|AnimeGalleries [dot] Net||AnimeWallpapers [dot] Com||AnimeLyrics [dot] Com||AnimePedia [dot] Com||AnimeGlobe [dot] Com|
Um kale did you just say that me being a undrraged hooker can't be helped? You need to had not. Because you know.
How're you going to make a thread about this and not read the threads?
thems dern folk make us good ol' boys look bad...mmmmk.
---------- Post added at 03:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:20 AM ----------
Lol ratchet is still butthurt about that comment that dude made?
At least we won't be getting any more lip from him/her. He/She got annoying.
WARNING: This user is wanted for unauthorized access into Ultratech archives. If you see this user in person, please contact Ultratech immediately.
Because I've never found any clear rule on AF as to how much a member should lurk before posting a thread of their own. While I do accept that each thread should have a fair "grace period", and that therefore one should reasonably do some lurking before starting a thread of their own, at the same time, I do think there should be some expiry date with them as well, something which apparently AF doesn't make clear; that and the fact that it keeps well-outdated threads for years at a time. Seriously, am I expected to lurk all the way back to those threads as well before thinking to post my own?
Suffice to say, I think it's rather unfair that any member should be allowed to claim a monopoly on some topic with their thread for an indefinite amount of time (especially if it's not getting any replies); but that's exactly what seems to happen on AF, as certain members are quick to fire accusations on the lines of plagiarism at a member whose thread exists alongside some other about the same topic, and just as quick to dismiss a long-abandoned, yet nonetheless topically-relevant thread with cheap posts along the lines of, "Who dug this thread up?".
Before starting a thread, I will lurk--sure, but to a point... That point is when some thread with a topic similar the one I'm looking to post (should it exist) has had no replies for over 1 month, or has been outranked by more than 100 posts. You may argue that as non-mod it's not my place to be (self-)imposing such rules, but in my defense, I think it's rather sad that as far as I can see, members are being forced to do what ought to be the job of the mods in the first place.
By the way, I'm not defending or condoning WBL Studios' actions (In the first place I don't know the guy or the circumstances that lead to his ban), and he may well have "antagonised" the mods as you seem to be suggesting. However, I fear that the lack of clarity on how much a member ought to lurk before posting their own thread runs the potential risk of trapping many newcomers into unintentionally breaking AF community "rules" (which seem to be ambiguous at best, and elitist at worst); at least, until they've interacted with the community enough to gain some sense as to what is an acceptable level of lurking.
Last edited by .:neuko:.; 06-03-2013 at 10:05 PM.
You've got a pointless rant that applies to nothing WBL did. He didn't get banned for posting yet another Meyer's Briggs thread. You really should have looked into this before posting. Also, looking into something before posting isn't a "community rule," it's common sense.
Last edited by Kaleohano; 06-04-2013 at 02:39 AM.
Anyway, having read your post (along with Angelic's) I have come to accept that I was... kinda premature in my last post (understatement). Perhaps I ought to have read more of WB's threads and maybe some of his VMs (if any) before posting my opinion in this thread, and for not looking into the case enough I do apologise.
I will say this though: next to Angelic's, your post is a lot more helpful (thankfully). With Angelic's I'm still left wondering how I should conform to AF in order to be accepted by the community; the statements there seem to be quite opinionated and almost personal (about WB, not me). I do try to conform on AF, but I'm sure that I don't always get it "right". At least with your post I have a much clearer idea as to what is "legally" tolerated on AF and (presumably) independent of the social order within the community itself.
In any case, WB's accusation about the "sleeping with a 14 year old" was not a nice thing to hear (and true or not, there was no justification for posting it), and in a parallel world I would have banned him outright for just saying that alone.
So in light of your quote, it is with dignity that I shall admit, mine was rather... out of context. Now I still stand by much of what I said, as I've always been conscious of community perception of relevance when it comes to making threads of my own, or when replying to threads that are on the verge of being auto-closed for fear of the "Who dug this thread up?" remark; and I still can't help wondering that if I were to complain to a mod about this, would I be told that I'm just behaving like a whining baby, or be subject to communal accusations of attention-seeking? But putting that minor concern aside, thanks for taking the time and effort to reply to my post objectively and in a professional manner.
Last edited by .:neuko:.; 06-04-2013 at 03:05 AM.
You mean I missed yet another exciting event here on AF?
ein, zwei, drei, vier bin endlich weg von Dir
fünf, sechs, sieben, acht Du hast jetzt keine Macht
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)