a specific complaint

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

So guys, unless you have a specific complaint, please do not start threads on this board.

Catch ya next meta discussion.

― as strikingly artificial and perfect as a wizard's cap (HI DERE), Tuesday, October 13, 2009 2:17 PM (2 days ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I have a specific complaint, and I'm only starting a thread about because any thread on this board that it could have been posted to has been locked:

Isn't the Moderator Request Forum for specific mod-related complaints? Do people have to have a specific protest that fits a certain type to start a thread on I Must Protest? Just asking for future reference, but please don't give a snappy answer and immediately lock it until I or other people have had the chance to ask follow-up questions. Or y'know, do what you always do, it's not like you can't, I'm just asking for some clarity for once.

Alan Lo (this display name doesn't really work because I'm not max) (some dude), Thursday, 15 October 2009 19:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

mod request is basically for stuff like title changes and WAU IMAGE IS HUEG or whatever, basic functional stuff. the thoughts behind making IMP were so the MRF didnt get cluttered up with all of the larger policy debate stuff that happens all the time on ilx.

not intended as a full on answer for you, but hey its a start.

Don Quishote (jjjusten), Thursday, 15 October 2009 19:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

yeah...I understand IMP is kind of designed as a catch-all for spillover, so it just seems odd to me that it would end up looking as controlled and narrowly defined as what it was made to be an alternative to.

Alan Lo (this display name doesn't really work because I'm not max) (some dude), Thursday, 15 October 2009 19:43 (nine years ago) Permalink

some dude, the thread you quoted wasn't a specific complaint thread, it was just a lame parody thread, definitely not something for IMP. Not sure what your specific complaint is.

My way of thinking about things around here: in ILX Junior High School, Mod Req is janitorial and IMP is principals, assistant principals and school superintendants.

WmC, Thursday, 15 October 2009 20:09 (nine years ago) Permalink

noize is detention

Bobby Wo (max), Thursday, 15 October 2009 20:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

I think John has it correct; meta-discussions and policy questions are supposed to be over here while direct requests for moderator action are in MRF. The threads that were locked yesterday had run their course; a separate discussion about policy concerns can be started but it is really unnecessary to have a running "poster [x] got banned" thread, particularly when the people posting to it are all the same people posting to the "most of the admin log" thread on 77.

RETARTED (HI DERE), Thursday, 15 October 2009 20:34 (nine years ago) Permalink

some dude, the thread you quoted wasn't a specific complaint thread, it was just a lame parody thread, definitely not something for IMP. Not sure what your specific complaint is.

it may have technically been a "lame parody thread" but it was started because the original thread, which had been considered valid enough to exist for 3 months, had been locked, which was in large part the origin of my complaint.

saying a thread had run its course when you said "enough of this" and locked it 2 minutes after someone else had posted is pretty disingenuous. even if you think after a point people were just using it for pointless meta posting, isn't it better to have it on this, a public board, than on 77?

ban moves you suggest (some dude), Friday, 16 October 2009 01:05 (nine years ago) Permalink

actually pointless meta posting is pretty much a no go on any board. in a lot of ways you're just emphasizing why the best of the admin log thread is prob within a fingernail of getting locked as well.

Don Quishote (jjjusten), Friday, 16 October 2009 01:47 (nine years ago) Permalink

you should probably make the moderator log inaccessible to users then

bnw, Friday, 16 October 2009 02:01 (nine years ago) Permalink

except for the part where that doesn't make any sense - got no problem with people wanting to list all the admin actions on a thread (although uh yawn boring, but to each their own), but dissecting the situations and the posters involved and sleuthing what they done to get got is kind of the def of meta crap

Don Quishote (jjjusten), Friday, 16 October 2009 02:09 (nine years ago) Permalink

so uh we can talk about the fact that someone got banned but can't talk about why?

sorry that sounds snarky--just seems like a fine line and i want to understand where it lies.

call all destroyer, Friday, 16 October 2009 02:23 (nine years ago) Permalink

it is a fine line, and it isn't necc something that is easy to demarcate (similar to the dont be a dick rule that gets bandied about every so often). id say there were def some times where that thread has veered into oncoming traffic when it comes to pointless meta circlejerking, but since pretty much everybody who gets in dust ups with mod policy is on 77, i tend to turn a blind eye. mostly i was just responding to some dude stating things in a way that implied that dan was somehow endorsing "most of the admin log" in preference to the IMP thread (which i dont think was his intention) and trying to clarify why i didnt see what bnw was getting at.

