An open letter to ILX & mods re: an alternative to the current system

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

What is the purpose of the suggest ban system? I am asking this now, in a lull, in the hopes that we can reasonably and non-specifically address a potential alternative.

-Is it to attempt to punish or reform the behaviour of out of control or problem posters?
-Is it to lighten the workload of the mods, and eliminate the need for "Ban Poster X" campaigns?
-Is it to create a general air of paranoia, fear and suspicion, dissuade posters from expressing views they fear may be unpopular, and drive the creation of new screen names and socks to express opinions?

It does not succeed in the first goal. The disconnection of the timing of bans occurring from the "offensive" behaviour, and the fact the culprits are rarely if ever told what posts or actions they were banned for renders any punitive or reforming value nil. Insisting that banned posters *must* be aware of what caused their banishment (in the presence of often conflicting information) leads only to defensiveness and a kind of helpless paranoia. It is not conducive to behavioural reform to tell adults how they *should* feel upon being punished instead of listening to how they do feel.

The SB system does not seem to dissuade clusterfucks or meta in any way at all. If anything, the resulting clusterfuck every time a poster is banned, or the suggest ban system is questioned is, IMO, way more destructive. I don't actually even know why it was created, but it has taken the process of admonishing behaviour out of the hands of individuals with, one hopes, a sense of discernment and judgement, and placed it in the hands of an anonymous mob who need never justify their decisions.

The biggest problem, I feel, is that the SB system, although it seems to claim to police *behaviour*, is that it is focused on the *person*, not on the behaviour or the posts.

Also problematic on ILX as it exists, is the lack of any system whereby a user can anonymously and safely report posts.

This is a problem for the moderators, as they may not be aware of what is going on, especially on fast moving threads. This is also a problem for posters who may have been negatively affected by problem posts. We have seen repeatedly that asking for moderation on "sensitive" topics often results in clusterfucks, with hostility often directed at the person who complains, rather than the person whose behaviour is being questioned.

The only recourse a person who does not wish themselves to be subjected to the trial by rubbernecker that IMP can become - is to use SB.

This is not ideal when the intent may be to have the post flagged, or the poster reprimanded, but the only recourse is to ask them to be removed from the site, with no reason given.

Also, there is no *reason* given for SBs. The person doing the banning is never asked to consider why they are administering this punishment - if it is a personal feud, a disagreement over opinions, merely thinking the poster is "insane" (perhaps because they come from a very different culture) - or if it is a valid reason, such as hate speech (racism, sexism/misogyny, homophobia) or ad hominem attacks, or trolling with the deliberate aim of hurting or bullying. An anonymous mob given no reason to justify its complaints is hardly an effective arbiter of behaviour.

I suggest that the SB system be replaced by a Report/Flag Post system, whereby 1) censure is attached to specific behaviour, not just the person in general and 2) a reason must be provided to establish *why* moderation is being asked for (and prevent abuse). This can be in the form of a drop-down list containing the things ILX condemns, for example:
1) Ad hominem attacks
2) Bullying
3) Racism
4) Sexism/Misogyny
5) Homophobia
6) Hate Speech (other)

Note what reasons are not given: this system is *not* for things one finds annoying but not mod-worthy ("you are an idiot" or "I disagree with you" or "OMG, shut UP with the derail/meta/hobbyhorse") - it is for specific behaviour that ILX will not tolerate.

If a post is flagged, it goes into a moderation queue. (I would suggest some kind of prioritisation if a post rapidly accumulates many flags, to require immediate attention and forestall meta clusterfucks.) It stays there until it is dealt with, instead of hanging around for months afterwards like SBs. A moderator can decide on the appropriate response - for example, on-thread warning, yellow carding, threadban, temp ban, etc. - and this response happens within a reasonable amount of time so that the offense and its punishment are causally correlated.

The other component would be a way of letting the "culprit" know what they are actually being punished for. I don't know if this is something that could - or even should be done automatically (for instance, a page where you can see your flag count a la your post count, I fear would be treated like a statscock by some people. This is not the intention.) However, the idea that someone or something can privately tell you "you got 17 flags for racism on X thread, knock it off" might actually be instructive.

