<p>As you can see here, we have two deleted accounts on the leaderboard: Edward Nigma and Izzybe5. Now, as you may know, Edward Nigma is rather infamous here as he is blocked from wikia permanently, and Izzybe5 has a new account, so I don't see the point in either of these two deleted accounts staying on the leaderboard. They can be removed by blocking the accounts.
</p><p>A) Block only Edward Nigma 3 votes
</p><p>B) Block only Izzybe5 1 Vote
</p><p>C) Block both: 10 Votes
</p><p>D) Do nothing: 11 Votes
</p><p>
Consensus reached: Do Nothing
</p>
5,988
pages
ALL POSTS
All posts by Benboy755
<div class="quote">TheShadowAssassin wrote:
<div class="quote">Benboy755 wrote:
<div class="quote">TheShadowAssassin wrote:
<div class="quote">Benboy755 wrote:
Because they didn't remove the reqs for rank 28 and 29 in order. They removed 27 - 1, then took out 29. They removed 28 the following day.</div>Seems logical</div>>not sure if sarcasm</div>No, of course not! The LMB Mods are some of the most competent people I've ever known! </div> <p>Well if the objective is to make everyone but me rank 29, it seems a good way to go about it lol </p>
<div class="quote">Benboy755 wrote:
<div class="quote">TheShadowAssassin wrote:
<div class="quote">Benboy755 wrote:
Because they didn't remove the reqs for rank 28 and 29 in order. They removed 27 - 1, then took out 29. They removed 28 the following day.</div>Seems logical</div>>not sure if sarcasm</div>No, of course not! The LMB Mods are some of the most competent people I've ever known! </div> <p>Well if the objective is to make everyone but me rank 29, it seems a good way to go about it lol </p>
(Edited by Benboy755)
<div class="quote">TheShadowAssassin wrote:
<div class="quote">Benboy755 wrote:
Because they didn't remove the reqs for rank 28 and 29 in order. They removed 27 - 1, then took out 29. They removed 28 the following day.</div>Seems logical </div> <p>>not sure if sarcasm </p>
<div class="quote">Benboy755 wrote:
Because they didn't remove the reqs for rank 28 and 29 in order. They removed 27 - 1, then took out 29. They removed 28 the following day.</div>Seems logical </div> <p>>not sure if sarcasm </p>
(Edited by Benboy755)
<p>Because they didn't remove the reqs for rank 28 and 29 in order. They removed 27 - 1, then took out 29. They removed 28 the following day.
</p>
(Edited by Benboy755)
<p>Ok, so they way it worked was that they started at rank 27 and worked their way down, removing all the rank reqs. There's a possibility that ape, pac, and web were briefly Rapper but I didn't see it. Everyone except diglett and I kept slowing descending until they reached no rank. Then everyone became alien except me.
</p>
(Edited by Benboy755)
<div class="quote">Johnyjo wrote:
<div class="quote">Keplers wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Johnyjo wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Keplers wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>TheShadowAssassin wrote: </p><p>
</p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Keplers wrote: <p>The crux of your argument is for recording "achievement" as if that's a big deal. I think what BCGirl said sums it up — we are here to record facts, not twist them because we dislike them. The rank tab says "Alien" and they are Alien. That's why Benboy et al. still have their ridiculous ranks despite it being a publicly-known fact that they cheated. </p> </div>Yes, but the ranks existed to reflect the accomplishments of the user depending on what they accomplished with their time on the MBs. For example, in this case, the Alien rank is a not an accurate reflection of someone who only accomplished being on the boards for 3 weeks, posting several hundred times, and receiving a few thousand likes. It is an accurate reflection of someone who accomplished being on the boards for several years, posting tens of thousands of times, and receiving hundreds of thousands of likes, and they should be attributed with the rank. If we simply leave everyone at "Alien", it completely defeats the purpose of having a rank in the first place, and will no longer have any relevance to the history of a user. <p>And for the record, I do not condone cheating in any form, and believe that fair action should be taken to rectify the issue with Benboy's rank and the ranks of others who cheated. But that's an entire other topic to discuss, because we're not talking about cheaters; we're talking about people who actually achieved their rank. </p> </div>Again, though: at the time of the MBs' closure, they held the rank. Nobody could feasibly hold the rank given most estimates; it would require as much time of activity as the MBs had existed, hundreds of thousands of posts, etc. We cannot simply ignore that the rank was given to all users because we dislike it on principle. I still support the idea of including the fact that the user held a different rank previously.</div>Keps that's crazy, if we give everyone alien there will be no organization to this wiki. :P I think it'd be better to give no one alien, and choose one of the other options. Then we should make a page detailing all the requirements changes and the alien rankup or. <p>TBH I regret making this a vote and not simply a discussion :P </p> </div>How does it ruin organization... it'd be easy to do. :P</div>List of cavement: none <p>List of highland battlers: none </p><p>List of aliens: 3,000-something </p><p>I rest my case. :P </p> </div> <p>Category:Alien