Don Quishote (jjjusten), Friday, 16 October 2009 02:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

in a lot of ways you're just emphasizing why the best of the admin log thread is prob within a fingernail of getting locked as well.

I don't care about that, if you locked it I'd understand. A lot more than I understand most of the locks on this board, anyway.

ban moves you suggest (some dude), Friday, 16 October 2009 02:52 (nine years ago) Permalink

"most of the locks"? How many threads on this board do you think have been locked?

RETARTED (HI DERE), Friday, 16 October 2009 03:00 (nine years ago) Permalink

I meant specifically the recent locks on IMP

ban moves that you suggest (some dude), Friday, 16 October 2009 03:07 (nine years ago) Permalink

One was a moderation request; a change was made to handle the autoplaying Youtubes.

The other two have been discussed here.

That's really all there is to it from my end.

RETARTED (HI DERE), Friday, 16 October 2009 03:10 (nine years ago) Permalink

jeez sorry i said "most" istead of "two out of three," boy is my face red that you caught me being so very unclear

ban moves that you suggest (some dude), Friday, 16 October 2009 03:13 (nine years ago) Permalink

I don't really know why you are getting touchy about this so I'm withdrawing from the conversation; all I was trying to do is point out that there isn't some draconian thread-locking policy on this board.

RETARTED (HI DERE), Friday, 16 October 2009 03:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

In other words, Dan will now be taking a Threadlock Holiday.

toast alien, remember barbecue!! (James Redd and the Blecchs), Friday, 16 October 2009 03:20 (nine years ago) Permalink

fwiw I posted on the whole "Missin U" thread like once 400 posts ago and barely read a lot of it so it's not like i have a personal investment in it -- it just seemed like a lock after that long at kind of an arbitrary point was really unnecessary, and things like that going unremarked upon the first time seems to set a precedent where it makes it very easy for mods to say "this is what we do, where have you been?" when it becomes a bigger issue later.

ban moves that you suggest (some dude), Friday, 16 October 2009 03:26 (nine years ago) Permalink

I asked about the Youtube vids autoplay disable on this board purely because I didn't think it was for the Moderators, but for the people who actually have access to the coding.

Mark G, Friday, 16 October 2009 10:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

from the 'most of the admin log' thread in question (one of the few in question)-

is there a feeling that there's been a lot of meta snark lately matt? (from your comment above). i know there's been the usual shenanigans regarding the SB's, but isn't that par for the course?

― Brewer's Bitch (darraghmac), 14 October 2009 09:27 (2 days ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Not compared to 18 months or so ago, no way - there's a couple of threads (chiefly Posts Very Much In Character) that are getting into dodgy territory and maybe people are forgetting what is and isn't cool round here. Generally I think it's okay though.

― Matt DC, 14 October 2009 09:40 (2 days ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i don't think that 'meta' is a problem anywhere on the site anymore, particularly, as matt says, compared to a year ago. talking about sb's, sb'd posters and all that is very tiresome, i'm sure, but really i don't think mods even needed to respond to anything on the locked 'missing u <3 sb' thread anymore, as all of the relevant information is out there.

locking it seemed strange, kinda like it came out of nowhere, and again particularly with reference to where ILX was not too long back.

i mean, w/ever though, really. unban LJ.

Des Leppilen (darraghmac), Friday, 16 October 2009 11:54 (nine years ago) Permalink

I bumped into LJ and the M0unt4in G0ats gig on Saturday and he seemed to be taking his ban in good cheer and enjoying his time not-on-ILX. I told him we'd see him in a month.

Matt DC, Friday, 16 October 2009 13:24 (nine years ago) Permalink

huh, didn't know you guys were there!

surfing on hokusine waves (ledge), Friday, 16 October 2009 13:26 (nine years ago) Permalink

well he wasn't going to tell you matt, was he. were you armed at the time?

Des Leppilen (darraghmac), Friday, 16 October 2009 13:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

LJ and the M0unt4in G0ats

ok, whA?

Mark G, Friday, 16 October 2009 14:04 (nine years ago) Permalink

m zero unt foreign g zero ats. hot new band in london town, innit.