Yes, it would mean more work for mods, though it would give more weight to mod decisions, if they are backed up by flags rather than seeming arbitrary or personal. But it would also mean that "oops, I didn't even know that was happening" is never an excuse, either for mods or for controversial posters.

Karen D. Tregaskin, Sunday, 21 November 2010 13:23 (eight years ago) Permalink

tl;dr - flag posts, not posters. Punish behaviour, not individuals.

Karen D. Tregaskin, Sunday, 21 November 2010 13:23 (eight years ago) Permalink

p.s. due to personal health reasons, I don't have the energy to stay and defend this suggestion against either rational argument, or people with an axe to grind.

I have done my best to try and make ILX the kind of place I want to be on over the past few weeks, starting threads on stuff I'm interested in and trying to stick to them. But the fact is, my experience of ILX has been irrevocably changed by multiple SB's and it is no longer a place where I feel comfortable, or that I feel is even good for me. I have two choices: I can try to change that which is making it so uncomfortable, or I can leave. This thread is an attempt at the former.

Karen D. Tregaskin, Sunday, 21 November 2010 13:28 (eight years ago) Permalink

That list of things ILX won't tolerate is fairly unobjectionable, but ad hom and bullying are gonna be tough judgement calls on occasion. And if the point of modding is to make the board a more pleasant/tolerable experience for its users, why would constant hobbyhorsing, for example, not be a valid ground for a flag too?

a ticker tape of "must not fuck up" (Noodle Vague), Sunday, 21 November 2010 13:32 (eight years ago) Permalink

The reason I don't think that hobbyhorsing is a problem is because of posters like, for example Geir. I don't want to be on a board where that is considered a crime. Hobbyhorsing without rudeness or ad hominem is part of what makes ILX a diverse & interesting place.

The other thing I wished to add is to discern between "meta" meaning discussing the rules, mores and structure of ILX which is "deal with it" territory and meta meaning discussing individuals and posters which potentially is ad hominem and I feel is up for flagging. The terms are often used interchangeably. I am not using them in that sense.

Karen D. Tregaskin, Sunday, 21 November 2010 13:47 (eight years ago) Permalink

whats hobbyhorsing?

Onigaga (Princess TamTam), Sunday, 21 November 2010 13:55 (eight years ago) Permalink

Making the same "point" in countless threads with little to no effort to engage in a dialogue or advance the sum total of human knowledge.

a ticker tape of "must not fuck up" (Noodle Vague), Sunday, 21 November 2010 13:57 (eight years ago) Permalink

...

Goths in Home & Away in my lifetime (darraghmac), Sunday, 21 November 2010 13:58 (eight years ago) Permalink

1) Ad hominem attacks
2) Bullying
3) Racism
4) Sexism/Misogyny
5) Homophobia
6) Hate Speech (other)

the mods already take care of all these pretty effectively imo.

Note what reasons are not given: this system is *not* for things one finds annoying but not mod-worthy

i don't agree with it, but my understanding is that this is exactly what SB is supposed to capture: low level dickishness.

caek, Sunday, 21 November 2010 14:03 (eight years ago) Permalink

if the mods find it useful/reassuring to have the silent support of SBs before they make a moderation decision they would have hesitated to make on their own, then i'm all for keeping it. and when they make that decision, they can tell the problem poster why.

but 51 = 30 days, 102 = 60 days automated bans seem to be treated like a force of nature by the mods simply because keith wrote the code that way. and in practice they've resulted in a mixture of absurd and uncool popularity contest bans that make ilx a worse place, and perfectly sensible bans/timeouts for bad faith dickishness the mods could have done themselves. just get rid of the autoban, keep the "suggest ban" button as an "fyi this post annoyed me" if the mods fine it useful, and the system is fine.

caek, Sunday, 21 November 2010 14:19 (eight years ago) Permalink

Seems fair. I don't think the argument about what kinds of post should get you SB'd has much point, or will ever be agreed on, but the main flaw in the system at the moment is maybe caused by malicious feud SBs or something.

a ticker tape of "must not fuck up" (Noodle Vague), Sunday, 21 November 2010 14:28 (eight years ago) Permalink

KDT, thanks for a well thought out and well expressed summary of yr objections to the SB system. I just got up and am processing 1st caffeine of the day, and won't post my thoughts on here without thinking them through and wording them carefully, but I did want to let you know that this thread has caught mod attention and isn't going to be ignored.

