# Proposed New Forum Structure



## Null (Nov 22, 2013)

I brought this up before but people shot it down because "we didn't get enough updates." Well, now we do.

All new facebook posts, youtube threads, hoarded cocks dumps, etc go into Update forum. I'm considering either disabling replies from non-staff entirely (forcing people to discuss in the Speculation forum), or strictly monitoring replies for 100% relevance to the OP. Marvin and Alec may get moderator powers in that forum if that were the case.

Speculation becomes the main discussion board. "Speculation and Discussion" might be a better name.

Sonichu retains its gloriously refined purpose of canon material.


All general boards will become their own level 1 forum under the General category. The current General forum will become "Off-Topic".

Lolcow General becomes a part of the General category, under Off-Topic.

CWCki Forums and Spergatory boards remain untouched.


----------



## CatParty (Nov 22, 2013)

yes i agree great change


----------



## TL 611 (Nov 22, 2013)

such great change


----------



## ChurchOfGodBear (Nov 22, 2013)

I kinda see where you're going with this.  Honestly, I don't care how the forums are divided, as long as it's pretty clear what topic belongs where.  I'm assuming "Speculation" would be for the talk that goes in the general "Chris" forum now?


----------



## Null (Nov 22, 2013)

ChurchOfGodBear said:
			
		

> I kinda see where you're going with this.  Honestly, I don't care how the forums are divided, as long as it's pretty clear what topic belongs where.  I'm assuming "Speculation" would be for the talk that goes in the general "Chris" forum now?


Yea. The issue we're having is that important shit is being drowned in an ocean of random topics. I don't really care about things like having 10 "Can chris hold a job?" threads when updates and actual content are clearly visible.


----------



## Pikonic (Nov 22, 2013)

I like the idea of the changes to the Chris forums.
I like generals sub forums, but I won't miss them dearly.

Edit: Oh, They will no longer be subfourms. I read that as there will no longer be subfourms

Disregard everything I said, great change.


----------



## ChurchOfGodBear (Nov 22, 2013)

Null said:
			
		

> ChurchOfGodBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My main concern is, for example, let's say Chris posts FB rant about a McD's worker saying he was smelly.  Anna asspats him.  COGB wants to start a thread talking about how Anna is essentially lying to Chris by saying he's perfectly normal and not at all smelly.

Is this speculation?  Not in the strictest sense of the word, since it's dealing with events that have actually happened?

Is this Da Update?  Well, it's related to Da Update... but if that's a mod-only forum, regular users can't post there.  

How would this work?


----------



## Null (Nov 22, 2013)

Pikonic said:
			
		

> I like the idea of the changes to the Chris forums.
> I like generals sub forums, but I won't miss them dearly.


Updated spec for clarification. I don't see how people are missing this.




			
				ChurchOfGodBear said:
			
		

> How would this work?


Yeah, and this is the biggest problem and it's the one we face right now.

When someone drops new content or Chris posts an update, the thread _explodes_ into a 40 page long shitheap of irrelevant discussion. To anyone approaching the topic a day late, it's not worth reading. This is bad.
With this structure, no discussion is allowed immediately within the update thread so any new conversation would need a mirror thread in discussion. This is pretty complicated, but it does declutter the topic, maybe too much.

I'm thinking a middle ground would be this:
- Make the Update forum allow replies from regular users.
- Posts allowed for this topic should be reactions and contribute. Chris makes a topic about Snoopy being sick. Reactions would be disgust, "i'm not really surprised", "this is one thing that really makes me angry". Any questions, "can they afford care for the dog?" belong in the Discussion board in their own thread.

Basically, the moderators for the Update forum will mostly be tasked with taking irrelevant discussion and splitting it out into the discussion board as their own topic. 

The drawback to this is that it heavily divides attention between two boards. Instead of just paying attention to the Chris forum and F5ing, you now have to switch back and forth and it doesn't really have good flow.


----------



## TL 611 (Nov 22, 2013)

Null said:
			
		

> Updated spec for clarification. I don't see how people are missing this.



Because your writing skills suck ass


----------



## CatParty (Nov 22, 2013)

how does one get access to the vip threads?


