should I quit?

I'm straddling the fence between group 1 and group 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eestlinc

I don't think I can add smilies.

---

Then you're useless to me. :mad2:

Quote:

---

we actually don't need huge amounts of modding these days. you guys are so well behaved...

---

Hey, I tried to help! Not the past couple of months, but still. Nobody kept up the debate about the swear filter and my most interesting thread was made private. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychotic

Forums staff is divided into two groups. The first are the old 'uns who have been on staff since the dawn of time, don't post on EoFF much anymore because they developed interesting real lives, and they're still on staff because they're pretty chill people and I guess because throwing people out after they had contributed so much is harsh. Sometimes they get guilt tripped and go on posting sprees for a month before going back to the shadows.

The second are the ones that get involved in the community and actually do work, whatever work there is to actually be done around here these days. (yesterday I banned a guy and deleted all 8 or so of his posts! It was the most exciting thing I've done in the past few months!)

Both groups contribute to decisions and each brings something different to the table.

I am in group two right now, but you only have another year or two left of me before I burn out and join group one, so make the most of me while you can, EoFF!

---

The first group should be Former Staffed. There are plenty of active members around here who can do stuff. It just seems a waste to me, just because of some past happenings. I've never understood the whole "dude, he did this 50 years ago show some respect" thing. I respect what the person did, but there's no point continuing that respect if they've done nothing else. I can't see the behind the scenes stuff here, so it may be that eest bans and deletes stuff when he sees it, in which case he should stay.

---

Ah, we've been having this discussion so many times and it never leads anywhere. It doesn't really matter though, we can afford to have some inactives with us as long as we've got a good group active, which I think we do at the moment. :mog: With Cid gone and not having a leader around, there's nobody who has the authority to demote anyone, other than themselves, and such we seem to be going with a "I trust it you'll step down when you're ready for it" mentality.

Personally I don't think anyone should be demoted against their will, that's just going to set a bad smell to the place. However I do think someone who is inactive should be asked how things are going and if they are able to keep up with this place. Don't see anything wrong with that. :mog:

I think all members should be BANNED after more than three hours inactivity. BANNED UNTO HECK.

Those who registered in 2000 and 2001 should only get 2 hours.

I'd just ban everyone who joined in this decade.

I agree.

I'm counting you in that category too, Raistlin. I don't care when you joined. We should take up every opportunity to ban you unjustly.

But Raistlin joined in 1999.

So Raistlin would be one of the few unbanned members?

Well, on the bright side, he would be a prisoner in a desolate land.

I still say ban him anyway.

In times such as these, elsie, you have to ask yourself what Bruckner would do in your shoes; when you know that, you know all the right answers!

theundeadhero calls the shots. I'm not even joking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theundeadhero

If they get Former Staffed we're not hiring new knights to replace them. It's not like we would need them.

---

you get paid?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tavrobel

So Raistlin would be one of the few unbanned members?

---

Out of active members, it'd be just me and Jojo.

... on second thought, I no longer agree with that plan.