The Official cB Flame Forum! Options

[*CrackedRearView*]

Okay -- now I know what you're thinking, Jusun. This is a terrible idea, why would anyone want to participate in the bashing of other members?

Simply put, it's human nature.

People don't like other people, and people get pleasure out of expressing that genuine dislike.

Lock up the ABS and take a second to consider this before you throw it out. Although this goes against many of the rules cB was founded on, it is a very good idea, and could be a very mediating experience for many.

Here's how the forum would work:

You enter at your own risk.

It serves as a medium for solving problems between two people, as well as a vent for people.

It's serves as a way better alternative to ensuing rumors people start, and lasting hatred between people.

You could even have people that serve as mediators between two people, and it could be a very organized ordeal.

All I'm saying is consider it.

[racoons > you]

i think its a fun idea, and i would love to participate, but as it directly contradicts the forum rules, it would be utterly hypocritical to allow it to proceed.

as anna said in the chat thingy she posted, it wouldnt reduce member bashing outside of it, in fact, by deliberately courting controversy and argument, its going to multiply animostiy, and the more of something there is in a cup, the more likely it is to spill over.

secondly, even if it didnt contribute to post COUNT, it still counts towards PPd (or that is the case with forum games as i understand it). do we really want members to acheive the requirements to become official members with the help of bashing? i dont really think its gonna be a popular scheme up top.

HOWEVER... with the idea of it being spam... now... correct me if im wrong, but if a forum is specially created with the purpose of bashing.. the nsurely bashing within that forum is on topic, and therefore not spam? or am i confused?

final verdict: good in theory, doubt it would work in practice. that being said, im not against trying things out... but again, directly violates one of the fundamental points of Cb's guidelines