FANDOM


(12:46:05) Dandy so Dandy: Do bureaucrats care about how many active administrators there are?
(12:46:31) Auron: sometimes?
(12:46:41) Auron: sometimes it's more of a quality vs quantity thing.
(12:46:46) Dandy so Dandy: When deciding about new ones?
(12:47:02) Auron: meh
(12:47:03) Auron: not often
(12:47:23) Auron: that's something we look at before looking at specific votes

---Chaos- (moo) -- 18:52, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

rawrawr

pvx has always been one massive popularity contest. i hope your vote was just trolling or a joke - you should know that. ··· Danny Hates Snow 14:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No it hasnt. Getting admin used to have pretty much no popularity involved at all (well a little bit, naturally) but was actually based on how good of an admin they'd make (something they seemed to ignore when choosing pretty much the entire admin staff now bar phen and frosty). Rawrawr Dinosaur 17:16, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
iirc, there's a quote by Auron saying that he must've sysop'd Frosty when he was drunk. also, i'm pretty sure Toraen and KJ didn't get admin because of popularity. ··· Danny Hates Snow 19:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
KJ's was partially, but he makes for a decent admin. I have to admit that I disagree with his approaches to some arguments, but he still gets the job done. ---Chaos- (moo) -- 19:59, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
Toraen was another one I was gonna say, hes good at it. Frosty also has actually been good at admin, so im not gonna complain about him. Fact is is that it really didnt used to be a popularity contest. Rawrawr Dinosaur 20:08, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
I agree, though. But this site isn't what it used to be, and I actually think I could make a good admin. ---Chaos- (moo) -- 20:11, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
no — Phensofgt 20:41, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't ban you. Much ;o ---Chaos- (moo) -- 20:45, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
You disagree with my approaches? :< KarateCandy!Jesus 21:13, 20 December 2009
Well, there are situations where you shouldn't ban everyone for as long durations, and you often end up banning the victims too. Well, often they respond to autism with autism which means they deserve it. ---Chaos- (moo) -- 21:56, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
Tbh, I still stand behind the idea that being troll bait is just as bad as trolling (unless you're truly ignorant). Let's be honest, unless you're a complete fucking retard (or new), you know that certain things cause flaming....and if you jump into the middle of it and flame back, then you're just as guilty. I guess I give people too much credit. But, imo, everyone's a victim and everyone's a culprit. If you were involved in something, then some of it has to be your fault (again, unless you're just ignorant). KarateCandy!Jesus 03:30, 21 December 2009
Banning everyone for long durations is the only hope PvX has of ever becoming a decent wiki again. I, for one, think KJ should ban anyone who posts more than 10 times per day on User talks. ··· Danny Hates Snow 22:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
whats your stance on banning bad trolls. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gringo (talk • contribs) (UTC). 22:21, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
Given that 1/10, I'm all for it. ··· Danny Hates Snow 01:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
You're up for banning yourself? Rawrawr Dinosaur 01:22, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
Rawr so bad. ··· Danny Hates Snow 02:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Amazingly thought up comeback Rawrawr Dinosaur 03:19, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
This is Danny you're talking about. — Phensofgt 03:24, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
...and? Rawrawr Dinosaur 03:26, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
and assuming you'll get a quality comeback is sort of dumb ;o — Phensofgt 03:28, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure why you don't like me rawr, but i am fairly certain it might have to do with that massive dick in your ass. You ought to remove that thing before you end up any crankier. ··· Danny Hates Snow 05:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I blame the boringness of Guild Wars and the lack of (any) quality players on this site, except Crow. ··· Danny Hates Snow 21:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Suck dick more — Phensofgt 01:39, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
Yea I think Misery was having a MSN convo with Auron and Auron was like "Wait when did Frosty get sysop?" Misery was like "Erm, like when you promoted him". And he was like "holy shit". I guess the trick is to try and find Auron's drinking days/nights and get him to look at a RfA! --Frosty Frostcharge 21:28, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
LOL **Hick**----X 02:29, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

