Conquer Club

New reality show:

Dukusaur, a complete dour shell of a human being, lacking all joy or happiness in any form, sits in darkness at a computer screen. It's overcast and possibly raining outside, or at least that's the kind of vibe you get from the smelly goth-kid digs.

He locks a thread. There is no maniacal laugh as was when wicked was a mod, or the ham fisted righteous indignation and false piety of a Night Strike. Just a quiet, joyless locking.

THE END.

**Show not testing well with focus groups, ideas for new episodes welcomed.**

You know what, Dave? I give you permission to carry on with this thread.

I can't in good conscience allow you to ridicule other members, but I can and do allow you to ridicule me, as long as you don't overstep other major guidelines (porn, bigotry, criminality, etc.).

You're right that I took no joy in locking your other thread -- it was what any responsible mod would have done, given the fact that the object of your ridicule there did not consent to it. But in this case, the object of your ridicule does consent, so by all means carry on...

Dukasaur wrote:You know what, Dave? I give you permission to carry on with this thread.

I can't in good conscience allow you to ridicule other members, but I can and do allow you to ridicule me, as long as you don't overstep other major guidelines (porn, bigotry, criminality, etc.).

You're right that I took no joy in locking your other thread -- it was what any responsible mod would have done, given the fact that the object of your ridicule there did not consent to it. But in this case, the object of your ridicule does consent, so by all means carry on...

Dave, this needs to be incorporated into the pilot. Depth of character helps to humanize the lead.

Bollocks.

are we sure Dukasaur isn't just a robot?

EXCUSE ME

I was talking about Dukusaur, not this Dukasaur you guys are talking about. Dukusaur is also a big jerk.

Wait is Woodruff even still here? Has that guy not killed himself yet? Like I mean in real life. I had him pegged for at least suicide if not a murder-suicide. You know, take the wife with him.

1/10

And why the f*ck does someone deserve consent? Did I consent to being called names all the time by Woodruff? Nope. Did any of those children he verbally abused on a daily basis? Nope.

So lampooning a caricature is suddenly requiring consent?

lol

Dukasaur wrote:I can't in good conscience allow you to ridicule other members

Well then it's too bad you weren't a mod back in 2010 when that thread was actually posted. Good thing we have you around though -- that crime might have always been left unsolved.

Honestly, banning people for flaming others is pretty stupid.

It's very easy to notify the public that "person X is a troll; therefore, ignore him" (e.g. Symmetry). It's not like the community can't handle such issues.

Sure, there's the loud minority which throws out their reports (that definitely kill the forum in the long-run), but the chronic complainers really should be ignored. Of course, CC will ignore this advice and continue on its path of diminishing the value of this subforum, so whatever.

pimpdave wrote:And why the f*ck does someone deserve consent? Did I consent to being called names all the time by Woodruff? Nope. Did any of those children he verbally abused on a daily basis? Nope.

So lampooning a caricature is suddenly requiring consent?

lol

Nobody ever said being the good guy or taking the high road was easy.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Honestly, banning people for flaming others is pretty stupid.

It's very easy to notify the public that "person X is a troll; therefore, ignore him" (e.g. Symmetry). It's not like the community can't handle such issues.

Sure, there's the loud minority which throws out their reports (that definitely kill the forum in the long-run), but the chronic complainers really should be ignored. Of course, CC will ignore this advice and continue on its path of diminishing the value of this subforum, so whatever.

+1
I miss the CC that I used to know. Anyone else note that the peak of CC membership and the demise of flamewars occurred at the same time. FUCKING coincidence? Not that you would get any bestial paedo necro felcher with decision making authority on this site to even consider this point.

BoganGod wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Honestly, banning people for flaming others is pretty stupid.

It's very easy to notify the public that "person X is a troll; therefore, ignore him" (e.g. Symmetry). It's not like the community can't handle such issues.

Sure, there's the loud minority which throws out their reports (that definitely kill the forum in the long-run), but the chronic complainers really should be ignored. Of course, CC will ignore this advice and continue on its path of diminishing the value of this subforum, so whatever.

+1
I miss the CC that I used to know. Anyone else note that the peak of CC membership and the demise of flamewars occurred at the same time. FUCKING coincidence? Not that you would get any bestial paedo necro felcher with decision making authority on this site to even consider this point.

Actually, the bestial paedo necro felchers with decision making authority considered the point at great length. When the new owner took over one of his first proposals was to abolish all the rules. It was a major topic of discussion, and in the end cooler heads prevailed and the rules were preserved.

You're a restauranteur now, are you not? If some drunken boor walked into your restaurant and started loudly abusing your patrons, you would show him to the door. Don't even try lying and saying you wouldn't. No business could long survive allowing patrons to be abused and insulted while attempting to enjoy its fare. Preserving a minimum standard of decorum is the first prerequisite in creating a space that people want to remain in.

