do have some good debates, but both can be cunts from time to time. If Rash and Momo were put up for nomination we know they'd both get banned, and I reckon the forum would lose some identity. What we need to do is get rid of spammers, WUMs and annoying milfs from Malta who cant speak very good English.