----------



## RV 229 (Nov 22, 2013)

I like the idea of an update forum. One of the reasons I check up on the Chris forum as often as I do is because new updates are posted there before they're posted on the Cwcki main page, usually. Not to mention, sometimes speculation posted there (usually by Marv or Alec) can give more insight than just the screencap being posted to the "facebook" page on the CWCki anyways. 



			
				CatParty said:
			
		

> how does one get access to the vip threads?



I think he means that only VIP members can POST threads in that forum. That way it doesn't spawn a bunch of random "Can Chris do X?" threads to drown out actual content.


----------



## ChurchOfGodBear (Nov 22, 2013)

Null said:
			
		

> I'm thinking a middle ground would be this:
> - Make the Update forum allow replies from regular users.
> - Posts allowed for this topic should be reactions and contribute. Chris makes a topic about Snoopy being sick. Reactions would be disgust, "i'm not really surprised", "this is one thing that really makes me angry". Any questions, "can they afford care for the dog?" belong in the Discussion board in their own thread.
> 
> ...



This sounds good to me, or at least better than what I imagined when I opened this thread.  Personally, I hate flipping between forums, which is why you almost never see me in General.  I don't mind giant threads myself, but I can see how they'd be a deterrent for latecomers.  My biggest beef with this plan is that it would require a lot of modding, to keep things focused and on-topic... and honestly, I think it's in our nature to get a little speculative when news drops.  If Snoopy is sick, it's natural to wonder if it's due to conditions, treatment, or just bad luck... and it's natural to try and determine if it's related to yesterday's post about Chris saying the dog food company was run by homosexuals.  I'm not sure it's helpful or practical to curtail discussion in those first few hours after news hits.

That said... I do like the concept here, separating the "stuff we know about" topics to the "stuff we can't possibly know about, but want to discuss anyway" topics.


----------



## Bgheff (Nov 22, 2013)

CatParty said:
			
		

> how does one get access to the vip threads?



By being a VIP.  Jesting aside, I assume people that drop content will be posting in those threads.  That way if there is an update (like Chris or his friends commenting on a post), you can see it right away rather than digging through 30 pages.


----------



## TheIncredibleLioness (Nov 22, 2013)

I like the new changes, particularly since I find any updates can quickly be lost in the sea of threads in the Chris forum. Having their own update section would be an easy way to look through them. I'm not sure how well withholding discussion would work, but I do like the idea of keeping it relatively on topic -- I don't browse here as much as I used to, so I find myself having to play catch up with a very long topic and losing track of what's being talked about. But I agree that it would require some very stringent moddding, which may not be possible? I don't know. But on the whole, I like the changes.


----------



## TL 611 (Nov 22, 2013)

the problem with allowing reactions on update posts is it'll just become everyone going "oh my god he's disgusting" over and over. 

ChurchofGodBear you wouldnt have to switch forums that often, you could continue to just go to the discussion one and look at threads. Imagine that the discussion one is basically Chris now. Youd still be allowed to discuss the updates there and there'd be threads there about all the updates. The discussion threads would surely either link to the update ones or mention the update themselves.

The reason I want the update subforum is so i dont have to look at all the discussion, because im lazy.


----------



## LM 697 (Nov 22, 2013)

This is the worst idea in the long, sad history of bad ideas, and I'm gonna be there when you learn that.


----------



## Gravedancer (Nov 22, 2013)

Call it "Da Update"?


----------



## pickleniggo (Nov 22, 2013)

I'm kind of torn on this. Having been someone who's been late to the party on a few updates, I understand how much of a pain in the ass it is to read 20+ pages of discussion that's all over the place. But that's how it goes. I think splitting updates and discussion will require a lot of modding. I also really like General as it is, but I think Lolcow General would make sense placed there as a subforum.


----------



## rocket (Nov 22, 2013)

I don't read or post in General and the OPL subforum has been drowning in abysmally low-quality threads lately, so this all looks fine to me


----------



## KatsuKitty (Nov 22, 2013)

CatParty said:
			
		

> how does one get access to the vip threads?



This subforum already exists and is used to make it easier to discuss with people closer to Chris how to drop or handle certain information.