Unfrozen Caveman Board-Lawyer (WmC), Sunday, 21 November 2010 14:35 (eight years ago) Permalink

xp, or something, i think. would have to be a pretty weird malicious feud to get you 51 clicks before a mod intervened.

my impression is people SB it in two situations (1) obvious bannable offence, "i would ban this person right now if i were a mod" and (2) i find this person annoying or i don't like them or the argument they are advancing annoying or disruptive.

(1) is pointless, that's what mods are for.

and re (2), like kate says, having a piece of code ban people when 51 people click for the range of non-specific reasons that no one knows, including the victim, hasn't changed a single person's behaviour. it's totally passive aggressive and it's solved nothing.

but more important point from my POV is it's a bullshit 6th form popularity ban, and it makes ilx less interesting.

p.s. free dom.

caek, Sunday, 21 November 2010 14:38 (eight years ago) Permalink

Lamp was right, of course, that the main function of the SB system is to generate epic drama.

Saint Dominic of Northampton obviously not banned because of SB or because of a g.d. popularity contest, but yeah, free dom.

A click button registration of STFU aimed at an annoying post has therapeutic value, at least. Would be cool with a more harmless and funnier system being introduced.

a ticker tape of "must not fuck up" (Noodle Vague), Sunday, 21 November 2010 14:45 (eight years ago) Permalink

as drama goes, sb clusterfucks are pretty mild. ilx is less dramatic than it was.

i think that's almost entirely because half a dozen posters were banned by mods, and has nothing to do with the presence or otherwise of sb.

caek, Sunday, 21 November 2010 14:51 (eight years ago) Permalink

feel like Karen D. Tregaskin makes pretty reasonable points

ice cr?m, Sunday, 21 November 2010 15:09 (eight years ago) Permalink

yeah

max, Sunday, 21 November 2010 15:10 (eight years ago) Permalink

What is the purpose of the suggest ban system? I am asking this now, in a lull, in the hopes that we can reasonably and non-specifically address a potential alternative.
-Is it to attempt to punish or reform the behaviour of out of control or problem posters?

-Is it to lighten the workload of the mods, and eliminate the need for "Ban Poster X" campaigns?

-Is it to create a general air of paranoia, fear and suspicion, dissuade posters from expressing views they fear may be unpopular, and drive the creation of new screen names and socks to express opinions?

1 yes, 2 no, 3 no.

I'm not a board historian so my memory of the situation may be faulty; if I have any of this wrong, please let me know. When administration of the site passed from Andrew Eneff to Stet, he and Keith determined that it would be a good idea or even necessary to rewrite the site coding from the ground up, and took that opportunity to write in a bunch of additional functionality. One of the big knocks against then-current site moderation was that all the policing power was in the hands of a very few, so the SB system was created to let everybody have a say in identifying, censuring and banning problem posters.

It certainly didn't lighten moderator workload, since the automatic-banning function either broke or was disabled early on. For most of the history of the SB system, mods have kept an eye on accumulating SBs and acted on them without any automated system in place.

It's a very flawed system. There are instances of people getting SB'd for being who they are, not for what they've posted -- coming back from a month's ban and getting SB'd for a completely innocuous post by someone who simply does not want that person posting on ILX. I have been loath to delete these bogus SBs because it seemed like a slippery slope where mods go down a list of SBs and say "your opinion is worthy...your opinion is unworthy...worthy...worthy...unworthy..." etc. But the result is people having SBs they shouldn't have. The six-month expiration of SBs has ameliorated that to an extent, imo.

Which brings us to the present day.

Long answer short: I like the idea of the Report/Flag Post system, and the idea of censuring posts, rather than posters. I do think it would be a huge improvement on the current SB system. It totally throws the ball into stet's court, though.

I won't comment further on the devil-in-the-details of a Flag Post system until stet has weighed in on it. But I do agree that there are enough problems with the SB system to consider scrapping it for something better.

