Viewing Thread:
"I Don't Get It. I Really Don't Get It. And It's A Shame."

Why is it that someone who's only been here 36 days, posts in the same forum aallll the time, and of which posts are usually nonsensical pieces of, well, crap, gets more votes than people who have built themselves up to be great posters, and an asset to the forums in general?

I'm talking about @ng3l. No disrespect at all to the lass, no no no.

But what I'm saying is, is that it shows that people just really vote for anybody rather than great attributes to this place.

Cookie Monster. He's been here for what, 900 odd days? Posts well all the time. A lot of people like him.
1 vote.
Tilta. 700 odd days. Very good poster indeed. 1 vote.
Rickoss, Unbeliever, MWA, Blank, Totoro, Dark Mark, Aliboy - the list goes on.
Granted, one or two of them don't post as much as they used to.
But the others - they post forum wide.
@ng3l posts the same old limited crap in the Simpleto..., er, General Chat forum.

And it's a shame, because the good posters are sidelined.

Meh, I'm getting too worked up about this for no reason.

Yes.

I'm still feeling bitter rage due to the day I've had.

Azul from the sounds of things.

Not me or anything.
*Twitches*

Belldandy wrote:
> Anyone have the urge to go on a shotgun rampage or something ?


Hell yeah.

Anyone have the urge to go on a shotgun rampage or something ?

Bora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> you have a very good point. perhaps SR should put a limit on the
> time a user has been here (i.e. you have to have been here a year
> before you are able to get voted for) huh?


Yes, alot of people have put this idea forward, me included, but no action has been taken. Yet.

@ng3l wrote:
> What annoys me is you used me as the example,

....

AAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

READ.
WITH.
YOUR.
EYES.

"The only reason I "singled out", as it were, Angel was because it is *her* that has been here a short amount of time, and it is *her* who fits the attributes I described."

I USED YOUR NAME BECAUSE YOU'RE THE SUBJECT OF THE TOPIC.
ARGH.

Unbeliever wrote:
> Not sure. There's been an infestation of new users who generally seem
> to have spammed their way to "regular" status. The older
> users are bygones of a forgotten era as the new people forge on and
> inflict a deluge of spam never beheld before.
>
> Consequently, the "new regulars" (for want of a better
> term) are, rather than being in the minority, actually in the
> majority. Therefore the exploits/heroics/endeavours (delete as
> applicable) of older members have been conveniently forgotten on
> election day. Which is why you see stuff like this happen. And older,
> more informative members are hardly given the recognition they so
> surely deserve.
>
> Myself? I don't care; you cast your vote and you take your pick.
> C'est la vie.

you have a very good point. perhaps SR should put a limit on the time a user has been here (i.e. you have to have been here a year before you are able to get voted for) huh?

Azul

What annoys me is you used me as the example, i think i get enough sh!te of some members as it is, without you adding to the problem (see am not mentioning names, they know who they are). I know you said you had nothing against me. What i am saying is why could you not just say it without naming names. I must really be a threat to you in someway.

Unbeliever wrote:
> Not sure. There's been an infestation of new users who generally seem
> to have spammed their way to "regular" status. The older
> users are bygones of a forgotten era as the new people forge on and
> inflict a deluge of spam never beheld before.


Damn right. Examples would be Spanky, britney babe, jackus, sexstorm. Complete spammers, driving away the decent forum members.