----------



## Fibonacci (Nov 22, 2013)

pickleniggo said:
			
		

> I think splitting updates and discussion will require a lot of modding.


About time they actually had something to mod.  

Also, I like the idea of only VIPs being allowed to post in the update forum, but only on the condition that they end every post with "NOBODY ELSE COMMENT THIS POST!!!"


----------



## Holdek (Nov 22, 2013)

I don't think this is going to solve the problem of speculation in update threads.  If you open them up to regular posting then quite a few people are still going to basically just respond with whatever comes into their brains at the time.  So then the solution to _that_ is supposed to be making sure those those threads are "more heavily modded."  Wouldn't it be more simple just to post a new rule saying, "Stay on the topic of the thread; if you want to discuss something unrelated to the OP post it in the appropriate thread instead or start a new one?"  And then enforce that rule.  This whole thing about splitting discussion into two threads in separate subforums for a each update topic is going to complicate things, _especially because_ those topics are the most popular.  

Really, the forums aren't the CWCki.  If you just want your Chris news, fair and balanced, and without speculation, analysis, theory, or opinion, etc., that comes with a discussion forum, then Da Update on the website might be the best place for that, even if you have to wait a little longer.


----------



## Null (Nov 22, 2013)

Holdek said:
			
		

> Really, the forums aren't the CWCki.  If you just want your Chris news, fair and balanced, and without speculation, analysis, theory, or opinion, etc., that comes with a discussion forum, then Da Update on the website might be the best place for that, even if you have to wait a little longer.


Another problem, outside of just speculation within threads, is finding updates. If you leave for a month, you're going to miss a lot of updates, even if you go back pages in the Chris forum to find it.


----------



## Golly (Nov 23, 2013)

Are you saying that "What If?" will no longer be a subforum? My chart reading skills are a little iffy at nearly 2 AM. I understand that all the speculation in the Chris forum can come off as white noise, but "Why does Chris shit himself?" should still be separate from "What if Chris shat his pants in Equestria?" threads.
Of course these only serve as hypothetical examples. In the real world, I assume they both belong in Spergatory.

I'm also of the opinion that all users should be able to post in Update threads, so long as they aren't allowed to make threads in the Update forum, unless the staff promotes clearly defined Reaction threads in Speculation.


----------



## KatsuKitty (Nov 23, 2013)

Golly said:
			
		

> Are you saying that "What If?" will no longer be a subforum? My chart reading skills are a little iffy at nearly 2 AM. I understand that all the speculation in the Chris forum can come off as white noise, but "Why does Chris shit himself?" should still be separate from "What if Chris shat his pants in Equestria?" threads.
> Of course these only serve as hypothetical examples. In the real world, I assume they both belong in Spergatory.
> 
> I'm also of the opinion that all users should be able to post in Update threads, so long as they aren't allowed to make threads in the Update forum, unless the staff promotes clearly defined Reaction threads in Speculation.



My proposition was to get rid of the shitty "What If" threads to begin with. "What if Chris was into Megaman?" Who cares? One sticky for stupid shit like this and everything else can be considered normal speculation.


----------



## HG 400 (Nov 23, 2013)

I'd prefer if the Updates threads were even more restrictive, with reactions like "they don't look after their dogs!!!" not allowed either. All plebian comments could go to the mirror-thread with the speculating, so actually important stuff like Thetan dropping in with a screencap of reactions form Chris's facebook friends doesn't get buried in piles of "omg chris is disgusting" posts.


----------



## champthom (Nov 23, 2013)

Sounds reasonable, but my two concerns:

1) If Chris stops updating stuff, then we'll have a stagnate forum that's sitting around doing nothing
2) For the love of God, don't use the word "Speculation" as it reminds me too much of the Speculation page we had on the CWCki and I still have nightmares about the awful posts there.


----------



## José Mourinho (Nov 23, 2013)

[youtube]H6OtFKNDPUc[/youtube]


----------



## TL 611 (Nov 23, 2013)

champthom said:
			
		

> Sounds reasonable, but my two concerns:
> 
> 1) If Chris stops updating stuff, then we'll have a stagnate forum that's sitting around doing nothing
> 2) For the love of God, don't use the word "Speculation" as it reminds me too much of the Speculation page we had on the CWCki and I still have nightmares about the awful posts there.


