5,988
pages
ALL POSTSStopping Use of the Admin Site
<p>So this vote is regarding use of the admin site. Apparently it is used for admins to discuss blocks and bans, but there are several problems with it. Firstly, most of the blocks and bans are discussed on the wiki itself, and I think that except in extreme cases, users here would think that the admins shouldn't keep secrets about the issue, especially if they decide against the community and don't explain why. Another issue with this is that, apparently, admins that are hardly active in the community (if at all) still get to vote on issues in the site, even if they're ignorant about the current state of the wiki. Finally, the admin site was discovered by trolls for the eighth(?) time recently, so obviously it can't be kept secret.
</p><p>Should the admins stop use of the admin, and move admin discussion onto the wiki?
</p><p>A) Yes: 11 votes
</p><p>B) No: 18 votes
</p><p>C) Neutral: 2 votes
</p>
<h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Consensus">Consensus</span></h2>
<p>No
</p>
(Edited by administrators)
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Riolu777 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">TheShadowAssassin wrote:
<div class="quote">Riolu777 wrote:
<div class="quote">TheShadowAssassin wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
Per Alemas and EED. Anyone who has ever been in a leadership position knows when to discuss certain things with the entire group, and when to discuss it with other leaders. Discussing crap on individuals in front of the entire community only leads to a freaking mess, an example being the petition to block nya a while back. <p>B </p> </div>That petition is a prime example that maybe certain admins should start cleaning up the mess here rather than going to their little hideout to "discuss" it and letting the situation deteriorate. <p>And yes, for your first sentence, you're damn right. But a complete site off of the wiki is not the way to go about it. </p> </div>Which is why I definitely think email would be sufficient for only the most sensitive of info.
</div>That's what we used when I was administrator of the forum that I mentioned previously. Communication was not always necessary because we always had specific rules in place to govern ourselves with, making decision-making typically an easy, foolproof, and straightforward process. However, there were a few extreme instances in which a discussion was necessary, and for that, we simply used email.</div>So instead of discussing private matters off-site on another forum, the suggestion is to discuss private matters off-site through email?</div>What's the problem? You can send emails to more than one person.</div>What's the problem? More like, what's the point?
</div>We need to define "private matters." If discussions about blocks and bans and warning users are "private matters," then the point of this vote is to make it so that those things are discussed on the wiki, and if the admins are the only users allowed to discuss them on official forums on-site, then that seems completely fine by me. "Private matters" discussed through email would be infomation that can't be disclosed publicly, like private messages sent to an admin on chat that have to be discussed with the rest of the team.
<p>Theoretically, we could just vote on reserving the admin site for only those situations, and having everything else openly discussed on-site.
</p>
</div>That seems pretty hard to enforce. I mean, I'm not saying the admins will automatically not care about the rules, but nobody here will know when they're being broken...
</div>
<p>Technically, it's hard to hold the admins to any CV, as we are non-buros.
</p>
<div class="quote">Riolu777 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">TheShadowAssassin wrote:
<div class="quote">Riolu777 wrote:
<div class="quote">TheShadowAssassin wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
Per Alemas and EED. Anyone who has ever been in a leadership position knows when to discuss certain things with the entire group, and when to discuss it with other leaders. Discussing crap on individuals in front of the entire community only leads to a freaking mess, an example being the petition to block nya a while back. <p>B </p> </div>That petition is a prime example that maybe certain admins should start cleaning up the mess here rather than going to their little hideout to "discuss" it and letting the situation deteriorate. <p>And yes, for your first sentence, you're damn right. But a complete site off of the wiki is not the way to go about it. </p> </div>Which is why I definitely think email would be sufficient for only the most sensitive of info.
</div>That's what we used when I was administrator of the forum that I mentioned previously. Communication was not always necessary because we always had specific rules in place to govern ourselves with, making decision-making typically an easy, foolproof, and straightforward process. However, there were a few extreme instances in which a discussion was necessary, and for that, we simply used email.</div>So instead of discussing private matters off-site on another forum, the suggestion is to discuss private matters off-site through email?</div>What's the problem? You can send emails to more than one person.</div>What's the problem? More like, what's the point?