Unfrozen Caveman Board-Lawyer (WmC), Sunday, 21 November 2010 16:07 (eight years ago) Permalink

I don't see any issues with the sb system and I see no reason to change it. This is like the tenth thread we've had about this, and I would prefer not to do all this over again, but if we have to, I'll go ahead and bring up the same arguments we have every time.

O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Sunday, 21 November 2010 20:12 (eight years ago) Permalink

cosign with jjjusten

arguing abt it is completely pointless tho, people who hate SB are resolute & people who don't see a problem with it think the objectors minimize the problems created by people who constantly attack, derail, obstruct, etc

aerosmith: the acid house years (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Sunday, 21 November 2010 20:20 (eight years ago) Permalink

i do think though that anybody who coded an alternate system would get a fair hearing tho. not described what the code might do, but coded it themselves. it would be a lot of work, but not really much more work than participating in heated anti-SB threads.

aerosmith: the acid house years (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Sunday, 21 November 2010 20:22 (eight years ago) Permalink

n/f jaundy slobs on mod's knobs

i mostly wish that the mods hadnt implemented an expiration d8 on sbs - wouldve been lol to see who the last non mod standing was as all regs slowly got 51. as it stands nowwwww feel like you have to be p socially retarded not to get why ppl h8 u but i guess 'being socially retarded' may well be the reason so many ppl h8 u

wld LOVE to force ppl to give reasonings behind sb - this is only for lulz - wld sb p much everyone of this was the case fyi

┌▪┌▫┌▪┌▫ EXIT ▪┐▫┐▫┐ (Lamp), Sunday, 21 November 2010 20:27 (eight years ago) Permalink

I like Lamp's stance on this because it's this very benign sort of berzerker sociopathy

aerosmith: the acid house years (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Sunday, 21 November 2010 20:29 (eight years ago) Permalink

I think the SB system is better than nothing, but I also think KDT makes legit points.

Unfrozen Caveman Board-Lawyer (WmC), Sunday, 21 November 2010 20:33 (eight years ago) Permalink

yeah, i've seen post flagging (v user flagging) work well on other boards. makes a ton of sense imo

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Sunday, 21 November 2010 20:34 (eight years ago) Permalink

foursquare with jjusten here. not sure what new points have been raised, though it's useful to start a new thread for each poster who has a problem with the sb system, definitely.

Goths in Home & Away in my lifetime (darraghmac), Sunday, 21 November 2010 20:38 (eight years ago) Permalink

maybe tuomas can start his own one when w're done here, then whiney then gabbneb then lj twice, then etc

Goths in Home & Away in my lifetime (darraghmac), Sunday, 21 November 2010 20:38 (eight years ago) Permalink

not sure what new points have been raised,

flagging posts instead of posters has been brought up before?

Unfrozen Caveman Board-Lawyer (WmC), Sunday, 21 November 2010 20:40 (eight years ago) Permalink

Re: post flagging - that's how sb works tho, mods can see which posts have been sbed - so not really sure what the difference here would be.

O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Sunday, 21 November 2010 20:41 (eight years ago) Permalink

because there's no accumulated point system to notifications.

cha-cha cheating (bnw), Sunday, 21 November 2010 20:42 (eight years ago) Permalink

the difference is the user is aware of flag not just mods (xp)

┌▪┌▫┌▪┌▫ EXIT ▪┐▫┐▫┐ (Lamp), Sunday, 21 November 2010 20:43 (eight years ago) Permalink

i would hazard the guess that most of the people who get 30 day timeouts don't really give a shit if they piss people off, because ILX isn't that crucial a part of their well-being.

and - so if we implement this post flagging thing, we can have clusterfuck threads about flagged posts!

sarahel, Sunday, 21 November 2010 20:44 (eight years ago) Permalink

simply letting people see how many sb's they have would address a lot of the complaints about the current system with minimal extra work (as compared to a whole new system, flagging posts, etc)

T-Rex's erotic imagination (Z S), Sunday, 21 November 2010 20:46 (eight years ago) Permalink

i would hazard the guess that most of the people who get 30 day timeouts don't really give a shit if they piss people off, because ILX isn't that crucial a part of their well-being

i guess thats why so many of them still read it all the time & use intermediaries to post shit