Des Leppilen (darraghmac), Friday, 16 October 2009 14:14 (nine years ago) Permalink

one month passes...

Wtf did Kate do to get suggest banned? Are we really gonna do this until every ILX regular with a noticeable personality gets SBed? Should the board be ruled by blandness?

Tuomas, Tuesday, 24 November 2009 17:02 (nine years ago) Permalink

hasn't it been established already that mods won't reveal what post(s) led to suggest bans?

sarahel, Tuesday, 24 November 2009 17:10 (nine years ago) Permalink

I'll answer your questions in order Tuomas:

1. She made posts that annoyed/angered/offended 51 different ILXors.
2. This shows a sort of willful decision to ignore various aspects other than "noticable personalities" that all the SBed people have had.
3. This is really pretty elitist and insulting.

NAKES HAVE THE STAPLES IN THEM (jjjusten), Tuesday, 24 November 2009 17:10 (nine years ago) Permalink

Tuomas - is that a rhetorical question, or is it meant to be answered by anyone who sb-ed Kate?

sarahel, Tuesday, 24 November 2009 17:12 (nine years ago) Permalink

1. She made posts that annoyed/angered/offended 51 different ILXors.

why is 51 the magic number?

George Mucus (ledge), Tuesday, 24 November 2009 17:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

*sigh*

sarahel, Tuesday, 24 November 2009 17:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

1. She made posts that annoyed/angered/offended 51 different ILXors.
2. This shows a sort of willful decision to ignore various aspects other than "noticable personalities" that all the SBed people have had.
3. This is really pretty elitist and insulting.

I get point 1, but the leap from that to point 2 is not obvious. If the posts that got someone SBed are never revealed (not even to the poster herself), no one will ever know what exactly made the 51 people annoyed: some assholish behaviour or annoying but ultimately harmless personality trait? The poster won't find out what exactly is "wrong" with him, and hence might not change his ways when he returns. So what was the point of this whole system again?

Tuomas, Tuesday, 24 November 2009 17:20 (nine years ago) Permalink

to drive you batshit

jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Tuesday, 24 November 2009 17:20 (nine years ago) Permalink

funny display names?

sarahel, Tuesday, 24 November 2009 17:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

1. She made posts that annoyed/angered/offended 51 different ILXors.

^Presumption! Maybe 10 of those people just hate britishes. I know I do.

bnw, Tuesday, 24 November 2009 17:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

Yeah but those posts offended ILXors by being made by a British person.

Tuomas, Tuesday, 24 November 2009 17:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

tuomas, given that more mod hours have been spent explaining what's wrong with your first question than any other activity this past year, it's gotta be pretty vexing for them that you chosen to open with it.

Louis Cll (darraghmac), Tuesday, 24 November 2009 17:23 (nine years ago) Permalink

Good god. Tuomas, you and all the other people who keep getting sb'ed know exactly what about you is so infuriating at this point. Stop faking.

WHY DON'T YOU JUST LICK THE BUS DIRECTLY (Laurel), Tuesday, 24 November 2009 17:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

tuomas, please i entreat you chill out about this, you are appreciated in these quarters and it would hurt me to see you SB'd again, also if you and kate were gone at once i'd have to volunteer myself for ILTMI adminship and who knows how that might turn out

my fave thing to do on the computer is what im doing right now (acoleuthic), Tuesday, 24 November 2009 17:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

You're being a giant babby.

WHY DON'T YOU JUST LICK THE BUS DIRECTLY (Laurel), Tuesday, 24 November 2009 17:26 (nine years ago) Permalink

Sorry, xp in this case.

WHY DON'T YOU JUST LICK THE BUS DIRECTLY (Laurel), Tuesday, 24 November 2009 17:26 (nine years ago) Permalink

xxp - roxy is still an ILTMI mod

sarahel, Tuesday, 24 November 2009 17:26 (nine years ago) Permalink

I honestly don't know what was so infuriating about Kate that she got SBed. If it's so obvious, maybe someone can tell me?

Tuomas, Tuesday, 24 November 2009 17:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

Good god. Tuomas, you and all the other people who keep getting sb'ed know exactly what about you is so infuriating at this point. Stop faking.

― WHY DON'T YOU JUST LICK THE BUS DIRECTLY (Laurel), Tuesday, November 24, 2009 12:25 PM (54 seconds ago) Bookmark

I really hope this is true because if Tuomas really doesn't get it at this point then I just . . . I don't even know.

bear say hi to me (ENBB), Tuesday, 24 November 2009 17:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

51 people can tell you. the mods can't.

