Jewbaccah doesn't like hatvol

I couldn't see the blue guy's finger from such an oddly upward angle, and thought Rex's reaction was my own doing.

 

Clearly, you've been banned. Send me a PM to confirm it.

And if you receive an email from the Prince of Africa requesting money, that's us, too.

 

The simplest explanation...

 

I don't really give a shit today. I'm more concerned about A&M stealing Barton. I can post and that's great. I couldn't for a while, oh ****ing well. Moving on.

 

Your standard for "great" is set incredibly low.

 

Will someone tell me if I'm banned? And if so, for how long?

 

Apparently so.

 

Also, can I ban all of you?

 

I've been thinking of a way that the members could silence another user, albeit temporarily, and as luck would have it, we could toggle some reputation settings that would prevent anyone with a negative "X" user rating from posting for "Y" amount of time.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

 

I prefer to let idiots post, then get pummelled. Silencing them just limits the opportunities for them to make fools of themselves.

 

I'm again it. Same flavor of stuff that got on my nerves about the old place.

 

On a serious note, it depends on what you desire as a result. If you want more agreement and friendliness, then yes, I think the system you mentioned would be effective. Most people would be agreeable just for the opportunity to keep talking.

 

Fair point. My only argument would be that there is a rare breed of poster who likes the attention, even if overwhelmingly negative, and who only sees the being pummeled as a badge of honor, and which fuels them to even greater idiocy.

And at some point, people just get tired of reading their shit, and putting up with their nonsense.

 

**** that hippie bullshit.

 

We want to avoid that, for sure.

But, there is some flexibility available - where only a great number of people (a large representative sample, if you will) could affect anyone's posting privileges - say, just as a way of an example, you could set it at -100. That would require 100 different people to give you a negative rep, and they can only vote on a single post at a time (I.e. you couldn't just railroad someone).

Does that flexibility change your mind, not that I intended for it to do so, just being more explanatory of the Austen's functionality.

 

I am a sick sort that enjoys reading back-and-forths, conflicts, and e-drama. As long as it isn't leaking over into the real world.

 

That was a bit of excellence by IP.

 

Quit giving away the [dadgum] secrets.

 

100 sounds like a high bar. At that point, I wouldn't really have a problem with it. At the same time, I'm not sure it's necessary just because of this one incident. (I'm still not exactly sure what all has gone down.)

 

Agreed.