Long Live The Chains!

[Quiet One 15]

Ok, I feel kind of guilty about all this because for one side, I consider myself a close friend fo both Eduardo and Bruce and, for the other side, my anarchistic self is screaming inside just for posing the question.

But the truth is, that neither Bruce, nor Eduardo are around enough to keep the forum moderated. I haven't seen Eduardo in a while and the few times that Bruce is around is a good time to enjoy with all the good friends, but he has more important things to give a rat's arse about our petty meddlings here.

Still, sometimes a warning in time could save us countless of joyless and pointless posts from the usual suspects (and the new ones), and we are helpless aginst any spammer who decides that we will buy more than a dozen of fashion juicy couture purses.

Oh, well, your choice.

In Russ' immortal words: discuss.

And vote.

[Argento Reloaded 1]

Long live to moderators!!!!

[Rainmaster 7]

Yes to new mods. No to spam.

[maure 1]

Amusing.

Well, to be honest, as long as the bigots are allowed to continue hate-posting, I go with either option... and since the bigots are going to be allowed to continue hate-posting regardless, I'll just go on smiling.

[maure 1]

On second thought (as since it makes no difference whatsoever), do define "spam"...

Is the link below ok by your moderator standards?

http://www.totalf1.com/forums/topic/11605-fernando-so-not-full-of-grace/

And how about this one?

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269

Your answer will help _a_lot_.

[freaky2 1]

It feels pretty "ewwwww" to go clicking on that thing. Plus, Viagra is never free, wear your reading glasses sometime.

[Medilloni 6]

Yes.

Asap.

Before we lose more good peeps.

The spam thing... wasn't there a rule in place a while ago; that you couldn't start a post or blog until you'd made xxx number of comments?

[maure 1]

How about a bigooglecurious moderator?

I propose cavallino. He's just ripe for the job. As objective as a millennium-old dry riverbed.

[monza gorilla 1]

Yes.

Asap.

Before we lose more good peeps.

The spam thing... wasn't there a rule in place a while ago; that you couldn't start a post or blog until you'd made xxx number of comments?

(I've already contacted Wes about this.)

[Medilloni 6]

(I've already contacted Wes about this.)

HA! Then we're spamming Wes, so did I

[BradSpeedMan 6]

How about a bigooglecurious moderator?

I propose cavallino. He's just ripe for the job. As objective as a millennium-old dry riverbed.

As he's clearly more OBJECTIVE than you in the real world too, I'de vote for him

EDIT:

Actually, can we start voting?????

I vote 4 Cav, Andres and Russ. If there's an option 4 a 4th I'll throw in Steve. Cav, because It will be a role he would fit into, and revel in it, and will work hard keeping the forums active and clean. Do I need to elaborate on Andres and Russ, who are gold editions to the forums.

Edited December 7, 2010 by BradSpeedMan

[maure 1]

As he's clearly more OBJECTIVE than you in the real world too, I'de vote for him

Amusing your lack of comprehension. I am _not_ available to vote, my depserate friend, no matte how much you would want me too. I have a prison record.

But far more amusing is that you need to bottom-feed in order to support cavallino. That is the _way_ to go.

But _most_important_, cavalino's bid has been seconded. I proposed we move on to decide who gets to moderate and get it over with.

EDIT:

Actually, can we start voting?????

I vote 4 Cav, Andres and Russ. If there's an option 4 a 4th I'll throw in Steve. Cav, because It will be a role he would fit into, and revel in it, and will work hard keeping the forums active and clean. Do I need to elaborate on Andres and Russ, who are gold editions to the forums.

If makes not sense at all. So I'll vote for you too.

Which remains me, do use multiple checkboxes for surveys, would you lot?

(I've already contacted Wes about this.)

HA! Then we're spamming Wes, so did I

No need to fake fret, guys. We all know that the key here is only to censor some posters and not "spam". Spamming is just the scapegoat...

EDIT: I can see the end of the tunnel already. Choose a new moderator and TF1 will become, like, totally, the greatest.

Edited December 7, 2010 by maure

[BradSpeedMan 6]

My choices does'nt make sense at all???

[Max Mosley 2]

I like my freedom and my viagra and am willing to "extend" Maure the same courtesy. If the moderators were only to remove spam then I'd be in favour but I suspect they will also take it upon themselves to act as some kind of Orwellian all-knowing thought police who see fit to impose upon me their view of right and wrong. Power corrupts, as the saying goes, and it would be a shame to lose some of our best posters that way.

