I-Mockery Forum

I-Mockery Forum (http://i-mockery.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Blabber (http://i-mockery.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   I-Mockery Chat (Lube up those lips) (http://i-mockery.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8799)

Guitar Woman Mar 27th, 2008 11:13 PM

Why, Boogie, I thought you were opposed to that sort of retroactive law enforcement.

Pub Lover Mar 27th, 2008 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guitar Woman (Post 542879)
Why, Boogie, I thought you were opposed to that sort of retroactive law enforcement.

What does retroactive mean, GW?

Pub Lover Mar 27th, 2008 11:21 PM

Cop: YOU COMMITED A CRIME! IMMA ARRESTING YOU!
Criminal: Nah, I commited that crime ages ago.
Cop: Oh, ok. Have fun not getting punished.
Pub: What is a statute of limitations?
Cop: RODNEY KING TIME!

Guitar Woman Mar 27th, 2008 11:21 PM

retro, meaning backwards, and active, meaning adslkjfdskjfdsakjfdsa;lkjfdsa

Dr. Boogie Mar 27th, 2008 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guitar Woman (Post 542879)
Why, Boogie, I thought you were opposed to that sort of retroactive law enforcement.

Oh dear me! Did I say that? Or did I say I was against the retroactive reduction of a penalty? I know it was one of those two, but I'm getting so forgetful in my old age.

GADZOOKS Mar 27th, 2008 11:32 PM

Now that this has been settled, can we lock this thread?

executioneer Mar 27th, 2008 11:32 PM

i thought this website was for all KINDS of retro stuff

WhiteRat Mar 27th, 2008 11:32 PM


Chojin Mar 27th, 2008 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Boogie (Post 542875)
The point is that you yourself set down the rules for this, and now you want to go back on them. I think you put down the perma-ban remark in the hopes that it would deter casual posters and newbies alike from joining in just to fuck things up, without ever intending to follow through with it. And why not? As you pointed out, there certainly was a precedent for ignoring the people who fucked up.

But last year, we had some people who didn't post shit, and they just happened to be vets. These were people you'd expect to follow through with a board event (and Noob3), but they didn't for one reason or another. And I was cool with that, for a long while. But eventually, I felt like we should enforce the rules, and I wanted it to apply to all the offenders, with no special treatment for the vets.

As for why people from previous years weren't banned, I have no answer for that, apart from that responsibility for banning them should have fallen on whoever was running the event that year. If you want, we can go back and ban all those people.

Yes, in my infinite wisdom at the age of 21 or whatever I certainly did lay down the law.

You are not giving me any reasons why we shouldn't change things.

You should probably try answering the question I asked if you want a serious response.

But not before getting me a coffee.

Guitar Woman Mar 27th, 2008 11:38 PM

Quote:

Oh dear me! Did I say that? Or did I say I was against the retroactive reduction of a penalty? I know it was one of those two, but I'm getting so forgetful in my old age.
Ok, but it's still a little unfair to permaban a bunch of people and then go LOL WHOOPS WE CHANGED DA ROOLZ BUT UH YOU GUYS ARE STILL SHAFTED, while fuckups from past years are still off the hook. All y'all are changing this right after the fact, too, which might also weigh in as a little bit mean if you don't give the CRIMINALS IN QUESTION pardons.

Basically, I think that if the rules are changed, the administration should be required to do one of two things:

1. Go back through the history books and find everyone who broke the secret santa rules, and then ban them (emotionless robot option)

or

2. Unban everyone from 2007 and just forget the entire thing ever happened. Mabye give them a temporary penalty, blacklist them in future events, whatever.



But then again, I'm not part of the forum's staff, so you do what you want.

Chojin Mar 27th, 2008 11:41 PM

The decision isn't even up to me, I'm just trying to get a dialog going on it.

On the one hand, the chat thread doesn't seem like the smartest venue for that, but judging from the response I've gotten so far, it was going to end up here anyway.

Pub Lover Mar 27th, 2008 11:41 PM

SERIOUS CHAT IN THE SERIOUS CHATROOM.

Fathom Zero Mar 27th, 2008 11:43 PM

I don't care, Secret Santa was still a blast even if there wasn't any castle (which now resides in my sister's room, she uses it constantly!) Thanks again, Rog. You bring families



together

By the way, it's March in case no one noticed.

Zomboid Mar 27th, 2008 11:43 PM

lol!!!!!!!!!

What's wrong with leaving the banned people banned and just revising the rules for future events?

Guitar Woman Mar 27th, 2008 11:45 PM

Because Jixby and Noob3 are the dead men.

I'm not going to lie, if it were Zomboid or someone else I don't agree with, I wouldn't care.

Chojin Mar 27th, 2008 11:45 PM

Well, the first question to answer is whether or not we should change the rules at all.

We aren't there yet.

Esuohlim Mar 27th, 2008 11:46 PM

I say we unban Jixby and noob3 anyway because let's face it, no matter how cautious we're trying to be at sidestepping the whole favoritism issue here that's the whole reason they'll be unbanned anyway. In the mean time we're only trying to tweak the rules so that it makes it look like that's not the reason, so we're only kidding ourselves anyway. Who cares?

I mean if AznSk8r69 and BunnyGrrrrlPromQueen1111111 were banned instead nobody would give a shit and the issue wouldn't even be raised in the first place.

GADZOOKS Mar 27th, 2008 11:48 PM

my problem is there is a bigger difference between not sending a gift and just not posting pictures. One's a little rude and lazy, the other is practically stealing and ruins the real point of a secret santa in the first place.

Once again, talking about the future

Esuohlim Mar 27th, 2008 11:49 PM

But yeah I still 100% agree with GADZOOKS on this

Fathom Zero Mar 27th, 2008 11:54 PM

I'm behind whoever wins.

Chojin Mar 27th, 2008 11:55 PM

Gadzooks raises a good point - Jixby did send a gift and posted his video a month too late, Noob didn't send out anything and lied about it when asked.

Though when Noob came back, he asked if I had mattjack's address and I told him to ask rog instead. So maybe the rule should be that they're banned until a month after they send their gifts and put their pictures online.

Dr. Boogie Mar 27th, 2008 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chojin (Post 542893)
You should probably try answering the question I asked if you want a serious response.

I'm saying you can change any rules you want... for the next Secret Santa.

But I'm sorry if I buried the lead in my previous post. Let me restate it as plainly as I possibly can:


Q: what is the point of permanently banning people over secret santa?

A: The point of the banning is that it was part of the official rules.


If people don't want perma-bans any more, go ahead and leave them out of next Secret Santa. But I am not in favor of changing a past ruling just because some people like the ones who were banned.

Chojin Mar 28th, 2008 12:02 AM

I don't understand why it's imperative that we follow the rules to the letter this time, when it's clear that we've never done it before.

Should we go back and ban glowbelly? Or is that different because she has your phone number?

WhiteRat Mar 28th, 2008 12:04 AM

Maybe because the rules need to be enforced eventually. Or you could just abolish all of the rules and let total Anarchy rule this place.

Pub Lover Mar 28th, 2008 12:08 AM

The only reason we have rules here is so we don't have to argue with every idiot that doesn't want to act civil. We tap the rules pointedly with one hand & smash the ban button with the other.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:15 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.