Originally Posted by
Gynx
How does me stating members are inactive who, when they fail an activity check, make one post saying "we are active" then leave forever until the next time they fail do anything to be incompatible with SkulFuk's theory? If they come back & stay then I'd say we've done our job. It's happened before and is a direct result of our checks - I'd say that itself is evidence that clans evaluate themselves and try to keep the fire alive. Nobody is bullshitting here, but you're free to say what you want.
Promoting activity and ignoring members who were inactive are incompatible goals, unless you want to prevent people going inactive in the first place.
If you meant to say "people who post on the thread but don't actually become active" then maybe you should have said that instead.
Originally Posted by
Gynx
You actually haven't responded to any of my reasoning, so I guess now it is you who is bullshitting! A ha!
lol you know damn well you never posted any 'reasoning' to me or anywhere else in this thread.
You can of course direct me to it as I have asked you to several times before, it's possible that I missed it hidden among all these essays.
Originally Posted by
Gynx
Discussing things is fine but if you're going to make a criticism on forum policy without reading the information given to you first you are going to be ignored when you say something stupid. You've tried to find inconsistencies in what we are saying throughout this whole discussion when none are apparent as opposed to having any legitimate issue with the system.
I have already voiced my concerns with the system (namely that it is completely pointless), and the fact that I can find inconsistencies clearly means that they are apparent.
Originally Posted by
Gynx
Your argument boils down to "why don't we just allow inactive official clans to stay?" and we've told you why - you disagreeing with our reasoning doesn't mean we have to explain the same thing every time. That isn't anti-discussion, it's anti-retarded. You're not bringing anything new to the table except your occasional light-bulb "BUT WAIT, THIS DOESN'T MATCH UP!" malarkey which has always been a result of you not reading anything that has been said and are expecting brand new explanations from us as if you've slam-dunked our logic. You haven't. If there's no better reason for keeping dead clans as official than "why not?" I'd say that the reasoning to remove them far outweighs reasoning to keep them.
Unfortunately you haven't told me why, even when I asked you several times to.
What you are doing is considered anti-discussion because you are deflecting and flaming instead of replying in a reasonable manner.
Originally Posted by
Gynx
Hey! This is discussion, stop being so anti-discussion! You bullshitter, you.
Right, because discussing things is anti-discussion. Are you sure you know English Gynx? You are spouting complete nonsense now...
Just to make it perfectly clear to you Gynx, this is what I expect:
Gorman: Gynx why are you even bothering to delete inactive clans?
Gynx: Because XYZ, that's why.
This is what I am getting instead:
Gynx: Omg you are retarded, I don't reply to stupid posts, go read the thread, I'm ignoring you because you said something stupid, you have no reason to question me it's a secret.
Seriously Gynx just answer the question next time instead of fucking around, it's a very simple question: "why are inactive clans a problem?".