#51 2007-10-15 16:26:27
Decadence wrote:
Yeah, you know, that really doesn't carry quite the same bite on a site named High-Street.
Maybe if Conan the Alcoholic were made of Miller High-Life boxes.
And what is with all the "stealth admins/mods" around here? It's not like I'm personally worried about it, but that and sock puppetry really aren't very fair.
"Some pigs are better than other pigs."
- G. Orwell
Offline
#52 2007-10-15 16:27:34
Roger_That wrote:
Peace out fools, time to hit the gym.
{Microwaving popped-corn, and awaiting the ensuing "fat camp" jokes}
Offline
#53 2007-10-15 16:30:13
pALEPHx wrote:
And what is with all the "stealth admins/mods" around here?
Uhh, exactly how much time did you spend on Cruel exactly? I mean, if you didn't see that one coming . . .
Offline
#54 2007-10-15 16:47:43
AlterId wrote:
choad wrote:
Roger_That wrote:
This is not a democracy!
Does anarchy work for you?
Let's start a pool. I give it 23 days.
Speak to me, Alterman. The top end of this thread was so much fun I pissed myself, and sue me or don't, as you wish, I'd like to keep the same spirit here.
What do you suggest instead?
Offline
#55 2007-10-15 17:10:21
Group hug, everyone!
Offline
#56 2007-10-15 17:22:14
Taint wrote:
Group hug, everyone!
Okay, but only a brief one . . . Dude, would you mind removing your hand from my ass?
Offline
#57 2007-10-15 17:24:39
That's not his hand.
Offline
#58 2007-10-15 18:49:46
three pages worth of posts and not ONE single picture (the first one doesnt count).
Offline
#59 2007-10-15 18:51:13
{TITS}This space reserved for Kim{/TITS}
Offline
#60 2007-10-15 19:06:07
kim wrote:
three pages worth of posts and not ONE single picture (the first one doesnt count).
Yay! Best thread ever!
Offline
#61 2007-10-15 19:08:14
Decadence wrote:
Uhh, exactly how much time did you spend on Cruel exactly? I mean, if you didn't see that one coming...
Oh, I saw it. I was around plenty, well before I started posting. It's just that I don't think the membership is large enough, or the content and join rates high enough, to merit it. Twelve admins, plus two mods? What's the point? If their functions and hierarchy aren't defined, and there are no set goals or expectations of them (short of the obvious Ban Button), then how many cooks does it take to spoil a porridge?
Like I said, I don't personally object to any of them (what difference would it make if I did?), but I've watched forums go down in flames when this ratio was off and/or the roles weren't defined for all to see. It can turn especially ugly when it's obvious that the 'staff' makes the majority of the posts. Otherwise, it just looks like "Grand Poobah So-and-So & All His Frenemies running a site where passers-by are tolerated as long as they caper about like good little organ monkeys."
It's OK. I know my place in the scheme of things.
Offline