</p>
<div class="quote">Keplers wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Johnyjo wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Keplers wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>TheShadowAssassin wrote: </p><p>
</p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Keplers wrote: <p>The crux of your argument is for recording "achievement" as if that's a big deal. I think what BCGirl said sums it up — we are here to record facts, not twist them because we dislike them. The rank tab says "Alien" and they are Alien. That's why Benboy et al. still have their ridiculous ranks despite it being a publicly-known fact that they cheated. </p> </div>Yes, but the ranks existed to reflect the accomplishments of the user depending on what they accomplished with their time on the MBs. For example, in this case, the Alien rank is a not an accurate reflection of someone who only accomplished being on the boards for 3 weeks, posting several hundred times, and receiving a few thousand likes. It is an accurate reflection of someone who accomplished being on the boards for several years, posting tens of thousands of times, and receiving hundreds of thousands of likes, and they should be attributed with the rank. If we simply leave everyone at "Alien", it completely defeats the purpose of having a rank in the first place, and will no longer have any relevance to the history of a user. <p>And for the record, I do not condone cheating in any form, and believe that fair action should be taken to rectify the issue with Benboy's rank and the ranks of others who cheated. But that's an entire other topic to discuss, because we're not talking about cheaters; we're talking about people who actually achieved their rank. </p> </div>Again, though: at the time of the MBs' closure, they held the rank. Nobody could feasibly hold the rank given most estimates; it would require as much time of activity as the MBs had existed, hundreds of thousands of posts, etc. We cannot simply ignore that the rank was given to all users because we dislike it on principle. I still support the idea of including the fact that the user held a different rank previously.</div>Keps that's crazy, if we give everyone alien there will be no organization to this wiki. :P I think it'd be better to give no one alien, and choose one of the other options. Then we should make a page detailing all the requirements changes and the alien rankup or. <p>TBH I regret making this a vote and not simply a discussion :P </p> </div>How does it ruin organization... it'd be easy to do. :P</div>List of cavement: none <p>List of highland battlers: none </p><p>List of aliens: 3,000-something </p><p>I rest my case. :P </p> </div> <p>Category:Alien
</p>
(Edited by Benboy755)
<p>If we decide on D, we should also note what rank users had after the first and second req changes. This whole deal is rather subjective lol
</p>
(Edited by Benboy755)
<div class="quote">TheShadowAssassin wrote:
<div class="quote">Benboy755 wrote:
Tbh it'd be mostly impossible to record the ranks most people got on February 23, unless someone has a sizeable archive, because I do not. </div>Could the same not be said about recording the ranks people got after the January 23rd change and before the January 23rd change? It would be just as hard, yes? </div> <p>No, I have a large amount of data on that stuff so it wouldn't really be all that difficult. </p>
<div class="quote">Benboy755 wrote:
Tbh it'd be mostly impossible to record the ranks most people got on February 23, unless someone has a sizeable archive, because I do not. </div>Could the same not be said about recording the ranks people got after the January 23rd change and before the January 23rd change? It would be just as hard, yes? </div> <p>No, I have a large amount of data on that stuff so it wouldn't really be all that difficult. </p>
(Edited by Benboy755)
<div class="quote">Alemas2005 wrote:
<div class="quote">Johnyjo wrote:
<div class="quote">Alemas2005 wrote:
<div class="quote">Legoanimals750 wrote:
Can someone clarify the difference between B, C, and D? Because I know one of the rank changes was in Janurary and another was on the 23rd of Feburary. </div>I have the same question.