</div>We need to define "private matters." If discussions about blocks and bans and warning users are "private matters," then the point of this vote is to make it so that those things are discussed on the wiki, and if the admins are the only users allowed to discuss them on official forums on-site, then that seems completely fine by me. "Private matters" discussed through email would be infomation that can't be disclosed publicly, like private messages sent to an admin on chat that have to be discussed with the rest of the team.
<p>Theoretically, we could just vote on reserving the admin site for only those situations, and having everything else openly discussed on-site.
</p>
</div>That seems pretty hard to enforce. I mean, I'm not saying the admins will automatically not care about the rules, but nobody here will know when they're being broken...
</div>
<p>Technically, it's hard to hold the admins to any CV, as we are non-buros.</p>
(Edited by Michaelyoda)
0
<p>tfw you keep watching this vote for the entertainment value more than the decision itself
</p><p>you guys are better at your job than any soap opera
</p>
(Edited by Keplers)
0
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Riolu777 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">TheShadowAssassin wrote:
<div class="quote">Riolu777 wrote:
<div class="quote">TheShadowAssassin wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
Per Alemas and EED. Anyone who has ever been in a leadership position knows when to discuss certain things with the entire group, and when to discuss it with other leaders. Discussing crap on individuals in front of the entire community only leads to a freaking mess, an example being the petition to block nya a while back. <p>B </p> </div>That petition is a prime example that maybe certain admins should start cleaning up the mess here rather than going to their little hideout to "discuss" it and letting the situation deteriorate. <p>And yes, for your first sentence, you're damn right. But a complete site off of the wiki is not the way to go about it. </p> </div>Which is why I definitely think email would be sufficient for only the most sensitive of info.
</div>That's what we used when I was administrator of the forum that I mentioned previously. Communication was not always necessary because we always had specific rules in place to govern ourselves with, making decision-making typically an easy, foolproof, and straightforward process. However, there were a few extreme instances in which a discussion was necessary, and for that, we simply used email.</div>So instead of discussing private matters off-site on another forum, the suggestion is to discuss private matters off-site through email?</div>What's the problem? You can send emails to more than one person.</div>What's the problem? More like, what's the point?</div>We need to define "private matters." If discussions about blocks and bans and warning users are "private matters," then the point of this vote is to make it so that those things are discussed on the wiki, and if the admins are the only users allowed to discuss them on official forums on-site, then that seems completely fine by me. "Private matters" discussed through email would be infomation that can't be disclosed publicly, like private messages sent to an admin on chat that have to be discussed with the rest of the team.
<p>Theoretically, we could just vote on reserving the admin site for only those situations, and having everything else openly discussed on-site.
</p>
</div>That seems pretty hard to enforce. I mean, I'm not saying the admins will automatically not care about the rules, but nobody here will know when they're being broken...</div>Technically, it's hard to hold the admins to any CV, as we are non-buros.
</div> <p>True, but this is a lot different. Like I said, we don't know when they're being broken. </p>
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Riolu777 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">TheShadowAssassin wrote:
<div class="quote">Riolu777 wrote:
<div class="quote">TheShadowAssassin wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
Per Alemas and EED. Anyone who has ever been in a leadership position knows when to discuss certain things with the entire group, and when to discuss it with other leaders. Discussing crap on individuals in front of the entire community only leads to a freaking mess, an example being the petition to block nya a while back. <p>B </p> </div>That petition is a prime example that maybe certain admins should start cleaning up the mess here rather than going to their little hideout to "discuss" it and letting the situation deteriorate. <p>And yes, for your first sentence, you're damn right. But a complete site off of the wiki is not the way to go about it. </p> </div>Which is why I definitely think email would be sufficient for only the most sensitive of info.