You are such a flea-bitten tramp!

Dukasaur wrote:

BoganGod wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Honestly, banning people for flaming others is pretty stupid.

It's very easy to notify the public that "person X is a troll; therefore, ignore him" (e.g. Symmetry). It's not like the community can't handle such issues.

Sure, there's the loud minority which throws out their reports (that definitely kill the forum in the long-run), but the chronic complainers really should be ignored. Of course, CC will ignore this advice and continue on its path of diminishing the value of this subforum, so whatever.

+1
I miss the CC that I used to know. Anyone else note that the peak of CC membership and the demise of flamewars occurred at the same time. FUCKING coincidence? Not that you would get any bestial paedo necro felcher with decision making authority on this site to even consider this point.

Actually, the bestial paedo necro felchers with decision making authority considered the point at great length. When the new owner took over one of his first proposals was to abolish all the rules. It was a major topic of discussion, and in the end cooler heads prevailed and the rules were preserved.

You're a restauranteur now, are you not? If some drunken boor walked into your restaurant and started loudly abusing your patrons, you would show him to the door. Don't even try lying and saying you wouldn't. No business could long survive allowing patrons to be abused and insulted while attempting to enjoy its fare. Preserving a minimum standard of decorum is the first prerequisite in creating a space that people want to remain in.

In the CC world, it's easy to enjoy one's meal while remaining in the restaurant because the user can ignore the forum while continue playing the game.

In my opinion, the cracking down on flame wars was largely due to moderators and most likely head admin getting tired of receiving numerous complaints of bullying. Since the 'victims' can easily pass on the costs of punishment to the higher-ups, they would be less likely to 'foe and move on'. The admin believed it was doing the right thing, the victims encouraged them on, and the long-run consequences were the destruction of a forum.

The problem is that the long-run consequences aren't felt by each individual complainer, so it's easy to dodge the costs of the Great Decline while rent-seeking for concentrated benefits. Admins and mods who were generally well-intended obliged them and seemingly contributed to the root cause of decay in the fora.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

BoganGod wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Honestly, banning people for flaming others is pretty stupid.

It's very easy to notify the public that "person X is a troll; therefore, ignore him" (e.g. Symmetry). It's not like the community can't handle such issues.

Sure, there's the loud minority which throws out their reports (that definitely kill the forum in the long-run), but the chronic complainers really should be ignored. Of course, CC will ignore this advice and continue on its path of diminishing the value of this subforum, so whatever.

+1
I miss the CC that I used to know. Anyone else note that the peak of CC membership and the demise of flamewars occurred at the same time. FUCKING coincidence? Not that you would get any bestial paedo necro felcher with decision making authority on this site to even consider this point.

Actually, the bestial paedo necro felchers with decision making authority considered the point at great length. When the new owner took over one of his first proposals was to abolish all the rules. It was a major topic of discussion, and in the end cooler heads prevailed and the rules were preserved.

You're a restauranteur now, are you not? If some drunken boor walked into your restaurant and started loudly abusing your patrons, you would show him to the door. Don't even try lying and saying you wouldn't. No business could long survive allowing patrons to be abused and insulted while attempting to enjoy its fare. Preserving a minimum standard of decorum is the first prerequisite in creating a space that people want to remain in.

In the CC world, it's easy to enjoy one's meal while remaining in the restaurant because the user can ignore the forum while continue playing the game.

In my opinion, the cracking down on flame wars was largely due to moderators and most likely head admin getting tired of receiving numerous complaints of bullying. Since the 'victims' can easily pass on the costs of punishment to the higher-ups, they would be less likely to 'foe and move on'. The admin believed it was doing the right thing, the victims encouraged them on, and the long-run consequences were the destruction of a forum.

The problem is that the long-run consequences aren't felt by each individual complainer, so it's easy to dodge the costs of the Great Decline while rent-seeking for concentrated benefits. Admins and mods who were generally well-intended obliged them and seemingly contributed to the root cause of decay in the fora.

+1

Well said BBS. Dino boy, I serve a lot of takeaway and home delivery. When I deliver food I don't judge people on their level of impairment on any substance. What I get paid to do is make, and deliver the food then f*ck off. That is the social contract. No one had to venture into flame wars, people went there by choice. Those that go around deliberately looking for something to be offended by, will always find what they seek. A more apt analogy related to my professional life would be this. Banning flame wars is about as logical as me saying no one could have cheese on their pizzas because one person with lactose intolerance complained.......

Haven't we bullied all the whiners and complainers off the site? As soon as that was accomplished, I understood flame wars would return.

Who's left? Phatty and JiffyJef?

When people start doxxing, it's going too far. Otherwise, who cares?

pimpdave wrote:When people start doxxing, it's going too far. Otherwise, who cares?

Please define doxxing, am curious which meaning of the word you are using(no I'm not able to tell from context)