Sandy Vag 2.0 Thread

[Simply Red]

This was sent to me earlier tonight.

Discus:









So I've been banned from CP for what appears to be forever. I'd like to offer the following explanation and a plea for reconsideration:

Here's what happened: the absurdity of the whole Peyton Manning situation showed me how fun it is to post in an absurd style that involves a lot of simple repetition, Dadaist nonsense, obviousness, exaggeration, and thread starters/bumps that are a bit offbeat. So for the last few months, I've primarily posted in that style. And while I think a lot of people agreed that this was fun and harmless, mods interpreted it as antagonistic and obnoxious (fair enough on the obnoxious thing, I suppose) and as a behavior issue rather than a stylistic choice.

Anywho, I really don't want to be banned forever and I'm willing to tone down that style if that's what it takes. I had previously seen my bannings as the mods who didn't think my weirdo shit was funny just ****ing with me. Now I see that they genuinely thought I was a problem and genuinely felt I was blowing chances and "making them look stupid" for letting me back in.

So now I'd like to drop the absurdist facade and be serious for a second: I want to keep posting at CP. And I'm willing to do it in a way that totally doesn't piss off the people who are trying to keep the place civil.

If anybody could pass this on to ChiefsPlanet, I would really truly appreciate it. Thanks.

[Dartgod]

Originally Posted by milkman

I don't believe this is a lack of football problem.

I think it's a lack of intelligence problem.

ahem...

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Yes, it's from Phobia's thread, and those are his (inexact) words. People who bump threads have to offer justification, so that the justification can be looked at to make sure it's sufficient.

Is this position being walked back from?

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Yes, it's from Phobia's thread, and those are his (inexact) words. People who bump threads have to offer justification, so that the justification can be looked at to make sure it's sufficient.

Is this position being walked back from?

I probably would have worded it differently if I had created the thread, but he said if you don't have a good reason to bump a thread, you'll risk taking a vacation... and that's true. It doesn't mean you need a formal "Bump Reason: ..." at the top of your post or a mod is going to ban you on a whim if you randomly bump a thread with nothing more than 'lol'. All you need is a good reason to bump a thread... and you probably don't even need that as long as you don't make a habit of bumping threads for no reason.... and he clarified the OP to say as much in that thread...

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showp...9&postcount=38

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

I probably would have worded it differently if I had created the thread, but he said if you don't have a good reason to bump a thread, you'll risk taking a vacation... and that's true.

So you are evaluating the reason for a bump.

Originally Posted by Bearcat

It doesn't mean you need a formal "Bump Reason: ..." at the top of your post

Of course you would. Without one, the reason can't be evaluated.

Originally Posted by Bearcat

or a mod is going to ban you on a whim if you randomly bump a thread with nothing more than 'lol'. All you need is a good reason to bump a thread...

How can that reason be evaluated if you insist a reason doesn't need to be offered? Whether you call it formal or not, you're now putting the mods into a position of evaluating the reason for bumps and putting the posters into a position of having to justify those bumps. That's idiotic, on both fronts.

Originally Posted by Bearcat

and you probably don't even need that as long as you don't make a habit of bumping threads for no reason.... and he clarified the OP to say as much in that thread...

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showp...9&postcount=38

You're making my points about this for me. Y'all have instituted this without giving it enough thought. It's a lousy policy to start with, and you're making it worse with the inability to find a way to even beginning policing it appropriately.

[Bearcat]

[Dartgod]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

So you are evaluating the reason for a bump.



Of course you would. Without one, the reason can't be evaluated.



How can that reason be evaluated if you insist a reason doesn't need to be offered? Whether you call it formal or not, you're now putting the mods into a position of evaluating the reason for bumps and putting the posters into a position of having to justify those bumps. That's idiotic, on both fronts.



You're making my points about this for me. Y'all have instituted this without giving it enough thought. It's a lousy policy to start with, and you're making it worse with the inability to find a way to even beginning policing it appropriately.

Are you really this ****ing thick?

Originally Posted by Phobia

You're right. Basically that means don't randomly bump threads for kicks. The vast majority won't have any problem with this ever. But there have been 2 or 3 guys who think it's funny to bump threads by typing "bump", "Cassel Sucks", "Peyton Manning", and so on. One idiot in particular likes to do 7 or 8 at a time.

Seems pretty clear to me. But in case you're still not sure, I suggest that you bump 7 or 8 threads right now and see if that clears things up.

[Raiderhater]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

So you are evaluating the reason for a bump.



Of course you would. Without one, the reason can't be evaluated.



How can that reason be evaluated if you insist a reason doesn't need to be offered? Whether you call it formal or not, you're now putting the mods into a position of evaluating the reason for bumps and putting the posters into a position of having to justify those bumps. That's idiotic, on both fronts.



You're making my points about this for me. Y'all have instituted this without giving it enough thought. It's a lousy policy to start with, and you're making it worse with the inability to find a way to even beginning policing it appropriately.

Uhm, I think the content of the post in question pretty well explains the reason for the bump. If you are just posting "bump" or stupid and silly shit then your reason is not a good one. If you are posting new material that is related to the original discussion your reason is valid.

My God people, this isn't fucking rocket science.

[Bwana]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

I probably would have worded it differently if I had created the thread, but he said if you don't have a good reason to bump a thread, you'll risk taking a vacation... and that's true. It doesn't mean you need a formal "Bump Reason: ..." at the top of your post or a mod is going to ban you on a whim if you randomly bump a thread with nothing more than 'lol'. All you need is a good reason to bump a thread... and you probably don't even need that as long as you don't make a habit of bumping threads for no reason.... and he clarified the OP to say as much in that thread...

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showp...9&postcount=38

Here, I'll help you out, just cut and paste this. At some point, it may sink in, if not, it may save you from carp tunnel.



"If you don't go out of your way to be a complete hole, it's a nonissue."

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by Dartgod

Are you really this ****ing thick?

I'm thinking..... yes.

[Bwana]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

[milkman]

Originally Posted by Dartgod

Are you really this ****ing thick?

That was a rhetorical question, right?

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

So you are evaluating the reason for a bump.


How can that reason be evaluated if you insist a reason doesn't need to be offered? Whether you call it formal or not, you're now putting the mods into a position of evaluating the reason for bumps and putting the posters into a position of having to justify those bumps. That's idiotic, on both fronts.

I bump the packages for troops all the time. Falls off the front page too fast and all the people who contribute dont get to see the new packages. Do you really think the mods are going to ban me for this? They cant distingish between this bump and some thread from 2007 bump?

[Dartgod]

Originally Posted by milkman

That was a rhetorical question, right?

Yes.


Oh wait. Yours was too, wasn't it?

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

I bump the packages for troops all the time. Falls off the front page too fast and all the people who contribute dont get to see the new packages. Do you really think the mods are going to ban me for this? They cant distingish between this bump and some thread from 2007 bump?

Do I think they're going to bump you for that? Probably not, unless one of them has a wild hair across his ass. But there are plenty of threads where just a bump is needed, and there are plenty of threads which are recurring threads and aren't always going to have a reason for the bump.

[Bwana]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Do I think they're going to bump you for that? Probably not, unless one of them has a wild hair across his ass. But there are plenty of threads where just a bump is needed, and there are plenty of threads which are recurring threads and aren't always going to have a reason for the bump.

Dude, Bearcat took the time to give you the long winded version, but here's the cliff notes, easy to understand, to the point and dead nuts on the money.

"If you don't go out of your way to be a complete hole, it's a nonissue."

[DeezNutz]

What if, like me, you're just a complete asshole by nature? Should I just type the Bye Mods thread now?