</div>That's what we used when I was administrator of the forum that I mentioned previously. Communication was not always necessary because we always had specific rules in place to govern ourselves with, making decision-making typically an easy, foolproof, and straightforward process. However, there were a few extreme instances in which a discussion was necessary, and for that, we simply used email.</div>So instead of discussing private matters off-site on another forum, the suggestion is to discuss private matters off-site through email?</div>What's the problem? You can send emails to more than one person.</div>What's the problem? More like, what's the point?
</div>We need to define "private matters." If discussions about blocks and bans and warning users are "private matters," then the point of this vote is to make it so that those things are discussed on the wiki, and if the admins are the only users allowed to discuss them on official forums on-site, then that seems completely fine by me. "Private matters" discussed through email would be infomation that can't be disclosed publicly, like private messages sent to an admin on chat that have to be discussed with the rest of the team.
<p>Theoretically, we could just vote on reserving the admin site for only those situations, and having everything else openly discussed on-site.
</p>
</div>That seems pretty hard to enforce. I mean, I'm not saying the admins will automatically not care about the rules, but nobody here will know when they're being broken...</div>Technically, it's hard to hold the admins to any CV, as we are non-buros.</div> <p>True, but this is a lot different. Like I said, we don't know when they're being broken. </p>
(Edited by Brick425)
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Riolu777 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">TheShadowAssassin wrote:
<div class="quote">Riolu777 wrote:
<div class="quote">TheShadowAssassin wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
Per Alemas and EED. Anyone who has ever been in a leadership position knows when to discuss certain things with the entire group, and when to discuss it with other leaders. Discussing crap on individuals in front of the entire community only leads to a freaking mess, an example being the petition to block nya a while back. <p>B </p> </div>That petition is a prime example that maybe certain admins should start cleaning up the mess here rather than going to their little hideout to "discuss" it and letting the situation deteriorate. <p>And yes, for your first sentence, you're damn right. But a complete site off of the wiki is not the way to go about it. </p> </div>Which is why I definitely think email would be sufficient for only the most sensitive of info.
</div>That's what we used when I was administrator of the forum that I mentioned previously. Communication was not always necessary because we always had specific rules in place to govern ourselves with, making decision-making typically an easy, foolproof, and straightforward process. However, there were a few extreme instances in which a discussion was necessary, and for that, we simply used email.</div>So instead of discussing private matters off-site on another forum, the suggestion is to discuss private matters off-site through email?</div>What's the problem? You can send emails to more than one person.</div>What's the problem? More like, what's the point?</div>We need to define "private matters." If discussions about blocks and bans and warning users are "private matters," then the point of this vote is to make it so that those things are discussed on the wiki, and if the admins are the only users allowed to discuss them on official forums on-site, then that seems completely fine by me. "Private matters" discussed through email would be infomation that can't be disclosed publicly, like private messages sent to an admin on chat that have to be discussed with the rest of the team.
<p>Theoretically, we could just vote on reserving the admin site for only those situations, and having everything else openly discussed on-site.
</p>
</div>That seems pretty hard to enforce. I mean, I'm not saying the admins will automatically not care about the rules, but nobody here will know when they're being broken...</div>Technically, it's hard to hold the admins to any CV, as we are non-buros.
</div>True, but this is a lot different. Like I said, we don't know when they're being broken. </div> <p>Just like this CV, should it pass.
</p><noscript></noscript>
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Riolu777 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">TheShadowAssassin wrote:
<div class="quote">Riolu777 wrote:
<div class="quote">TheShadowAssassin wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
Per Alemas and EED. Anyone who has ever been in a leadership position knows when to discuss certain things with the entire group, and when to discuss it with other leaders. Discussing crap on individuals in front of the entire community only leads to a freaking mess, an example being the petition to block nya a while back. <p>B </p> </div>That petition is a prime example that maybe certain admins should start cleaning up the mess here rather than going to their little hideout to "discuss" it and letting the situation deteriorate. <p>And yes, for your first sentence, you're damn right. But a complete site off of the wiki is not the way to go about it. </p> </div>Which is why I definitely think email would be sufficient for only the most sensitive of info.
