it still amazes me to see all the changes this site has gone through. from being a fun site among a few friends (even a couple years before i got on in 2002) to the business it has become today with so much "political" influence.
Printable View
it still amazes me to see all the changes this site has gone through. from being a fun site among a few friends (even a couple years before i got on in 2002) to the business it has become today with so much "political" influence.
Because 501 was too much?Quote:
Originally Posted by EJ25RUN
because maybe out of those 500 one of them will do something right?
Wishful thinking, lulz.Quote:
Originally Posted by blacknightteg
If it is a business, then who's getting paid? Certainly not the mods who do it for love of the site. But then again the Mods never paid out of pocket when the site wasn't making money.Quote:
Originally Posted by collins
End of the day, it has to be a business to support a place as big as it has gotten.
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by admin
*slap*
i HAD SOMETHING to say to Collins in regards to his remark, but I deleted it since I am the Admin...LOL
Says the #1 drama queen from back in the day.Quote:
Originally Posted by collins
Its only natural as things grow, stuff changes. When you have 100 members and now have over 20,000 members, shit changes.
Like i said in MY callout thread, you guys have NO idea how much IA lets people get away with. Go try ANY of this stuff on any other car forums, and i bet you dont last a week.
The problem is, if we stay "hands off" and do nothing, the shit that happened last week happens. if we stay involved, then we get called Nazi Mods and accused of overstepping our boundaries.
ive come to realize 1 thing in this whole internet forum drama shit, THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND.
Thank You! :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vteckidd
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vteckidd
Let me see, so by these rules, you banned me without reason.
:goodjob:
Glad we have rules here at IA, seems like they do not get followed.....even by the admins. :lmfao: :lmfao:
Do you not know how to read or are you just looking for what you want to see?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Lowrey
You made a thread on a subject we told younot too. You then made a thread calling out a mod for you fucking up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by admin
shut it mofo before I kick your exhaust
Show me in the rules stated above that I am not allowed to use a person's name in a thread title.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vteckidd
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Lowrey
IA RULE ADDENDUM: RICH IS NOT ALLOWED TO USE A PERSONS NAME IN A THREAD TITLE.
lol
:lmfao: :lmfao:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemesis
Seems like that though. Makin' shit up as they go. lol
IMHO i seriously think its either all or nothing..the 'within reason' clause just insinuates confusion and gives people reason to complain. watch someone bash a mod thats not 'within reason' and they get banned/reprimanded, then use my thread as an example. those rules should be revamped and made to be one way or the other...the within reason is like ia's loophole to see what you can do before you take it too far.
I am completely ashamed to say this but......Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammich
I agree with sammich.
Ugh... way to go, Gaylord...Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemesis
the only thing more obnoxious than a drama queen is the little twirp standing behind him/her egging everything on...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miranda
Who you callin' drama queen, women.
Kitchen is that way. ---------->
Shit... if you can't take the heat, then get yo ass out my kitchen!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Lowrey
Epic fail on the douchebaggery though.... (whatever douchebaggery that may be)
Can't take what heat? Just pointing out some questionable acts by a particular admin. :goodjob:Quote:
Originally Posted by Miranda
There was none. That is kinda the point, hun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miranda
Whatever, man... the internet is full of truth and awesomeness!
Seriously though... George makes me wanna punch babies sometimes. :(
If you're reading comprehension skills aren't what they used to be I can't help you. I shouldn't have to sit here an babysitQuote:
Originally Posted by Mike Lowrey
There was a thread about Bri, we said no more Bri threads till shit cooled down. You chose to post a thread within hours of Bri and a picture of her. You weren't banned for that
You were banned for attempting to cause even more drama by questioning the policy we were explicit on
Again you fucked up not me don't play dumb
LOL. Where?Quote:
Originally Posted by Miranda
Internet = Full of BS.
IA Whoreslounge = Internet BS x1,000,000
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Miranda
Oh, in that case, epic douchebaggery... I'd ban you from technology if I could, Rich.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vteckidd
1. That was posted days before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vteckidd
2. The posting was taken down, and was not listed in the policy thread at the top of the WL when I posted the thread.
3. I posted a thread that contained nothing inappropriate about Bri. The pic was simple and contained nothing wrong.
4. As sammich posted earlier, the rules a very vague sometimes. What does "till shit cooled down" mean? How many hours or days does that refer to? Are we to never post her name? OMG, I might get banned as I posed her name in this post!
so from what i've gathered, he could have bashed any other member on IA, whether it was mod/admin, with their name in the title and he wouldnt have been punished for his actions. but the second he posts up Bri's name in the title and 'bashes' her, or whatever he did, just because it was Bri, he got banned. does this happen for any other members, male or female? from what i've seen, no. so like i said, the 'within reason' clause should be removed and the rules need to be revampedQuote:
Originally Posted by Vteckidd
Mike is not being completely truthful. I posted several days later. He is acting like I posted this immediatley after the warning. Plus, there was nothing wrong with the post. The olny thing is it had her name in the title.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miranda
lol @ Mike leaving details out. :lmfao:
Sammich see the BS!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammich
By the way, here is the pic I posted.
Bri is on the right...lol
http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s...ers2005-11.jpg
VteccKidd, I hope that you've got some type of benefits that will come from you being a moderator whether it be short term or long term.
You're challenged more than a [insert catch phrase here]!!! So I hope it's worth it.
WAIT...U GOT BANNED FOR THAT THREAD? THAT WAS A THREAD RELATED TO PAST TIMES AT HOOTERS ADN THAT WAS ONE OF THE PICS U POSTED. U DIDNT DIRECTLY MAKE THE THREAD ABOUT BRI...JEEZ
the rule is not HIS 'challenge'..its the admins 'challenge' to revamp the rules because its too broadQuote:
Originally Posted by Kevykev
No, I made another thread. I posted this pic in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammich
The thread title said there were sexy, loli pics of bri.
lol thats messed up, but still at the same token, with any other ia member, whether it was toxxic, tracy, tiff o bitties, it would have been all good fun and would have been looked at as 'within reason'. what makes her so special? to receive this kind of 'protection'?
It wouldnt have been ok with any girl on here if it was unprevoked.. The way some of you guys (not you personally) treat the woman on here is disgusting..
Don't know. Makes you wonder though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammich
What is wrong with that title and that pic? Please tell me.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Ren
i dont know how his thread was provoking, but because it was provoking in YOUR eyes and obviously Mike's eyes, it was ban worthy?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Ren