Louis Cll (darraghmac), Tuesday, 24 November 2009 17:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

I promised myself I'd never do it again.

caek, Tuesday, 24 November 2009 17:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

So you are sincerely asking people - presumably those that sb-ed her - why they did so?

sarahel, Tuesday, 24 November 2009 17:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

the 51 days of christmas

and Susan Gucci as Erica Mane (Whiney G. Weingarten), Wednesday, 25 November 2009 22:11 (nine years ago) Permalink

Blogging about a message board is to meta for me to wrap my brain around

― and Susan Gucci as Erica Mane (Whiney G. Weingarten), Wednesday, November 25, 2009 5:01 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

kinda appreciated how she just launched into it like it was a totally ordinary topic - intense post def

ice cr?m, Wednesday, 25 November 2009 22:12 (nine years ago) Permalink

xxp - i prefer "and what in a pear tree" tbh

sarahel, Wednesday, 25 November 2009 22:13 (nine years ago) Permalink

so sarahel, the next time you ask for a clarification on a mod policy, im just going to tell you that the question was answered but you probably missed it because you were to busy making up christmas songs about sbs

NAKES HAVE THE STAPLES IN THEM (jjjusten), Wednesday, 25 November 2009 22:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

intense post def

Yeah seriously. I think it's made real evident that people get different things out of this board.

When I got SB'd my reaction was "Well, that's annoying."

and Susan Gucci as Erica Mane (Whiney G. Weingarten), Wednesday, 25 November 2009 22:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a98/CharRob/JoeCool.jpg

bnw, Wednesday, 25 November 2009 22:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

xp - maybe you should suggest that Tuomas makes up christmas songs about sbs rather than asking for clarification on a mod policy that's been clarified in about a dozen threads already. But I'm not a mod, so maybe you have better advice as far as that's concerned.

sarahel, Wednesday, 25 November 2009 22:20 (nine years ago) Permalink

see ya j0rdan

bnw, Wednesday, 25 November 2009 22:24 (nine years ago) Permalink

D:

and Susan Gucci as Erica Mane (Whiney G. Weingarten), Wednesday, 25 November 2009 22:26 (nine years ago) Permalink

ok this really has gone too far now

ice cr?m, Wednesday, 25 November 2009 22:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

i mean whos next? max? ME?

ice cr?m, Wednesday, 25 November 2009 22:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

a: yes, prob in that order

ice cr?m, Wednesday, 25 November 2009 22:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

lol

tbf now i wish id known who that chick was so i couldve sb'd her

peace out j0rdan 420 kill a hippie everyday

¨°º¤ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨ (Lamp), Wednesday, 25 November 2009 22:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

this has gone too lol

johnny crunch, Wednesday, 25 November 2009 22:30 (nine years ago) Permalink

he was just here posting 55mins ago ;_;

ice cr?m, Wednesday, 25 November 2009 22:30 (nine years ago) Permalink

http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj122/DiegoM88/0500_eazy_e_a.jpg

bnw, Wednesday, 25 November 2009 22:31 (nine years ago) Permalink

oh jesus christ

omaha deserved 311 (call all destroyer), Wednesday, 25 November 2009 22:31 (nine years ago) Permalink

oh ok jordan rip actually, this sucks, esp after my impassioned appeal

plaxico (I know, right?), Wednesday, 25 November 2009 22:31 (nine years ago) Permalink

wouldn't composing The 12 Days of Suggest Ban be a more productive activity?

more like the 120 days

GET THAT BABY JESUS RIGHT UP YE (acoleuthic), Wednesday, 25 November 2009 22:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

120 days of sbdom

¨°º¤ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨ (Lamp), Wednesday, 25 November 2009 22:34 (nine years ago) Permalink

I've always liked Kate and even when she's gotten really facepalm.jpg I've never SBed her b/c overall I think she adds a lot to ILM, but I totally woulda SBed that blog post.

XXXXXXpost bc of internet conx. - Looks like it'll be a very Sargent Xmas!