I loved speculation! it was nowhere near as spergy as here, amongst the shit there you could actually find cool little theories and stuff. Although it may just be me looking at it through rose-tinted spectacles


----------



## Golly (Nov 23, 2013)

KatsuKitty said:
			
		

> Golly said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I've always thought of the "What If" subforum as a forum game. I only post there rarely and there isn't much substance in it, but if you're really bored and there's an appealing thread, it's  kind of fun to muse for a couple seconds on "What if Chris were in a musical".


----------



## Null (Nov 23, 2013)

champthom said:
			
		

> 1) If Chris stops updating stuff, then we'll have a stagnate forum that's sitting around doing nothing


Others have said the same, and my retort is: we have a board called Sonichu.


----------



## José Mourinho (Nov 23, 2013)

Perhaps there should be more forum games other than "What If" subforums?


----------



## Null (Nov 23, 2013)

Alan Pardew said:
			
		

> Perhaps there should be more forum games other than "What If" subforums?


My idea with the What If? forum is to translate it to something broader.

Basically, we'll have three tiers:
1. Real updates, no faffing about
2. Discussion. "_Serious_" discussion, moderate faffing about. Posts should contribute and people are expected to read the thread before replying.
3."What If?" / Ballpit. Maximum faffing about, nothing to be taken seriously. "Random thoughts and questions" turned into a subforum.


----------



## Uzumaki (Nov 24, 2013)

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding some aspect of this, but I don't see how it helps that much. If someone only wants to read the update part of an update post, they can just do so and then close the thread. If they dislike the discussion they don't have to concern themselves with it. Removing it gives them nothing new, all it does is force the people who like to discuss the update to mess around with multiple threads. And each update, instead of being one thread, will explode like a diseased man thrown into an industrial fan and every update will cause the "speculation" section to become a million tiny threads about said update, dozens of which are interrelated and reference each-other, and trying to follow the conversation after that will make reading a 40+ page update thread look downright pleasant. 

This looks like it's going to be a lot of work and hassle for some kind of weird moral victory that I don't really get.


----------



## Null (Nov 24, 2013)

Uzumaki said:
			
		

> This looks like it's going to be a lot of work and hassle for some kind of weird moral victory that I don't really get.


Alright, I concede. This is all really well said. If there's a second forum for updates, it has to allow standard user replies. That means the two main purposes of the update forum would then be:

1. Separating new content from standard discussion.
2. Raising the standard of quality for discussion on new statuses and updates.

So basically, instead of just cataloging updates in the forum, we'll open the doors to everyone's input but our expectation is that people will only post if they actually have something to say. "Die chris" comments and typical sperging that we often tolerate will be more thoroughly moderated. However, if someone wants to take a quote from the post and start an entirely new discussion back in the other forum, it'll be totally fine.

How's that sound?


Edit: In addendum, KatsuKitty has asked what sort of posts he should be looking to delete/lock given the recent complaints about A-logging and stuff. There's a few users we have our eyes on, but when this new board gets introduced (if I think I've perfected the idea) I'll work with the other mods and admins to figure out a less "gut instinct" approach to moderating. In light of a recent popularity surge, post quality has really declined and most threads aren't worth reading. That's something I really don't like to see.


----------



## Holdek (Nov 24, 2013)

Null said:
			
		

> Uzumaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wouldn't mind this approach (although the poll is set up so I can't retract my "no" vote in light of this amendment).


----------



## KatsuKitty (Nov 24, 2013)

Null said:
			
		

> Edit: In addendum, KatsuKitty has asked what sort of posts he should be looking to delete/lock given the recent complaints about A-logging and stuff. There's a few users we have our eyes on, but when this new board gets introduced (if I think I've perfected the idea) I'll work with the other mods and admins to figure out a less "gut instinct" approach to moderating. In light of a recent popularity surge, post quality has really declined and most threads aren't worth reading. That's something I really don't like to see.



