quote me.
i'm pretty sure last time this was brought up outside of backstage, i was with the "no quoting images unless it's on a different page" gang.

She asked a question, not stated a fact. Stop being such a bitch about everything.

What's on a different page for you isn't on a different page for everyone else. Tung's post where he quoted Jane's picture was on the same page, for me, as Jane's post.

I guess you didn't understand my reply, so to be more direct: no, it wasn't... unless I was misinterpreted.

and honestly, Spencer, I could say the same thing to you. All I did was remove your image tags and issue you a warning, which was taken down shortly - I could've gotten all up in your face with that PM harrassing you for not taking down img tags which has been kind of a rule for a while, but I didn't, all right?

I'm not a perfect mod, obviously, since I didn't see your posts (or any others that I've missed) 24 hours or however many hours after the post was made... and I don't catch things right away, and I'm not always online when stuff happens, but hell. I don't stalk the forums looking for trouble to "resolve" and image tags to remove.

No, it's not all right. You're a bitch. It was taken down shortly after because I had to ASK for it to be taken down. You can't hold us accountable for a rule that isn't posted in the "rules".

Go ahead and PM me harassing messages. You're not all you make yourself out to be. Go complain about me Backstage or something like half of the other mods do.

what does it mean by "been here long enough", there's some gray area there

Being active before the "no quoting images" rule was instated, I suppose. Also, members who have discussed the rule have acknowledged its existence, so that counts too.

Discrimination, imo.

That was a misunderstanding. You can look the word up if you want.

If I bitch about you, it'll be on aim, not in the CC/RC/backstage or anywhere on CB... and I'm really not on aim all that much. If it really bothers you that I don't talk about you enough, I'll try and make more of an effort.

That's like me saying Ruth should be more approachable because she's on staff, but is she? No.

Right-o, Suzzette.

Why is this still an issue if it's already been resolved?

It's like a dog chasing it's own tail. We're not getting anywhere, just repeating the same things over and over. The rules have been updated the warn has been dropped.

I haven't seen an apology.

It only takes 15 seconds to edit a post if an image has been quoted. Just do it. You guys are moderators. I had to pick up after everyone's shit back then too.

These rules are retarded. I think, rather than being so nitpicky about QUOTING IMAGES, that you should focus on more important issues like getting that stick out of your ass.

OMG, GIGI

Stop.

lol, Elba, just sayin'.

There are pictures of naked ladies lying around and you guys worry about regular, contributing members quoting images?! There is a serious imbalance of priorities here.

EDIT Hey, it got fixed. Thanks Dani. :) I think that was you, anyway.

gigi4admin

Yeah, that was me. I'm on Skype but keep coming back and seeing them. :P

why isn't gigi admin?! she makes so much sense.

Absolutely no offense to Gigi, but that's the problem around here. Everyone is like "oh so and so is SO OUTSPOKEN! they should be on staff!! omfg!" and then they get hired and do a full 360.

I asked Jusun both Backstage and via PM if quoting images is a site related issue. If it is not, perhaps we can do away with this. I can't promise anything, but I did want to let you know that this has been communicated.

Don't worry, none taken. I don't want to be, nor do I think I would be, a good admin. Keep in mind, of the two people who brought it up, one of them was Tung, and the other person's only been active for 4 days.

No offense Tung.

this image quoting argument is dumb to me. i can't figure out why we spend so much time arguing over it. i hope we can just get rid of this stupid rule so we can move on to bitching about something more interesting.

You know what else is stupid? People that do stupid shit, get f**ked for it, and proceed to fight tooth and nail about said offense using petty ass arguments, and then proceed to act as though they've won the Nobel f**king Peace Prize when assholing their way through their offense.

They're f**king rules on a forum board. Why you guys spend so much of your time bitching and whining about them is beyond me. Work with them, work around them, enjoy the board. But then again -- this kind of shitbag behavior is probably what you enjoy the most.

On the other hand, wtf at warning Spencer 4 days later. His ass should've been on the burner day 1. And as for this new member, old member crap, wtf? Are new members not capable of reading rules? Ridiculous. I can see an instance in which new members might be given leeway, but this isn't one of them. They're new, not stupid.

I honestly think that when someone joins the site, the CG should be forwarded to their inbox, or should be posted when the staff greets a person. This way, we can clear any confusion about who knows what.

LOL iawtc



did trish type that for you?

maybe someone else usually has to form all your intelligent responses, but that was all me, thx.

