Hrrrrrrm. Perhaps we should decorate the board skin with like... puppies and kittens frollicking in a flower bed... WAIT, we could put pictures of us with our moms feeding ducks and shit.Interesting idea, Rod. Some drawbacks that I can think of are that some of the best meltdown threads were not started by the banned asshats, there are/will be threads that contain both good and bad content, and finally, since you are the sole decision maker on this board, this would constitute more work for you. My biggest vote agains it though, is that I feel it would change the friendlyness of this board. Threads collected to make fun of the banned asshats just does not seem to be in the spirit of the our friendly community.
Hrrrrrrm. Perhaps we should decorate the board skin with like... puppies and kittens frollicking in a flower bed... WAIT, we could put pictures of us with our moms feeding ducks and shit.
NA
Or encourage regulars to help along more meltdowns, be more suspicious, etc. in the hopes that the thread can get on the wall? Exposing someone or helping them meltdown and getting their thread moved to the "wall" would be like a prize.Does anyone else think this could encourage full blown idiocy from passers by to "make" the wall of shame?
What do you think?
Hrrrrrrm. Perhaps we should decorate the board skin with like... puppies and kittens frollicking in a flower bed... WAIT, we could put pictures of us with our moms feeding ducks and shit.
A forum like the one Ron described wouldn't detract a wit from "the friendliest..." blah blah blah. Those threads are pretty entertaining reading and illustrate what happens to people that cause trouble. They wouldn't reflect on the level of friendliness here or make the site look bad. If anything they illustrate the level of commitment members have in keeping the site free from such nonsense.
"The AssClown Lounge" may not be the best title though. Something like, "The Road to Infamy", would better suggest the deterrence aspect of such a forum.
NA
Just my opinion, which we all know is wrong.