In the past, I've been rather conservative on closing threads or deleting posts, basically allowing threads like "Can Chris Swim?" because it otherwise didn't break any rules (or wasn't flat out retarded like "Does Chris smell his own farts?"). Essentially, if it wasn't outright trash, I would let it go, and just let people discuss whatever they wanted to.

The influx of shit posting has made this conservative approach difficult to maintain, so my concern is having margin calls universally caught up in the locking process absent any clear guidelines for both users and admins to abide by (something I tried to do in the "Chris Forum Almanac") This reduces the assessment of post quality to a nebulous Potter Stewart approach that is likely to piss off a lot of users. There are _plenty_ of "ehh" threads I see routinely that if I had to be more aggressive, I would lock, but this aggressive approach is just as likely to elicit an angry reaction from the userbase, not to mention silence interesting discussion that may take place in those margin calls I talked about.

Really, the best way to solve this is to amend the Forum Almanac with everything common to these low quality posts. One thing I can immediately identify is the discussion of _extremely_ trivial or inconsequential aspects of Chris's life (such as how many McNuggets he eats weekly or something), not to mention threads that ask questions for which the answer may be obvious (how much exercise Chris gets or something). Things like that. The "citizenry" has to take an active role just as much as the "police" in ensuring order, and clearer guidelines like this assist them in doing so.


----------



## Dork Of Ages (Nov 24, 2013)

KatsuKitty, do you think you should include a guideline in the Chris Forums Almanac, like "Think about what, where and how you will post before you make one"? This way, people can become more aware of their post quality? (For example, posting random questions and thoughts about Chris in the right thread, to cut off the rather unnecessary threads that does not really contribute to the forums.) 

It can also include about making a insightful thread.


----------



## José Mourinho (Nov 24, 2013)

Needless to say, I remember in the first forumer, there was a thread discussing about "Chris's Bones" (or something like that) and it was put into Spergatory but there was a lot of discussion about why it was put there. Some argued it's A-Loggish but some argued otherwise.

So what are we going to do if something like that happens?


----------



## Holdek (Nov 24, 2013)

Alan Pardew said:
			
		

> Needless to say, I remember in the first forumer, there was a thread discussing about "Chris's Bones" (or something like that) and it was put into Spergatory but there was a lot of discussion about why it was put there. Some argued it's A-Loggish but some argued otherwise.
> 
> So what are we going to do if something like that happens?



The thread was, "How Brittle Are Chris' Bones?" which is a good question and one that I continue to ponder on a weekly, perhaps daily, basis, since there is no thread in which we can come to a consensus answer in.


----------



## Holdek (Nov 24, 2013)

KatsuKitty said:
			
		

> Null said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



On the one hand, on a forum dedicated to discussing someone who is notable for his buffoonish behavior and thought process (unlike, say, a William Shakespeare forum) you are going get more buffoonish threads.

On the other hand, it may not be worth your time and effort getting too into the weeds about what is acceptable and what isn't.  I think a Stewart-like test is fine for "What if Chris was uncircumcised?" for example.  I've generally appreciated erring on less aggressive modding in the Chris forum because when all is said and done, Chris is just not a serious topic.  In terms of the recent increase in shitposting I reiterate my suggestion that new users would have to lurk for two days or something before being able to post, so that they get a feel of what's acceptable, what's already been discussed to death, what the rules are, answers to commonly asked questions, etc.

But, whatever makes the job of mods easier would be fine.  I think most mods, most of the time, are reasonable here and if a user gets a thread sent to Sperg and it pisses them off they can probably PM the mod to discuss the issue.


----------



## rocket (Nov 24, 2013)

I think Null's compromise is a good one and Katsu's concerns are valid. It's probably something we'll have to feel out as we go but I think most people are in agreement that post quality is in the shitter lately. Thanks for the effort in fixing this mods.


----------



## bradsternum (Nov 25, 2013)

If it stops all the shitty "DID CHRIS EVER DO/LIKE X" and "HOW WILL WE KNOW WHEN CHRIS DIES?" threads, I support it.


----------



## Holdek (Nov 25, 2013)

bradsternum said:
			
		

> If it stops all the shitty "DID CHRIS EVER DO/LIKE X" and "HOW WILL WE KNOW WHEN CHRIS DIES?" threads, I support it.