</div>Not including the Alien rankup, The Mods did 2 changes, one where they changed the post requirements and one where they changed the minutes requirements. B would leave users at where they were aftrer the second change, C would leave users as they were after the first change, and D would leave users as they were before any changes were made.
<p>Make sense? :P
</p>
</div>
<p>When did those two changes occur? </p> </div> <p>req change 1 on january 23, and req change 2 on february 23 </p>
<div class="quote">Johnyjo wrote:
<div class="quote">Alemas2005 wrote:
<div class="quote">Legoanimals750 wrote:
Can someone clarify the difference between B, C, and D? Because I know one of the rank changes was in Janurary and another was on the 23rd of Feburary. </div>I have the same question.
</div>Not including the Alien rankup, The Mods did 2 changes, one where they changed the post requirements and one where they changed the minutes requirements. B would leave users at where they were aftrer the second change, C would leave users as they were after the first change, and D would leave users as they were before any changes were made.
<p>Make sense? :P
</p>
</div><p>When did those two changes occur? </p> </div> <p>req change 1 on january 23, and req change 2 on february 23 </p>
(Edited by Benboy755)
<p>Tbh it'd be mostly impossible to record the ranks most people got on February 23, unless someone has a sizeable archive, because I do not.
</p>
(Edited by Benboy755)
<div class="quote">
<p>TheShadowAssassin wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">Keplers wrote:
<p>The crux of your argument is for recording "achievement" as if that's a big deal. I think what BCGirl said sums it up — we are here to record facts, not twist them because we dislike them. The rank tab says "Alien" and they are Alien. That's why Benboy et al. still have their ridiculous ranks despite it being a publicly-known fact that they cheated.
</p>
</div>
<p>Yes, but the ranks existed to reflect the accomplishments of the user depending on what they accomplished with their time on the MBs. For example, in this case, the Alien rank is a not an accurate reflection of someone who only accomplished being on the boards for 3 weeks, posting several hundred times, and receiving a few thousand likes. It is an accurate reflection of someone who accomplished being on the boards for several years, posting tens of thousands of times, and receiving hundreds of thousands of likes, and they should be attributed with the rank. If we simply leave everyone at "Alien", it completely defeats the purpose of having a rank in the first place, and will no longer have any relevance to the history of a user.
</p><p>And for the record, I do not condone cheating in any form, and believe that fair action should be taken to rectify the issue with Benboy's rank and the ranks of others who cheated. But that's an entire other topic to discuss, because we're not talking about cheaters; we're talking about people who actually achieved their rank.
</p>
</div>
<p>Considering that I only cheated to even the field with users who had 600,000+ extra minutes because of glitches, you're going to have a big problem with truly figuring out who actually earned what.