KJ, you're not wrong, but especially in the cases of new users and some other random cases I wouldn't ban people for as long as you do. And I think 1 week bans are already rough ;o

X, I tend to take a great interest in the welfare of new users, and I contribute actively to those builds. I don't know if it matters much, but I also monitor the areas of this wiki that don't have the attention of the great mass, like the builds of new users, and I can very likely be found there when needed. You might have noticed that I'm basically everywhere, and neutral as I consider myself (though distinctively somewhat trollish), I consider myself capable of fairly handing out justice wherever and whenever needed, not only in the main circlejerk areas, where drama is in public at its most. And no, I won't go handing out unnecessary bans for doing the slightest wrong to a new user, I'm quite sure I know what's ban worthy and what isn't, having been around for a while. ---Chaos- (moo) -- 09:23, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

The only 1 week bans I've given out were over that JJ mess, and I lowered them all (except Angelus, because that was Toraen's ban). The rest of my bans have been around 1-3 days :/ KarateCandy!Jesus 15:26, 21 December 2009
I really don't actually care about the durations, but how you always (cba checking if this is 100% true) ban "fairly", which means that all parts get banned for as long. ---Chaos- (moo) -- 15:47, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
Tbh, I only ban the "victim" for around half as long. Except in JJ's case, which I later explained to him through email and he was fine with. He provoked a lot of that stuff on his page, and he was well aware of that. KarateCandy!Jesus 15:50, 21 December 2009
Fair enough. Following bans is very troublesome. ---Chaos- (moo) -- 15:52, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

I

Am not stupid. Just annoying. ---Chaos- (moo) -- 23:15, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Dear Shazzydiddles, I appreciate your concern, but I believe I can very well continue trolling as an admin, just more subtly. ---Chaos- (moo) -- 00:12, December 19, 2009 (UTC)
As you can see my opinion isn't very strong Shazamrowssig 00:24, December 19, 2009 (UTC)
Bah. Every vote counts, or not. ---Chaos- (moo) -- 00:25, December 19, 2009 (UTC)
But not enough for me to RfA Thunda as a joke =/ I attempt to seem even half-serious about this, though, with my characteristic manner of ridiculing everything without meaning to, I think I fail at it. ---Chaos- (moo) -- 00:56, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Page Comments

  1. I love you but no. -- Biggles Jollyfist 23:47, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
    normally this is where people put reasons. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gringo (talk • contribs) (UTC). 23:52, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
    stfu before I ban you -- Biggles Jollyfist 23:53, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
    Normally this is where people give further evidence that they're ignorant assholes....wait, do you need to keep doing that still? I'm pretty sure we get it already.--TahiriVeila 01:16, December 19, 2009 (UTC)
  1. I agree with Jake, but something doesn't seem right. Admins really should be overlooking the community, not be 50% of its activeness - Porororroro lauAthrunFeya - 19:11, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
    This comment makes me horny when i should be studying for physics lau :<--TahiriVeila 19:26, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

I'm

Quite sure my behavior hasn't changed since I begun this RfA. My moods just fluctuate. ---Chaos- (moo) -- 20:37, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

It has. a lot.  Thomas So Dutch  20:38, December 22, 2009 (UTC)
People pay more attention to anything good I do and think it's just because the RfA. My current passive-aggressiveness or whatever you want to call it is just a result of me being serious while trying to step on as few toes as possible. It'd be easier if Saint made it easier for me, to be honest. ---Chaos- (moo) -- 20:44, December 22, 2009 (UTC)
No it is because of the RfA, don't kid yourself. You've been a massive fucking policy whore faggot lately. DerPwnzer (Talk|Contribs) 20:46, December 22, 2009 (UTC)
Actually, just annoyed, and I'm ready to be even more of a whore. ---Chaos- (moo) -- 20:55, December 22, 2009 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.