I think all new members receive an automatic PM from micron with a link to the community guidelines.

Right, they do. But the link needs to be updated.

Vagina, vagina, vagina.

Right.

Laws are laws. So gay people should stop whining about wanting their marriage rights and stfu. We should stop fighting to legalize marijuana because, dude, it's against the law so just accept it. Let's NEVER challenge rules because that's the correct, conducive way to think in a growing community.

I hope you never go into politics.

Some rules are stupid, outdated, and should never have been made in the first place. It's our right as a community to complain about them and try to promote change.

I know that rules matter and that they should never be broken on purpose, but I think the problem here is the emphasis on the wrong type of rules and the punishments that accompany them. Problems that are trivial get too much attention, and some of the staff dwell on these trivial issues to make it look like they're actually doing something. Yes, guys, it is that apparent.

I realize that I am not very active around cB anymore, but my point is still relevant and worth mentioning. cB shouldn't be about nitpicking at tiny, unimportant things. If anything, I'd just like to see the staff more involved in anything at all.

I mean, if you told me to name people on the staff, I would be at a loss for words. Surely, even for a semi-active member like myself, it would be extremely easy for me to name the mods? But it's not. Right now, without reference, I can only come up with the admins, head staff and Holly. That's partly because they've been around for the longest (and also tend to be the most helpful). Just the other day, looking through the forums, I though, "Who the hell is sparrowdust?" No offense to Ruth. I actually had to do some poking around the forums just to find out. That's just sort of ridiculous.

yeah for real. i don't think of the majority of the staff being that active really


active to me meaning being around the boards and interacting as if they were a member, not "modding" (whatever that means).

Ahh, the infamous smiley!

that smiley makes me think of holly's posts for some reason

That makes me think of when Christina makes fun of it!

There was an issue with that regarding Jane's modding, though. Someone was saying that she posted as a member rather than acting as a staff member.

It's everyone, Sarah. Name a good 5 people on staff with forum presence.

On top of that, the staff is really clique-y. It's like Backstage is a hiding ground for you, or even a safe haven. If you haven't noticed, every time someone steps down and it's made public, I could most likely count on every staff member to post and be like "ah man you broke our _____ gang" or "dammit now who's going to be the t in our bithasdf gang?". It's pretty much ridiculous. Granted, us as MEMBERS are clique-y, but we're just that, members. It seems like you all are more at doing things behind the scenes, rather than in public.

well i don't think that complaint was from me. i thought that i posted as a member while on staff. i don't have a problem with staff acting like members( i mean, you know, since they are) unless they are neglecting their job. the staff really doesn't have much of a job around here right now cause the forums are slow as hell. the staff right now just doesn't seem that interested in the community. i mean not that i blame them, considering i don't think cb is all that interesting at the moment. i'm just saying that it seems like staff is doing more replying to stuff than just normal posting or something.

jc, i understand what you're saying and looking back at my recent activity, i've only been 'active' in the support center and it's been making me feel very distant from everyone. i also think it's important that staff members interact with the community rather than just do their jobs. otherwise, like gigi said, no one will know who you are.

This coming from the person who loves throwing around the phrase, "it's just the internet!" Consistent. Consistently hypocritical.

And, ROFL -- if you take cB rules as seriously as real life laws, then you're pretty f**king stupid.

It was a comparison; maybe you should not take everything people say literally. And excuse me, how is "it's just the internet" and "what's wrong with challenging rules?" two contradicting statements? If you're gonna go through your life just blindly following rules, that's fine with me, but excuse me if I'd like to advocate change once in a while - in real life AND on the internet.

Blind follower? I think not. It's more like I know which battles to choose. And as for you being hypocritical -- maybe you should look at the bigger picture.

Your penchant for throwing around, "it's just the internet!" type phrases versus your need to "advocate change" on just the internet are exceedingly hypocritical.

I don't think Melissa cares much about the rule, she just didn't see how it was such a big deal. So I don't understand how you can go off calling her a hypocrite when she's not bitching half as much as Spencer is about this.

If that's the way she feels, then we're in agreement. But apparently, since we're on opposite sides, she doesn't.

And I wasn't even referring to her in the first place.

And I'd say the reason I called her a hypocrite was pretty valid.

Anisha, was this battle really worth choosing? You may not have started it, but you're still in it.

What kinda pointless question is that?

A really pointless one? But probably no more pointless than the rest of this.

THANK YOU. My point exactly.