Paid Members Mike Castle Posted January 27, 2013 Paid Members Posted January 27, 2013 To be honest, Mike, those Mafia threads were probably the reason you got votes. Rightly or wrongly, you seemed to be the poster associated with them and they were shit. I'll still argue they aren't shit. It's a good game, but clearly not for everybody, and looking back they were constantly around as the second one finished, another began. The thing that made them seem crap was pretty much me anyway, I rambled on way too much, restating the same point every time almost and bored the fuck out of everyone. Also we could have done with more guys like Nexus, Jaffa, JLM and co in them, and less of the Snake, Simmons and myself. I've said it before, but I'm better at running the things than playing them. You are right though, there was a backlash against those threads and I was the target, but I was probably a deserved target. However lets not pretend that outside of them the majority of what I posted wasn't also boring tripe. Quote
Keith Houchen Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 No, they were shit. Really really shit. Quote
Paid Members Carbomb Posted January 27, 2013 Paid Members Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) They weren't. For people playing them, it was fun. Sure, if you weren't playing you weren't going to enjoy them, but no-one was forcing non-participants to read them. Edited January 27, 2013 by Carbomb Quote
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted January 27, 2013 Moderators Posted January 27, 2013 I don't think they were an awful idea, but they got taken so fucking seriously and it looked like Mike Castle (and Snake) drained all the possible fun out of them, which is why the association is fair and just. Quote
David Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 Does anyone else think that removing some of the more entertaining characters with bans and whatnot is a tad counter-productive? Isn't there something else that can be awarded to the "winners" rather than a ban? Quote
Moderators Astro Hollywood Posted January 28, 2013 Moderators Posted January 28, 2013 (edited) None of them are 'entertaining characters', they're just stinking up the place. "A new post by patdfb?! *breaks arm in mad rush to click on thread*" Edited January 28, 2013 by Astro Hollywood Quote
Loki Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 No, they were shit. Really really shit. Be fair to Mike, he was also insanely boring within them as well. Credit where it's due, he won that award fair and square Quote
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted January 28, 2013 Moderators Posted January 28, 2013 (edited) Who of any of the front runners for the negative awards would you class as 'entertaining characters', David? Edit: I've just had a check who those actually are... I am creaming myself with glee at the prospect of 3 months without pat and Chilli. Edited January 28, 2013 by Chest Rockwell Quote
David Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 Who of any of the front runners for the negative awards would you class as 'entertaining characters', David? Dangerously always makes for cringeworthy/entertaining reading, as does Kendal to a degree. Even that Biffy Clyro lad can inadvertently provide some entertaining stuff. I'm not saying they shouldn't be up for these awards, or that they shouldn't get punished, but surely there are more imaginative ways to do it than simply banning them? Where's the fun in that? Dangerously's avatar deal was excellent, for example. Quote
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted January 28, 2013 Moderators Posted January 28, 2013 Well, dangerously is already suspended for the next 300 days anyway (which I actually agree is a bit of a shame), but I can't think I'd miss any of the other candidates.. Even Kendal - I don't even dislike him, but I'd be hard-pressed to say he'll be missed. Quote
David Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 Well, dangerously is already suspended for the next 300 days anyway (which I actually agree is a bit of a shame), but I can't think I'd miss any of the other candidates.. Even Kendal - I don't even dislike him, but I'd be hard-pressed to say he'll be missed. What happens when all of the Dangerously types are gone though? The place is going to be a lot more boring without those characters who give us the occasional meltdown. Quote
Paid Members PunkStep Posted January 28, 2013 Paid Members Posted January 28, 2013 More come around, they always do. It's like a cycle. The same questions were probably asked when Hulky and Dillkid originally were given their notice. Quote
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted January 28, 2013 Moderators Posted January 28, 2013 We're never short of idiots. The old ones sign up with new usernames again and again, and new idiots are always waiting to step up and be noticed. I think as a rule of thumb, if dangerously isn't up for, and a serious contender in, any of the negative awards at the end of the year then there's far too many other idiots about. Quote
David Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 I guess so. Anyway, I do think that Dangerously got far too heavy a ban. He's annoying, but fucking hell, he's not that annoying. Quote
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted January 28, 2013 Moderators Posted January 28, 2013 He's gradually received longer and longer bans over time though.. It is an interesting experiment to see how long he can be booted for and still come back immediately after the suspension's over and twat it up again. He'll definitely be back. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.