Shill amnesty

[drice6900]

i'm not a shill, have never had a shill and will never have a shill. what you see is what you get

 

[kc120us]

Im Greggy

 

It explains a lot.

[arexcrooke]

So, lemme see if Ive got this right:

1-You expose yourself before the Amnest program starts and you get a strike

2-You expose your shill after and you are ok

3-Some shills are gone because they are "bad shills"

4-Some shills are "grandfathered" in because they are "good shills"

points 1 and 2 I can live with even though I dont agree.

Points 3 and 4 make no freaking sense to me as I am now understanding it.

Either ban em all or ban none of em

[nik]

I agree and already stated my opinion about it.

[drice6900]

So, lemme see if Ive got this right:

1-You expose yourself before the Amnest program starts and you get a strike

2-You expose your shill after and you are ok

3-Some shills are gone because they are "bad shills"

4-Some shills are "grandfathered" in because they are "good shills"

points 1 and 2 I can live with even though I dont agree.

Points 3 and 4 make no freaking sense to me as I am now understanding it.

Either ban em all or ban none of em

 

It does seem a little hypocritical, eh?

[Aces]

So, lemme see if Ive got this right:

1-You expose yourself before the Amnest program starts and you get a strike

2-You expose your shill after and you are ok

3-Some shills are gone because they are "bad shills"

4-Some shills are "grandfathered" in because they are "good shills"

points 1 and 2 I can live with even though I dont agree.

Points 3 and 4 make no freaking sense to me as I am now understanding it.

Either ban em all or ban none of em

Are we going to see:

*Self deleted by Wertham*

[Foolkiller]

I haven't really commented on this, but I keep reading these posts, and I think I'm starting to realize that the mods, collectively as a group, are the ones who just don't get it.

 

As we know from the past, strikes have been handed out (as I have noted multiple times) by dena for completely inconsistent logic. That line of thinking seems to have extended to all of the rest.

 

I think you ought to just say, you are making the rules up as you go along and that there is absolutely no logic (that is worthwhile) because that's what this is. I really don't care if you want to ban shills or out shills or whatever. Just make a uniform policy and stick to it.

 

Make the rules clear. Arch normally has some decent logic for explaining his reasons -- but this isn't one of the better examples of a well moderated policy.

 

I'm all for tightening things up around here: just do it clearly, logically and consistently. Instead of like you usually do.

[PovertyRow]

I am also SkewerOnAStick, an ID I created a couple or 3 years ago for the "greater in the mind than reality" coinee war.

[Zonker]

Wertham is harmless. Team America wasn't. That's a big enough distinction. I can live with it.

[Aces]

I am also SkewerOnAStick, an ID I created a couple or 3 years ago for the "greater in the mind than reality" coinee war.

 

Dang.

You can remember what you did three years ago?

Maybe you aren't so old...

[OldGuy]

BTW Arch, no one is going to post their shill accounts in this thread. You do know why people create shills, right? It would be like asking all the people in an AA meeting that would like to remain anonymous to write their full names on a piece of paper that's being passed around the room.

[Architecht]

BTW Arch, no one is going to post their shill accounts in this thread. You do know why people create shills, right? It would be like asking all the people in an AA meeting that would like to remain anonymous to write their full names on a piece of paper that's being passed around the room.

 

Makes an interesting point, doesn't it?

[OldGuy]

BTW Arch, no one is going to post their shill accounts in this thread. You do know why people create shills, right? It would be like asking all the people in an AA meeting that would like to remain anonymous to write their full names on a piece of paper that's being passed around the room.

 

Makes an interesting point, doesn't it?

 

I guess, if the point of this thread is to not get shills to fess up.

[Architecht]

Maybe the realization of just how much the shill makers don't want their shills on display might give some pause to the makers about what they're doing with them.

[arexcrooke]

BTW Arch, no one is going to post their shill accounts in this thread. You do know why people create shills, right? It would be like asking all the people in an AA meeting that would like to remain anonymous to write their full names on a piece of paper that's being passed around the room.

 

Makes an interesting point, doesn't it?

So, direct question:

Is Wertham your shill?

If it is, then its a tad bit of hypocracy to allow it to continue working.

Also, the custom title is a bit over the top for Wertham as I interpret it to be making fun of the shill situation and not at all becoming of one who moderates this board.

[sterlingcomics]

This is, after all, just a comics chat board.

[arexcrooke]

This is, after all, just a comics chat board.

And your point Sterling?

[sterlingcomics]

Exactly.

 

[frustration on]

BTW Arch, sterlingcomics is my shill. Kill em all. I don't care. This board has seriously degraded in quality posts...include me if you must. I came here looking for comics discussion and all I'm getting is rants and raves on board policy.

[frustration off]

[goldust40]

BTW Arch, no one is going to post their shill accounts in this thread. You do know why people create shills, right? It would be like asking all the people in an AA meeting that would like to remain anonymous to write their full names on a piece of paper that's being passed around the room.

 

Makes an interesting point, doesn't it?

So, direct question:

Is Wertham your shill?

If it is, then its a tad bit of hypocracy to allow it to continue working.

Also, the custom title is a bit over the top for Wertham as I interpret it to be making fun of the shill situation and not at all becoming of one who moderates this board.

 

Wertham was created a long time ago before this shill problem became a "situation" - the character was purely there for satirizing threads, and not to troll anyone, or demean these boards. To ban something as innocuous as him would be unnecessarily draconian.

[arexcrooke]

Exactly.

Exactly what? Exactly that there are rules that apply to some but not others? Its ok if some people do something, but others no?

I cant tell your tone or meaning amigo so please expand on it.