</div>That's what we used when I was administrator of the forum that I mentioned previously. Communication was not always necessary because we always had specific rules in place to govern ourselves with, making decision-making typically an easy, foolproof, and straightforward process. However, there were a few extreme instances in which a discussion was necessary, and for that, we simply used email.</div>So instead of discussing private matters off-site on another forum, the suggestion is to discuss private matters off-site through email?</div>What's the problem? You can send emails to more than one person.</div>What's the problem? More like, what's the point?
</div>We need to define "private matters." If discussions about blocks and bans and warning users are "private matters," then the point of this vote is to make it so that those things are discussed on the wiki, and if the admins are the only users allowed to discuss them on official forums on-site, then that seems completely fine by me. "Private matters" discussed through email would be infomation that can't be disclosed publicly, like private messages sent to an admin on chat that have to be discussed with the rest of the team.
<p>Theoretically, we could just vote on reserving the admin site for only those situations, and having everything else openly discussed on-site.
</p>
</div>That seems pretty hard to enforce. I mean, I'm not saying the admins will automatically not care about the rules, but nobody here will know when they're being broken...</div>Technically, it's hard to hold the admins to any CV, as we are non-buros.</div>True, but this is a lot different. Like I said, we don't know when they're being broken. </div> <p>Just like this CV, should it pass.
</p><noscript></noscript>(Edited by Michaelyoda)
0
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Riolu777 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">TheShadowAssassin wrote:
<div class="quote">Riolu777 wrote:
<div class="quote">TheShadowAssassin wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
Per Alemas and EED. Anyone who has ever been in a leadership position knows when to discuss certain things with the entire group, and when to discuss it with other leaders. Discussing crap on individuals in front of the entire community only leads to a freaking mess, an example being the petition to block nya a while back. <p>B </p> </div>That petition is a prime example that maybe certain admins should start cleaning up the mess here rather than going to their little hideout to "discuss" it and letting the situation deteriorate. <p>And yes, for your first sentence, you're damn right. But a complete site off of the wiki is not the way to go about it. </p> </div>Which is why I definitely think email would be sufficient for only the most sensitive of info.
</div>That's what we used when I was administrator of the forum that I mentioned previously. Communication was not always necessary because we always had specific rules in place to govern ourselves with, making decision-making typically an easy, foolproof, and straightforward process. However, there were a few extreme instances in which a discussion was necessary, and for that, we simply used email.</div>So instead of discussing private matters off-site on another forum, the suggestion is to discuss private matters off-site through email?</div>What's the problem? You can send emails to more than one person.</div>What's the problem? More like, what's the point?</div>We need to define "private matters." If discussions about blocks and bans and warning users are "private matters," then the point of this vote is to make it so that those things are discussed on the wiki, and if the admins are the only users allowed to discuss them on official forums on-site, then that seems completely fine by me. "Private matters" discussed through email would be infomation that can't be disclosed publicly, like private messages sent to an admin on chat that have to be discussed with the rest of the team.
<p>Theoretically, we could just vote on reserving the admin site for only those situations, and having everything else openly discussed on-site.
</p>
</div>That seems pretty hard to enforce. I mean, I'm not saying the admins will automatically not care about the rules, but nobody here will know when they're being broken...</div>Technically, it's hard to hold the admins to any CV, as we are non-buros.
</div>True, but this is a lot different. Like I said, we don't know when they're being broken.</div>Just like this CV, should it pass.
</div> <p>...What do you think I'm talking about? </p>
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Riolu777 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">TheShadowAssassin wrote:
<div class="quote">Riolu777 wrote:
<div class="quote">TheShadowAssassin wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
Per Alemas and EED. Anyone who has ever been in a leadership position knows when to discuss certain things with the entire group, and when to discuss it with other leaders. Discussing crap on individuals in front of the entire community only leads to a freaking mess, an example being the petition to block nya a while back. <p>B </p> </div>That petition is a prime example that maybe certain admins should start cleaning up the mess here rather than going to their little hideout to "discuss" it and letting the situation deteriorate. <p>And yes, for your first sentence, you're damn right. But a complete site off of the wiki is not the way to go about it. </p> </div>Which is why I definitely think email would be sufficient for only the most sensitive of info.