Fetchboy, Wednesday, 25 November 2009 22:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

Things turned ugly around the end of July/beginning of August. A long-term ILX poster - Mark Craig, aka Bimble - committed suicide, while under a Suggest Ban. I was in contact with him via email through the whole period leading up to, and after his banning, up to a few days before his death. I was well aware of the other issues he was facing in his life, both emotional and physical, during the lead-up to this devastating decision, and despite the allegations of a former ILX0r with an obvious axe to grind, AT THE TIME, I honestly believed that the Suggest Ban had little or nothing to do with his death. If anything, he seemed happier, more engaged with life, without the constant drag of negativity that others' reactions to his particularly ebullient posting style and sexuality.

Now I've actually been dealt a suggest ban myself, and am dealing with the emotional fallout of it, I'm not so sure.

Oh FFS. This is really really not on, as much so as Momus's post on that issue. I'd say more but I'd frankly be too damn rude.

hulk would smash (Trayce), Wednesday, 25 November 2009 23:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

yah i gotta say accusing the mods of assisting in bimble's suicide is a bit much

ice cr?m hand job (deej), Wednesday, 25 November 2009 23:46 (nine years ago) Permalink

J3sus C.

― max, Wednesday, November 25, 2009 4:43 PM (1 hour ago)

looool i texted j this exact thing, did not see u beat me to it

fake plastic t's (k3vin k.), Thursday, 26 November 2009 00:26 (nine years ago) Permalink

suffering from severe mental health issues is a horrible thing for anyone to have to go through, but there is an aspect of responsibility that ppl need to address if they're in this situation: MB talks about how she's been part of the ilx community for 9yrs, but from what i can gather it's been a pretty tumultuous 9yrs, and it has always been her choice to keep participating. it's not like 2 days ago she got the shock of her life that ppl here aren't all sunshine and roses.

if participating on a msg board can impact your life to the extent that you feel suicidal, then i really think you need to stop participating. several thousand ppl posting to a msg board just cannot be expected to be responsible for the mental well-being of one particular poster.

the real issue - imo - is not suggestban or ppl being mean or personality issues, it's just doing what's best for your own mental health, and if that means not posting here, then don't. this is not THE WHOLE INTERNET - there are plenty of other ways to communicate with the friends you make here, ilx isn't the be-all-and-end-all (as my mum would say).

DAN P3RRY MAD AT GRANDMA (just1n3), Thursday, 26 November 2009 01:07 (nine years ago) Permalink

100% OTM

Louis Cll (darraghmac), Thursday, 26 November 2009 01:10 (nine years ago) Permalink

xp Justin3 and darraghmac: the thing for me is just being a party to something where the person might not make the best choices for their mental health. I mean, it's not like we're responsible - the choice rests with the person with the issues - and I'm talking in general, not specifically about Kate - but it's hard not to feel somewhat complicit.

sarahel, Thursday, 26 November 2009 02:07 (nine years ago) Permalink

"if participating on a msg board can impact your life to the extent that you feel suicidal, then i really think you need to stop participating."

i think her point in that paragraph was that although it doesn't seem like an sb should be such a heavy trip, when it's you, it hurts way more than you would have guessed. if you read that as "ILM MODS ASSIST IN BOARDER SUICIDE" i think that is "a bit much."

bitter about emo (Hunt3r), Thursday, 26 November 2009 03:54 (nine years ago) Permalink

that said, i usually enjoyed reading her pov, hope she comes back.

bitter about emo (Hunt3r), Thursday, 26 November 2009 03:55 (nine years ago) Permalink

also, i see i conflated two different posts there. sorry to misrepresent your positions, deej and just1n3.

to clarify then:

deej, i dont read her comment quite the same way you did.

just1n3, i think her point was that people, mentally ill included, might not foresee how severely an sb could affect them.

bitter about emo (Hunt3r), Thursday, 26 November 2009 04:05 (nine years ago) Permalink

honestly i'm just sorta shocked to hear about bimble, that's really terrible news

itdn put butt in the display name (gbx), Thursday, 26 November 2009 04:09 (nine years ago) Permalink

but part of my point is that she's been here long enough to know what effect this board, and its ppl, have on her. she has accused ilx and it many of its members of being malicious etc many times before. it's not like any of this has come out of the blue. she's also left for extended periods before.

DAN P3RRY MAD AT GRANDMA (just1n3), Thursday, 26 November 2009 04:10 (nine years ago) Permalink

youre a hard woman beth, whatever her issues she clearly found real solace and comfort in ilx and for someone to lose that for no good reason is fucking shitty.