</p>
(Edited by Benboy755)
<p>it would be nice to include what rank they had before the first req change, after the first req change, and after the second req change if possible
</p>
(Edited by Benboy755)
<p>well, user and topic articles always need to be kept up to date
</p>
(Edited by Benboy755)
<div class="quote">Roddy15 wrote:
A <p>As long as quality if maintained and all hell doesn't break lose I'm fine with this. </p> </div> <p>well if all hell breaks loose then people who care would have the rest of eternity to fix everything </p>
A <p>As long as quality if maintained and all hell doesn't break lose I'm fine with this. </p> </div> <p>well if all hell breaks loose then people who care would have the rest of eternity to fix everything </p>
(Edited by Benboy755)
<p>considering the fact that in a little over two months there will be no new content to add here, why not
</p><p>
</p><p>a </p>
</p><p>a </p>
(Edited by Benboy755)
<div class="quote">Sky-Pirate Doubloon wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Dark Yada wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Sky-Pirate Doubloon wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Dark Yada wrote: Nigma has been a cross-Wiki vandal all over Wikia those last years, so I don't believe we don't understand him: Vandalism is Vandalism and such a thing cannot be accepted anywhere, especially if there was thousands of Vandalism edits, for me at least. </p><p><span style="color:#DF0101;">Yada</span> <small><span style="color:black;">Dark</span></small> <span title="This user is an administrator of Picsou Wiki."><span class="plainlinks">
</span></span> <span title="This parrot is a Vanguard member."><span class="plainlinks">
</span></span> 17:01, November 14, 2016 (UTC)
</p>
</div>i can't judge edward since i dont know him but wouldnt he be local blocked on here if he was like a mass vandal on that account
</div>Special:Contributions/Edward Nigma
<p><span style="color:#DF0101;">Yada</span> <small><span style="color:black;">Dark</span></small> <span title="This user is an administrator of Picsou Wiki."><span class="plainlinks"></span></span> <span title="This parrot is a Vanguard member."><span class="plainlinks"></span></span> 22:03, November 14, 2016 (UTC)
</p>
</div>what are you trying to tell me by that? the block log says his local block expired months ago. if hes not blocked for vandalizm here why does it even matter. doesnt look like he vandalized anything here to me
</div>
<p>he did relatively little with his main account
</p>
<div class="quote"> <p>Dark Yada wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Sky-Pirate Doubloon wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Dark Yada wrote: Nigma has been a cross-Wiki vandal all over Wikia those last years, so I don't believe we don't understand him: Vandalism is Vandalism and such a thing cannot be accepted anywhere, especially if there was thousands of Vandalism edits, for me at least. </p><p><span style="color:#DF0101;">Yada</span> <small><span style="color:black;">Dark</span></small> <span title="This user is an administrator of Picsou Wiki."><span class="plainlinks">
</span></span> <span title="This parrot is a Vanguard member."><span class="plainlinks"></span></span> 17:01, November 14, 2016 (UTC)
</p>
</div>i can't judge edward since i dont know him but wouldnt he be local blocked on here if he was like a mass vandal on that account
</div>Special:Contributions/Edward Nigma
<p><span style="color:#DF0101;">Yada</span> <small><span style="color:black;">Dark</span></small> <span title="This user is an administrator of Picsou Wiki."><span class="plainlinks"></span></span> <span title="This parrot is a Vanguard member."><span class="plainlinks"></span></span> 22:03, November 14, 2016 (UTC)
</p>
</div>what are you trying to tell me by that? the block log says his local block expired months ago. if hes not blocked for vandalizm here why does it even matter. doesnt look like he vandalized anything here to me
</div>
<p>he did relatively little with his main account
</p>
(Edited by Benboy755)
<div class="quote">Sky-Pirate Doubloon wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Dark Yada wrote: Nigma has been a cross-Wiki vandal all over Wikia those last years, so I don't believe we don't understand him: Vandalism is Vandalism and such a thing cannot be accepted anywhere, especially if there was thousands of Vandalism edits, for me at least. </p><p><span style="color:#DF0101;">Yada</span> <small><span style="color:black;">Dark</span></small> <span title="This user is an administrator of Picsou Wiki."><span class="plainlinks"></span></span> <span title="This parrot is a Vanguard member."><span class="plainlinks"></span></span> 17:01, November 14, 2016 (UTC)
</p>
</div>i can't judge edward since i dont know him but wouldnt he be local blocked on here if he was like a mass vandal on that account
</div>
<p>The local block expired, but the account is disabled.
</p>
<div class="quote"> <p>Dark Yada wrote: Nigma has been a cross-Wiki vandal all over Wikia those last years, so I don't believe we don't understand him: Vandalism is Vandalism and such a thing cannot be accepted anywhere, especially if there was thousands of Vandalism edits, for me at least. </p><p><span style="color:#DF0101;">Yada</span> <small><span style="color:black;">Dark</span></small> <span title="This user is an administrator of Picsou Wiki."><span class="plainlinks">
</span></span> <span title="This parrot is a Vanguard member."><span class="plainlinks"></span></span> 17:01, November 14, 2016 (UTC)
</p>
</div>i can't judge edward since i dont know him but wouldnt he be local blocked on here if he was like a mass vandal on that account
</div>
<p>The local block expired, but the account is disabled.
</p>
(Edited by Benboy755)