Can We get Mods Back?

[BINGLEBOP]

The next moderators likely won't be known by the rest of the forums, so nobody will be able to pick fights or play favorites with them.

[RickD]

The next moderators likely won't be known by the rest of the forums, so nobody will be able to pick fights or play favorites with them.

That would be best. IF they are unknown and Clay or Dee gives them a list of parameters then it would work wonders.

[RickD]

I feel I meet both requirements . Realistically, I would say RickD and ArcticBlast would be great mods.Neither seems biased or holds a grudge, you know?

[SirKodiak]

Oh my! I never thought I'd see this place without mods. It has always seemed to need them, for both keeping the forums organized to improve bug reporting and for keeping order. Of course, I always thought there should have been one mod that had a direct line to Clay. I haven't been around for a while, though, so have not been privy to the Byzantian plots.

Oh, and Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Nothing there about private entities doing so on their own property. /shrug

[RedsoxRockies]

Oh my! I never thought I'd see this place without mods. It has always seemed to need them, for both keeping the forums organized to improve bug reporting and for keeping order. Of course, I always thought there should have been one mod that had a direct line to Clay. I haven't been around for a while, though, so have not been privy to the Byzantian plots.

Oh, and Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Nothing there about private entities doing so on their own property. /shrug

Whoa! First Ohms reappears sounding drunk, and then you come back! How's it going?

[Rongar]

Hopefully Rongar doesn't do the same. He would have a boring forum.

I'm working on that, O.D....looking for an online octogenarian....

[Arctic Blast]

Oh come on, we'd be 'The Odd Couple' of the mod world! I'd fly in to a rage and start chopping posts in a massive grudgefest, then you could sweep in behind me and clean up the destruction.

[PotatoOfCouch13]

*sigh*

This is pointless. Clay said himself that he's busy with patches and such with the game. We can't go around asking for people to be banned. It certainly won't help the cause. Everyone just needs to take a deep breath, and move on. I'm sick and tired of this pointless babbling about who started what. Just end it and move on.

"Said woman take it slow
It'll work itself out fine
All we need is just a little patience"
Guns 'n' Roses

[free2131]

We can't go around asking for people to be banned. It certainly won't help the cause.

I disagree. We probably all could name several people who have hindered this forum way more that what they contributed to it. Banning these would would go A LONG way to curbing other from engaging in similiar behavior.

[PotatoOfCouch13]

We can't go around asking for people to be banned. It certainly won't help the cause.

I disagree. We probably all could name several people who have hindered this forum way more that what they contributed to it. Banning these would would go A LONG way to curbing other from engaging in similiar behavior.

To a point, yes. But spouting names all at once just because like this:

-Metsguy
-RSR
-JiMmY gIsT

And this:

-yamiviet
-DarthJaker
-jImMyGiSt

Has to stop. Just because someone wants to further their own agenda doesn't require people getting banned because they want them too.

[etothep]

in metsguy's defense, the three people he listed are on my ignore list

[BINGLEBOP]

Good job. They can be on everybody else's ignore list as well if they find them equally as annoying or bothersome. Nobody's going to end up banned, as much as some people hope they are.

[free2131]

To a point, yes. But spouting names all at once just because like this:



And this:



Has to stop. Just because someone wants to further their own agenda doesn't require people getting banned because they want them too.

I agree, and I was mainly talking about an authority type (Clay, moderator) that would go by set rules to determine who get banned and why.