┌▪┌▫┌▪┌▫ EXIT ▪┐▫┐▫┐ (Lamp), Sunday, 21 November 2010 20:47 (eight years ago) Permalink

there's a difference between a habitual distraction and crucial part of one's well-being

sarahel, Sunday, 21 November 2010 20:49 (eight years ago) Permalink

just sb'd you in the interest of field testing this theory

┌▪┌▫┌▪┌▫ EXIT ▪┐▫┐▫┐ (Lamp), Sunday, 21 November 2010 20:52 (eight years ago) Permalink

LOL!

sarahel, Sunday, 21 November 2010 20:52 (eight years ago) Permalink

idk a clusterfuck about the content of a flagged post would at least be more interesting and productive than another clusterfuck about the validity of abstract sbs

4 billion xps to sarahel

HOOS tremendo...steen ridically (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Sunday, 21 November 2010 20:52 (eight years ago) Permalink

limited no of sb's you can give in 6 months, say 51?

but i'm pretty sure all of this has been discussed.

the 'flag a post, not a poster' idea just throws it back on the mods to do what they've always done, and there were neither fewer bannings nor fewer dramas back then.

Goths in Home & Away in my lifetime (darraghmac), Sunday, 21 November 2010 20:53 (eight years ago) Permalink

well, yeah, it would definitely be more interesting, hoos, but some people want there to be as few meta clusterfucks as possible.

sarahel, Sunday, 21 November 2010 20:53 (eight years ago) Permalink

but we're having them anyway! give the kids the condoms!

HOOS tremendo...steen ridically (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Sunday, 21 November 2010 21:04 (eight years ago) Permalink

^ the pope

Goths in Home & Away in my lifetime (darraghmac), Sunday, 21 November 2010 21:06 (eight years ago) Permalink

Just as long as it all goes in the Admin Log

sarahel, Sunday, 21 November 2010 21:06 (eight years ago) Permalink

we were having them before anyway, ffs. we'll have them anyway under any system. but this way a fairly large number of board users each register the decision, as opposed to jjusten or hi dere getting dog's abuse for perfectly legit bannings from a message board.

Goths in Home & Away in my lifetime (darraghmac), Sunday, 21 November 2010 21:08 (eight years ago) Permalink

do you honestly believe i'm arguing against the proliferation of meta clusterfucks?

sarahel, Sunday, 21 November 2010 21:09 (eight years ago) Permalink

as your pope i think yes

HOOS tremendo...steen ridically (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Sunday, 21 November 2010 21:10 (eight years ago) Permalink

forgive me your holiness for i have sinned ...

sarahel, Sunday, 21 November 2010 21:11 (eight years ago) Permalink

do you honestly believe i'm arguing against the proliferation of meta clusterfucks?

wait, are you arguing FOR them?

Unfrozen Caveman Board-Lawyer (WmC), Sunday, 21 November 2010 21:11 (eight years ago) Permalink

i will let my pope speak for me.

sarahel, Sunday, 21 November 2010 21:13 (eight years ago) Permalink

yes

HOOS tremendo...steen ridically (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Sunday, 21 November 2010 21:14 (eight years ago) Permalink

To be plain, unsnarky, open and honest. Tuomas: when you take issue with the system as is, it appears to me, and I assume other posters, that you want the rules to run in a way that protects posters you find enjoyable or valuable but removes those you find make the board painful to use. All of us are probably arguing for some version of this, but you claim that your guidelines are the Objective Rules and therefore function as some kind of trump card over what other users want. Maybe that's just the way your rhetoric is coming across, but that's the main bone of disagreement I have with you. If there are any objective rules, they cover the kind of blanketly offensive posts that mods already take action on, which are outside of the SB system.

Ravacious Fortune (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 13:10 (eight years ago) Permalink

And you misconstrue the camel's back analogy. One post about (Poster's Hobbyhorse A) might be unobjectionable, but a 100th post, in the same vein, with the same level of innocuousness, but in an unwelcome thread context, will push some users to click the STFU BAN button.

Ravacious Fortune (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 13:12 (eight years ago) Permalink

If there are any objective rules, they cover the kind of blanketly offensive posts that mods already take action on, which are outside of the SB system.