In the end, I know this post will wind some members up more than viagra, but I personally don't see what the problem is with the quality of posts. We could do with more posts, yes (will viagra help, or should I give that one a rest already?), but I don't mind the pointless arguments we've had recently. Maure is funny and smart and most people just take him too seriously imho. For me, this place was always about banter and tomfoolery as much as profound and serious discussions about F1 - it's only a sport, as Maure's nemesis says!

[maure 1]

My choices does'nt make sense at all???

None. And I love them for it.

I think I will propose you too for moderator. Have to say, though, that cavallino remains my favorite.

I like my freedom and my viagra and am willing to "extend" Maure the same courtesy. If the moderators were only to remove spam then I'd be in favour but I suspect they will also take it upon themselves to act as some kind of Orwellian all-knowing thought police who see fit to impose upon me their view of right and wrong. Power corrupts, as the saying goes, and it would be a shame to lose some of our best posters that way.

In the end, I know this post will wind some members up more than viagra, but I personally don't see what the problem is with the quality of posts. We could do with more posts, yes (will viagra help, or should I give that one a rest already?), but I don't mind the pointless arguments we've had recently. Maure is funny and smart and most people just take him too seriously imho. For me, this place was always about banter and tomfoolery as much as profound and serious discussions about F1 - it's only a sport, as Maure's nemesis says!

Alright, alright. I also propose nemesis for moderator.

Bring on the voting asap. Multiple choice, please.

[monza gorilla 1]

It's not what you say, it's how you say it. As they say. Far too many ad hominem attacks around this place. Good manners cost nothing, after all.

[maure 1]

It's not what you say, it's how you say it. As they say. Far too many ad hominem attacks around this place. Good manners cost nothing, after all.

New twist. The problem is _how_ I say "it".

Ok, if it is _how_ I say it, then... _how_ should I say this, your ad hominem attack is amusing.

Adding insult to injury, although ad hominem "is a classic logical fallacy, it is not always fallacious. For in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue."

Oooouuuuch...

Anyway, my manners improve on a per-crane basis.

EDIT: typo... but left others.

Edited December 7, 2010 by maure

[pumpdoc 2]

From a mods perspective.

When I was a very active mod I got much grief for doing the job, then I was told to not be so hard on the peeps, you can't have it both ways. I'll come back as a full time mod, but be careful what you wish for, because I will start banning peeps for flaming etc. again. Your choice my friends.

[monza gorilla 1]

From a mods perspective.

When I was a very active mod I got much grief for doing the job, then I was told to not be so hard on the peeps, you can't have it both ways. I'll come back as a full time mod, but be careful what you wish for, because I will start banning peeps for flaming etc. again. Your choice my friends.

If you can spare the time, I'd welcome it.

[maure 1]

@pumpdoc

Listen, man, take into consideration if you give sht at all. Personally, it ain't worth it... and I have a prison record.

Let someone like cavallino have the "power" and let's all have a laugh.

What's the harm in that? (so tempted to write "ham")

EDIT: directionality.

Edited December 7, 2010 by maure

[pumpdoc 2]

Russ, I'll be more than glad.

Just give me a day or so to sort thru the B.S.

[pumpdoc 2]

@pumpdoc

Listen, man, take into consideration if you give sht at all. Personally, it ain't worth it... and I have a prison record.

Let someone like cavallino have the "power" and let's all have a laugh.

What's the harm in that? (so tempted to write "ham")

EDIT: directionality.

Cav????????????????????????? what?? are you nuts????

[monza gorilla 1]

New twist. The problem is _how_ I say "it".

Ok, if it is _how_ I say it, then... _how_ should I say this, your ad hominem attack is amusing.

Adding insult to injury, although ad hominem "is a classic logical fallacy, it is not always fallacious. For in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue."

Oooouuuuch...

Anyway, my manners improve on a per-crane basis.

EDIT: typo... but left others.

I'm afraid that you have misinterpreted my post, sir. "You", in this instance, does not refer to you, the poster known as Maure. But I suspect you already know that

Wikipedia is very useful, isn't it........

[monza gorilla 1]

Russ, I'll be more than glad.

Just give me a day or so to sort thru the B.S.

Thanks, Bruce.

[Quiet One 15]

Bruce back??? Yeehaw!

In that case, from my POV was all I wanted.