Kiwi, Thursday, 26 November 2009 04:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

"no good reason" = the whole problem with these clusterfucks. i get that for x number of posters, these people are banned for "no good reason". the problem is that for a whole bunch (uh 51 to be specific) of other posters, there is plenty of good reason for them to be banned. its fine to say that you disagree with them, but reducing it to no good reason just means that you think that their opinions/feelings/etc dont matter.

NAKES HAVE THE STAPLES IN THEM (jjjusten), Thursday, 26 November 2009 07:00 (nine years ago) Permalink

very noble John I just have a slightly less optimistic view of human nature/group dynamics!

Kiwi, Thursday, 26 November 2009 08:02 (nine years ago) Permalink

exactly! how many of these 51 posters are just hitting the button for the lols? as a typical dick move? 100%? prob not. 0%? prob not.

George Mucus (ledge), Thursday, 26 November 2009 09:30 (nine years ago) Permalink

i can't imagine clicking it with anything less than complete seriousness

electrical audio's sm57 (electricsound), Thursday, 26 November 2009 09:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

is that sarcasm or...

If the guiding policy of ilx is "don't be a dick", how do you control for dicks dickishly hitting the SB button?

George Mucus (ledge), Thursday, 26 November 2009 09:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

you get 1 sb for every sb you give.

Louis Cll (darraghmac), Thursday, 26 November 2009 10:00 (nine years ago) Permalink

ouroboros.jpg

Fetchboy, Thursday, 26 November 2009 10:26 (nine years ago) Permalink

totally agree with just1n3, i have major issues with the abdication of responsibility thing personally but to get into that would just be a needless mess.

initially with SB i didn't know if it was really gonna start affecting people i thought would be vulnerable to it but in time pretty much all of them have racked up 51 (the idea is that over a long enough period most regular posters would, but over a long enough period of time a single month is fuck all so for me it was never a problem). tbh this was re-assuring to me that i've generally not been unreasonable wrt the people i think go too far (not in 'being a dick' but by 'being annoying') on the board in different ways. seems its as difficult for some of us to understand the outrage and hurt over most s-bans as it is for others to understand how they could've occurred.

mdskltr (blueski), Thursday, 26 November 2009 11:42 (nine years ago) Permalink

over a long enough period most regular posters would, but over a long enough period of time a single month is fuck all

never considered it like that but fair point.

Louis Cll (darraghmac), Thursday, 26 November 2009 11:58 (nine years ago) Permalink

(although from the other perspective probably doesn't seem like that tbf)

Louis Cll (darraghmac), Thursday, 26 November 2009 12:06 (nine years ago) Permalink

yes, also it would be silly if s-bans given 3 years ago or whatever were to still count against someone (obv s-ban hasn't been in place that long).

mdskltr (blueski), Thursday, 26 November 2009 12:11 (nine years ago) Permalink

I thought someone did say that they expired after a certain period of time.

The bugger in the short sleeves (NickB), Thursday, 26 November 2009 12:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

not sure that has ever been addressed, tbh- can't remember seeing a specific time mentioned.

Louis Cll (darraghmac), Thursday, 26 November 2009 12:16 (nine years ago) Permalink

don't think the expiration is automatic but I'm sure I've read a mod mention about spending some time manually erasing old sbs.

Could be wrong tho.

DRUNK SWEDISH CHINTZ (Upt0eleven), Thursday, 26 November 2009 12:20 (nine years ago) Permalink

Six months.

kingkongvsgodzilla, Thursday, 26 November 2009 12:35 (nine years ago) Permalink

The six-month expiration of SBs hasn't come into force yet, for the simple reason that we couldn't actually timestamp SBs until five months ago, so it would introduce as many inaccuracies at is solved. A couple of months down the line it should be easier to tell.

I've got an email from Kate saying she's uncomfortable with this discussion going on here without her being able to contribute to it, which is fair enough, so I'm going to lock this thread now. If people want to continue talking about SBs in the abstract then fine* but any further Kate-centric threads will be either locked or deleted. I think we've covered all we can here without things drifting into either unfounded speculation or bitching.

*Although it's still very tiresome.

Space Battle Rothko (Matt DC), Thursday, 26 November 2009 12:43 (nine years ago) Permalink


This thread has been locked by an administrator

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.