Well, basically I think SB system should only be there notify mods about offensive posts, to make their jobs easier. It's then their decision whether to yellow card, temp ban, perm ban, or do nothing about the offensive poster. The whole "51 votes and your out" thing is bullshit, in my opinion. (Especially since 51 voters is a small minority of registered users.)

that you want the rules to run in a way that protects posters you find enjoyable or valuable but removes those you find make the board painful to use.

No, what I want is everyone to be judged fairly by the same standards. With SBs you can never know if that actually happens, looks like people can get SBs based on their reputation or for other personal reasons that have nothing to do with their current behaviour.

Tuomas, Wednesday, 24 November 2010 13:20 (eight years ago) Permalink

But the SB works the same for everybody.

I have some minor qualms about it not giving feedback to the SB-ee, and I disagree with the choice of several of its victims, but I don't question that as a system it works equally on all posters.

You want everybody to be judged by the same standards but you want to help define what those standards are, surely?

Ravacious Fortune (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 13:24 (eight years ago) Permalink

One post about (Poster's Hobbyhorse A) might be unobjectionable, but a 100th post, in the same vein, with the same level of innocuousness, but in an unwelcome thread context, will push some users to click the STFU BAN button.

Personally, I think people being monomaniacal and obsessive about certain things makes ILX richer, and shouldn't be something that requires punishment. Only if they start a hundred different threads about the same subject, or post 100 messages in a row about it, or their obsession leads to pointless ad hominem attacks, should a mod interfere. If those things don't happen, I don't see why obsessing about a specific thing in a thread devoted to it is wrong.

Tuomas, Wednesday, 24 November 2010 13:25 (eight years ago) Permalink

Personally I think pointless ad hominem attacks make ILX richer. We are both expressing a personal preference, how do we resolve this impasse?

Ravacious Fortune (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 13:26 (eight years ago) Permalink

I don't see why obsessing about a specific thing in a thread devoted to it is wrong

What about a thread you think is devoted to it but is actually a thread devoted to something else entitrely and what you are really doing is instigating a damaging, counterproductive and annoying derail?

Matt DC, Wednesday, 24 November 2010 13:27 (eight years ago) Permalink

but you want to help define what those standards are, surely?

No, I'm perfectly fine with the standars we've had for years. They seem pretty sensible and are about the same as on any good message board.

Tuomas, Wednesday, 24 November 2010 13:27 (eight years ago) Permalink

What about a thread you think is devoted to it but is actually a thread devoted to something else entitrely and what you are really doing is instigating a damaging, counterproductive and annoying derail?

Then the mods can yellowcard/notify the poster or ban him from the thread.

Tuomas, Wednesday, 24 November 2010 13:28 (eight years ago) Permalink

In British political history, and I assume in that of many other countries, innovation was frequently introduced by an appeal to a return to well-known, long-standing standards.

Ravacious Fortune (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 13:29 (eight years ago) Permalink

NV OTM. That's why innocuous seeming posts like Kate's starting this thread also get SBs -- the message I get there is "stop hammering this one".

It comes back to the difference between posts and users again. ILX is pretty good at handling a bad post; even those that on their own are harmless but form a larger pattern. There's no shortage of feedback.

A problem arises when a poster doesn't listen to the feedback and carries on anyway, so pretty soon the board is yelling "yes we get your opinion/mission/need to overshare on this, stfu already" and the poster keeps charging on. That sort of behaviour pretty quickly leads to an SB. I think that's fair, even if the actual SB post is relatively innocuous in isolation.

(On yr other point: none of the improvements I talked about are technical, they're all policy)

XP: OK if thats what you think it should be about, fine. It sounds similar to Kate's post-flagging idea. But that's not actually what the SB system is about, for reasons I said earlier.

As for judging fairly, the relevant policy rule here is "don't be a dick". The varying opinions of people who give SBs help define what that means for ILX. Has anyone been banned who wasn't being a bit of a dick?

stet, Wednesday, 24 November 2010 13:31 (eight years ago) Permalink

Then the mods can yellowcard/notify the poster or ban him from the thread.