</div>That's what we used when I was administrator of the forum that I mentioned previously. Communication was not always necessary because we always had specific rules in place to govern ourselves with, making decision-making typically an easy, foolproof, and straightforward process. However, there were a few extreme instances in which a discussion was necessary, and for that, we simply used email.</div>So instead of discussing private matters off-site on another forum, the suggestion is to discuss private matters off-site through email?</div>What's the problem? You can send emails to more than one person.</div>What's the problem? More like, what's the point?
</div>We need to define "private matters." If discussions about blocks and bans and warning users are "private matters," then the point of this vote is to make it so that those things are discussed on the wiki, and if the admins are the only users allowed to discuss them on official forums on-site, then that seems completely fine by me. "Private matters" discussed through email would be infomation that can't be disclosed publicly, like private messages sent to an admin on chat that have to be discussed with the rest of the team.
<p>Theoretically, we could just vote on reserving the admin site for only those situations, and having everything else openly discussed on-site.
</p>
</div>That seems pretty hard to enforce. I mean, I'm not saying the admins will automatically not care about the rules, but nobody here will know when they're being broken...</div>Technically, it's hard to hold the admins to any CV, as we are non-buros.</div>True, but this is a lot different. Like I said, we don't know when they're being broken.</div>Just like this CV, should it pass.
</div> <p>...What do you think I'm talking about? </p>
(Edited by Brick425)
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Riolu777 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">TheShadowAssassin wrote:
<div class="quote">Riolu777 wrote:
<div class="quote">TheShadowAssassin wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
Per Alemas and EED. Anyone who has ever been in a leadership position knows when to discuss certain things with the entire group, and when to discuss it with other leaders. Discussing crap on individuals in front of the entire community only leads to a freaking mess, an example being the petition to block nya a while back. <p>B </p> </div>That petition is a prime example that maybe certain admins should start cleaning up the mess here rather than going to their little hideout to "discuss" it and letting the situation deteriorate. <p>And yes, for your first sentence, you're damn right. But a complete site off of the wiki is not the way to go about it. </p> </div>Which is why I definitely think email would be sufficient for only the most sensitive of info.
</div>That's what we used when I was administrator of the forum that I mentioned previously. Communication was not always necessary because we always had specific rules in place to govern ourselves with, making decision-making typically an easy, foolproof, and straightforward process. However, there were a few extreme instances in which a discussion was necessary, and for that, we simply used email.</div>So instead of discussing private matters off-site on another forum, the suggestion is to discuss private matters off-site through email?</div>What's the problem? You can send emails to more than one person.</div>What's the problem? More like, what's the point?</div>We need to define "private matters." If discussions about blocks and bans and warning users are "private matters," then the point of this vote is to make it so that those things are discussed on the wiki, and if the admins are the only users allowed to discuss them on official forums on-site, then that seems completely fine by me. "Private matters" discussed through email would be infomation that can't be disclosed publicly, like private messages sent to an admin on chat that have to be discussed with the rest of the team.
<p>Theoretically, we could just vote on reserving the admin site for only those situations, and having everything else openly discussed on-site.
</p>
</div>That seems pretty hard to enforce. I mean, I'm not saying the admins will automatically not care about the rules, but nobody here will know when they're being broken...</div>Technically, it's hard to hold the admins to any CV, as we are non-buros.
</div>True, but this is a lot different. Like I said, we don't know when they're being broken.</div>Just like this CV, should it pass.
