I really love this site, and I actually enjoy the Mods, Admins, and members. But it doesnt sound right or justifiable when you say WE when talking about the rest of us and how you judge us. I like to think of myself as open minded on this site, and I really try to not start sh.t with anyone on here, and I let everyone have their own opinion. But it sound like you guys look for people who purposly try to stand out and be unique and consider them the "valued" members.

Originally Posted by FraGTaLiTy

I don't feel the need to define that because all members are different and the good ones are usually unique. It's hard to put a definition on that. However, we do not consider people who find their entertainment at the expense of others to be valuable members.

Think about all of the highly esteemed members you're disqualifying there. Then think about the people you're protecting. The vast majority of the people who are getting "bullied" are nearly universally hated. Hence the bullying.

Originally Posted by The Colostomizer

You have such a distorted take of what it means to be a moderator. What you're talking about is imposing your narrow view on a community of thousands. How do you justify that?

What I'm talking about is the definition of moderating, verbatim. What you're talking about is letting people do whatever they want until the situation devolves into the less patient person exploding in a fit of retard rage, and then having to punish them.

Originally Posted by McDevy

I'm all for no bullying, or forum politics but you have to know or at least acknowledge that these members you're alluding to protecting are asking for it with provocation, do you not?

Being inherently stupid isn't really intentional provocation. Stepping on the toes of someone like that is. Why is it so important to establish just how much more intelligent you (in the general sense, not specifically you) are than someone who is obviously, to everyone, not so gifted?

Originally Posted by McDevy

Since...when?

I'm all for no bullying, or forum politics but you have to know or at least acknowledge that these members you're alluding to protecting are asking for it with provocation, do you not?

There is certain conduct that is not permitted here, and we don't consider members who conduct that way to be valuable members.

Outside of this conduct that isn't permitted, there are an infinite ways for a member to have a unique personality and become, well, "valuable".

For that reason, I don't want to give an exact definition of what a valuable member is because me giving you a particular definition would contradict my notion of uniqueness and individuality. It's not something, IMO, you can throw a wrapper on and just say "that's it, right there. That's the answer".

So, the best way I can answer it is this: there's certain things members shouldn't do here, and outside of that, what you do to make yourself valuable is entirely subjective and non-formulaic, but it's something that, if done right, other people will notice and respect. And I can't stress this enough: we're not looking for perfection. Imperfections define us. But there's just certain stuff that isn't permitted here and those particular imperfections in excess quantity are not welcome here.

Not to say that "generic" members aren't valuable, but they certainly wouldn't stand out in the context that we are discussion. I think we'll all agree on that.

Originally Posted by The Colostomizer

Think about all of the highly esteemed members you're disqualifying there. Then think about the people you're protecting. The vast majority of the people who are getting "bullied" are nearly universally hated. Hence the bullying.

I would hope that these supposed members aren't "highly esteemed" solely because of the basis I am disqualifying them for. If that is the case, I would disagree with them being highly esteemed in the first place.

Originally Posted by FraGTaLiTy

I don't feel the need to define that because all members are different and the good ones are usually unique. It's hard to put a definition on that. However, we do not consider people who find their entertainment at the expense of others to be valuable members.

So, basically, "I don't want to say what a valued member is, but I will say that you aren't valued."

Originally Posted by FraGTaLiTy

I would hope that these supposed members aren't "highly esteemed" solely because of the basis I am disqualifying them for. If that is the case, I would disagree with them being highly esteemed in the first place.

Certainly not.

i'll take this opportunity to reiterate how little frag actually contributes to the community

This whole discussion has just been devolving more and more.

The real issue here of contention is a member makes a fool of his/herselves, on this board, to which point -- which more-knowing members will naturally step in and basically expose them.

In return said 'foolish' member gets super offended and starts taking pot-shots of their own (note: on no reasonable terms) in which then, previously mentioned more-knowing members have at them in what is known to be digression in administrations' eyes. This is the real issue, it's what's called a bad member. These aren't the people the site owners should be concerned with protecting.

When the provocation is there -- the one's making pot-shots when they look like a complete ass should sound the "carte-blanche-signal" - so to speak, that it's okay to at least, have a little fun on their unknowing expense.

Originally Posted by The Colostomizer

Think about all of the highly esteemed members you're disqualifying there. Then think about the people you're protecting. The vast majority of the people who are getting "bullied" are nearly universally hated. Hence the bullying.

The high school mentality must be a b..ch.


Why the need to try to bring people down to make yourself feel better?

Originally Posted by The Colostomizer

So, basically, "I don't want to say what a valued member is, but I will say that you aren't valued."

If this person is constantly doing stuff that isn't permitted on the site, which in this case, is having fun at the expense of others, then yes, absolutely.

Originally Posted by The Colostomizer

Certainly not.

And I would agree with you, without pointing any fingers and singling anyone out.

Originally Posted by mike

i'll take this opportunity to reiterate how little frag actually contributes to the community

I'm sorry you feel that way.

Originally Posted by FierceElite

What I'm talking about is the definition of moderating, verbatim. What you're talking about is letting people do whatever they want until the situation devolves into the less patient person exploding in a fit of retard rage, and then having to punish them.



Being inherently stupid isn't really intentional provocation. Stepping on the toes of someone like that is. Why is it so important to establish just how much more intelligent you (in the general sense, not specifically you) are than someone who is obviously, to everyone, not so gifted?

Because you're actually segmenting what the actual discussion is.

In regards to Colosto or whomever the hell you guys have a problem with, there is no belittling of intellect for the sake of banging on one's chest.

Maybe this is the problem, you don't actually see how apparent these people are making themselves look like asses, so you feel an overbearing urge to salvage their dignity by reprimanding older members.

I feel like evidence of these threads would put your guys' argument down instantly. It's not like anyone is laying down and being beaten, it's quite the opposite.