Okay then, you're banned from the thread. This is not a thread for you to carry out the same argument you have multiple times before, it's a thread to discuss specific suggestions put forward by Kate.

Matt DC, Wednesday, 24 November 2010 13:33 (eight years ago) Permalink

http://avatars.postiton.net/avatars/Weezer.gifI'd like to take this moment to stan for the Green Album over the Blue Album and Pinkerton. Thanks.

Avatar: The Last SBanner (kkvgz), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 13:33 (eight years ago) Permalink

Thumbs Upped u for that

Ravacious Fortune (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 13:34 (eight years ago) Permalink

http://www.graphicsgrotto.com/avatars/funny/images/avfunny3.gif<3 the potleaf goin down the highway one so much

aerosmith: the acid house years (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 13:38 (eight years ago) Permalink

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/64s/8696337.jpgomg did Matt DC really threadban Tuomas

aerosmith: the acid house years (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 13:43 (eight years ago) Permalink

it was the wisdom of Lamp and the lol of ENBB that brought me over

― aerosmith: the acid house years (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, November 24, 2010 7:46 AM (56 minutes ago) Bookmark

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

ENBB, Wednesday, 24 November 2010 13:44 (eight years ago) Permalink

tuomas is the only constant in this crazy thread

Goths in Home & Away in my lifetime (darraghmac), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 13:46 (eight years ago) Permalink

I actually did threadban Tuomas, but he did make it impossible to resist. I'll let him back in a few minutes.

Matt DC, Wednesday, 24 November 2010 13:46 (eight years ago) Permalink

take your time. hungry? want a drink or a snack? maybe you need a quick nap first.

questeon the answers (call all destroyer), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 13:47 (eight years ago) Permalink

http://img1.jurko.net/avatar_2892.gifwhen he comes back can he have this avatar perma-assigned to his posts

aerosmith: the acid house years (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 13:51 (eight years ago) Permalink

http://www.avatarsdb.com/avatars/dog_sunglasses.gif yeah give him a few days, he'll just clock SBs otherwise

i'm assuming that it's tity boi, host of the mixtape (sic), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 13:53 (eight years ago) Permalink

http://www.avatarsdb.com/avatars/dog_and_butterfly.gif endorse j0hn's gif, but for Geir

i'm assuming that it's tity boi, host of the mixtape (sic), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 13:54 (eight years ago) Permalink

http://www.yourspacenow.com/img/animated183.gif I think this one's going to run and run
______________________________________________

You can take a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead

Lindsey Lohan is the new Extreme Noise Terror (onimo), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 13:57 (eight years ago) Permalink

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o273/ubi82/shit%20i%20made/SUPPLIES.gif wait what happened to tuomas??

---------------

I LOVE the smell of napalm in the morning!

You do not have to be good.
You do not have to walk on your knees
for a hundred miles through the desert, repenting.
You only have to let the soft animal of your body
love what it loves.
Tell me about despair, yours, and I will tell you mine.
Meanwhile the world goes on.
Meanwhile the sun and the clear pebbles of the rain
are moving across the landscapes,
over the prairies and the deep trees,
the mountains and the rivers.
Meanwhile the wild geese, high in the clean blue air,
are heading home again.
Whoever you are, no matter how lonely,
the world offers itself to your imagination,
calls to you like the wild geese, harsh and exciting--
over and over announcing your place
in the family of things.

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 15:18 (eight years ago) Permalink

Poems better than avatars. Thx for that, gbx.

I've got ten bucks. SURPRISE ME. (Laurel), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 15:22 (eight years ago) Permalink

mandatory avatars AND mandatory poem sigfiles

problem solved

aerosmith: the acid house years (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 24 November 2010 15:46 (eight years ago) Permalink

it was the wisdom of Lamp and the lol of ENBB that brought me over

― aerosmith: the acid house years (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, November 24, 2010 7:46 AM (56 minutes ago) Bookmark

I just wanna step in here to take credit for finding that "PIMPIN BITCH" avatar for ENBB

pretty hat machine (crüt), Thursday, 25 November 2010 13:07 (eight years ago) Permalink

credit crut pimpin the enbbconomy

Goths in Home & Away in my lifetime (darraghmac), Thursday, 25 November 2010 16:34 (eight years ago) Permalink

LOL. OH NO should I have given credit for that? That was all curtis.