</div>...What do you think I'm talking about? </div> <p>The suggestion of the post you responded to.</p><noscript></noscript>
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Riolu777 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Brick425 wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">TheShadowAssassin wrote:
<div class="quote">Riolu777 wrote:
<div class="quote">TheShadowAssassin wrote:
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
Per Alemas and EED. Anyone who has ever been in a leadership position knows when to discuss certain things with the entire group, and when to discuss it with other leaders. Discussing crap on individuals in front of the entire community only leads to a freaking mess, an example being the petition to block nya a while back. <p>B </p> </div>That petition is a prime example that maybe certain admins should start cleaning up the mess here rather than going to their little hideout to "discuss" it and letting the situation deteriorate. <p>And yes, for your first sentence, you're damn right. But a complete site off of the wiki is not the way to go about it. </p> </div>Which is why I definitely think email would be sufficient for only the most sensitive of info.
</div>That's what we used when I was administrator of the forum that I mentioned previously. Communication was not always necessary because we always had specific rules in place to govern ourselves with, making decision-making typically an easy, foolproof, and straightforward process. However, there were a few extreme instances in which a discussion was necessary, and for that, we simply used email.</div>So instead of discussing private matters off-site on another forum, the suggestion is to discuss private matters off-site through email?</div>What's the problem? You can send emails to more than one person.</div>What's the problem? More like, what's the point?
</div>We need to define "private matters." If discussions about blocks and bans and warning users are "private matters," then the point of this vote is to make it so that those things are discussed on the wiki, and if the admins are the only users allowed to discuss them on official forums on-site, then that seems completely fine by me. "Private matters" discussed through email would be infomation that can't be disclosed publicly, like private messages sent to an admin on chat that have to be discussed with the rest of the team.
<p>Theoretically, we could just vote on reserving the admin site for only those situations, and having everything else openly discussed on-site.
</p>
</div>That seems pretty hard to enforce. I mean, I'm not saying the admins will automatically not care about the rules, but nobody here will know when they're being broken...</div>Technically, it's hard to hold the admins to any CV, as we are non-buros.</div>True, but this is a lot different. Like I said, we don't know when they're being broken.</div>Just like this CV, should it pass.
</div>...What do you think I'm talking about? </div> <p>The suggestion of the post you responded to.
</p><noscript></noscript>(Edited by Michaelyoda)
<p>Jesus Christ you two, this reminds me of the old MB quote chains when everyone spammed and quoted everyone else. </p><noscript>
</noscript>
</p><noscript></noscript>
(Edited by Alemas2005)
<div class="quote">Alemas2005 wrote:
Jesus Christ you two, this reminds me of the old MB quote chains when everyone spammed and quoted everyone else.</div>
<p>"</p><noscript></noscript>"
Jesus Christ you two, this reminds me of the old MB quote chains when everyone spammed and quoted everyone else.
</div>
<p>"</p><noscript></noscript>"(Edited by Michaelyoda)
<div class="quote">Alemas2005 wrote:
Jesus Christ you two, this reminds me of the old MB quote chains when everyone spammed and quoted everyone else.</div>
<p>This. Sometimes I wish there was a separate discussion page so that we wouldn't have to scroll all the way of the bottom.
</p>
Jesus Christ you two, this reminds me of the old MB quote chains when everyone spammed and quoted everyone else.
</div>
<p>This. Sometimes I wish there was a separate discussion page so that we wouldn't have to scroll all the way of the bottom.
</p>
(Edited by Dr. Satl, M.D.)
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">Alemas2005 wrote:
Jesus Christ you two, this reminds me of the old MB quote chains when everyone spammed and quoted everyone else.</div>""
</div> <p>Prime example of the sort of the quality of replies back then!</p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Good thing you still remember. </p><noscript></noscript>
<p>BOT (you get extra points if you remember what it meant). </p><noscript></noscript>
<div class="quote">Alemas2005 wrote:
Jesus Christ you two, this reminds me of the old MB quote chains when everyone spammed and quoted everyone else.
</div>""</div> <p>Prime example of the sort of the quality of replies back then!
</p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Good thing you still remember. </p><noscript></noscript>
<p>BOT (you get extra points if you remember what it meant). </p><noscript></noscript>
(Edited by Alemas2005)