ENBB, Thursday, 25 November 2010 19:24 (eight years ago) Permalink

The fact that this thread went off the rails again was entirely countered by Noodle's use of the word 'blanketly'.

Friday: vuvuzela club meeting (Autumn Almanac), Thursday, 25 November 2010 21:24 (eight years ago) Permalink

http://i26.tinypic.com/2udyu5e.jpg many lolz @ tamtam itt

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://blog.lawyerahead.ca/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/tupac-shakur-wallpaper-6.jpg

lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Thursday, 9 December 2010 07:37 (eight years ago) Permalink

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/jewish_dogs.jpg totally, he's making me reconsider

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/2789/shirt30vg.jpg

"FAHGEDDABOUT IT!"

shirley summistake (s1ocki), Friday, 10 December 2010 02:32 (eight years ago) Permalink

should I read this thread or

http://tinyurl.com/jerrymacarena (gr8080), Monday, 13 December 2010 01:20 (seven years ago) Permalink

skim it for the avatars

markers, Monday, 13 December 2010 01:21 (seven years ago) Permalink

go volunteer at a soup kitchen or something

ad hom alone (J0rdan S.), Monday, 13 December 2010 01:21 (seven years ago) Permalink

J0rdan teaching me how to live

http://tinyurl.com/jerrymacarena (gr8080), Monday, 13 December 2010 01:36 (seven years ago) Permalink

Hi,
I want to edit or take down a post I made years ago which reads all wrong (not at all like I meant) but my old user name "does not exist in DB", how can I get rid of it?
It is here: Which language has the best swearwords?
CT

CT, Sunday, 19 December 2010 16:32 (seven years ago) Permalink

hahahaha

WE HAVE A 15-YEAR-OLD ENROLLED, DON'T HAVE SEX WITH HER (acoleuthic), Sunday, 19 December 2010 18:23 (seven years ago) Permalink

im 'avin that

"Spastic Mentalist" (history mayne), Sunday, 19 December 2010 18:25 (seven years ago) Permalink

pack it in you fucking joeys

baubles to the wall (Noodle Vague), Sunday, 19 December 2010 18:30 (seven years ago) Permalink

am not condoning the use of those words, more laughing at CT's predicament and retrospective shame

WE HAVE A 15-YEAR-OLD ENROLLED, DON'T HAVE SEX WITH HER (acoleuthic), Sunday, 19 December 2010 18:33 (seven years ago) Permalink

ahem

baubles to the wall (Noodle Vague), Sunday, 19 December 2010 18:34 (seven years ago) Permalink

?

WE HAVE A 15-YEAR-OLD ENROLLED, DON'T HAVE SEX WITH HER (acoleuthic), Sunday, 19 December 2010 18:37 (seven years ago) Permalink

We've all said silly shit under our govt names in the past

WE HAVE A 15-YEAR-OLD ENROLLED, DON'T HAVE SEX WITH HER (acoleuthic), Sunday, 19 December 2010 18:37 (seven years ago) Permalink

my choice of rebuke may have indicated a lack of sincerity in its intention

baubles to the wall (Noodle Vague), Sunday, 19 December 2010 18:38 (seven years ago) Permalink

1. Joey 1966 up, 893 down

buy joey mugs, tshirts and magnets
The hottest sexiest thing alive. I wanna lick his face off.
I wish my boyfriend was a Joey.
I know don't we all?
smexy fishy hawt joey martin

WE HAVE A 15-YEAR-OLD ENROLLED, DON'T HAVE SEX WITH HER (acoleuthic), Sunday, 19 December 2010 18:39 (seven years ago) Permalink

ah wait, definition 4 brings it

ha

WE HAVE A 15-YEAR-OLD ENROLLED, DON'T HAVE SEX WITH HER (acoleuthic), Sunday, 19 December 2010 18:40 (seven years ago) Permalink

glad I cd do my little bit to keep 1980s hate speech alive

baubles to the wall (Noodle Vague), Sunday, 19 December 2010 18:42 (seven years ago) Permalink


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