Even if the mods had the power of Dr. Manhattan and stopped 99% of shitposts, some sperging would still get in.


----------



## ChurchOfGodBear (Nov 25, 2013)

KatsuKitty said:
			
		

> Really, the best way to solve this is to amend the Forum Almanac with everything common to these low quality posts. One thing I can immediately identify is the discussion of _extremely_ trivial or inconsequential aspects of Chris's life (such as how many McNuggets he eats weekly or something), not to mention threads that ask questions for which the answer may be obvious (how much exercise Chris gets or something). Things like that. The "citizenry" has to take an active role just as much as the "police" in ensuring order, and clearer guidelines like this assist them in doing so.



Please take a lot of care when amending the Almanac.  I do worry about unintentionally thwarting all these efforts if I post a thread that's maybe well-intentioned (but kind of goofy) knowing that it would be tolerated under the current guidelines but not the new ones.  I'm all about raising the level of conversation, but we all occasionally have ideas that just don't pan out.

Edit: I don't spell too good.


----------



## Uzumaki (Nov 25, 2013)

> So basically, instead of just cataloging updates in the forum, we'll open the doors to everyone's input but our expectation is that people will only post if they actually have something to say. "Die chris" comments and typical sperging that we often tolerate will be more thoroughly moderated. However, if someone wants to take a quote from the post and start an entirely new discussion back in the other forum, it'll be totally fine.
> 
> How's that sound?



That sounds great.



> Edit: In addendum, KatsuKitty has asked what sort of posts he should be looking to delete/lock given the recent complaints about A-logging and stuff. There's a few users we have our eyes on, but when this new board gets introduced (if I think I've perfected the idea) I'll work with the other mods and admins to figure out a less "gut instinct" approach to moderating. In light of a recent popularity surge, post quality has really declined and most threads aren't worth reading. That's something I really don't like to see.



I actually like the free wheelin' moderation style around here. When someone constantly makes shitty posts they're banned, we don't have to sit around waiting for them to do something specific that breaks a rule. When mods are constrained by a bunch of forum rules the worst of the users learn them and just dance along the line, never crossing it, and driving everyone up the wall. I don't know if you need less of a "gut instinct" style, I just think you need to learn to trust your instincts even more and amp up the locks and bannings.

The best part of the current style of moderation is that the only rule to learn is "don't suck". There are no loopholes you can use to suck but still stay within the bounds of the rules. If you got even more aggressive with this it's going to be frustrating for some people, but those are going to be the ones who suck and who are posting the garbage threads in the first place.


----------



## Dork Of Ages (Nov 25, 2013)

Well, looks like the 'Chris Updates' board is set up. It's weird looking at it, but it shouldn't be too bad when I get accustomed to it.


----------



## José Mourinho (Nov 25, 2013)

Looking great so far.


----------



## CatParty (Nov 25, 2013)

I miss the old structure


----------



## Null (Nov 25, 2013)

I moved the General subforums back as subforums because I felt they took too much space.


----------



## Mauvman Shuffleboard (Nov 25, 2013)

CatParty said:
			
		

> I miss the old structure









 This is Dwayne, he misses the old layout. If you miss the old layout, post Dwayne everywhere, that'll fix it.


----------



## exball (Nov 25, 2013)

I like the new forums. I also hate change, so...WHAT HITLER DID WAS POTATOES COMPARED TO NULL CHANGING THINGS!!!1111!!!


----------



## Watcher (Nov 25, 2013)

I wish there were more subforums personally. Right now it feels a little squished.


----------



## Kamen Rider Black RX (Nov 25, 2013)

I don't really care for this but I'll survive. Kinda sucks I have to check a separate thread in order to see updates on CWC's status.


----------



## brooklynbailiff (Nov 25, 2013)

So much stress.


----------



## LM 697 (Nov 25, 2013)

CompyRex said:
			
		

> This is the worst idea in the long, sad history of bad ideas, and I'm gonna be there when you learn that.



told u


----------



## brooklynbailiff (Nov 25, 2013)

A break in routine gives me stuh-ress.


----------



## LM 697 (Nov 25, 2013)

brooklynbailiff said:
			
		

> A break in routine gives me stuh-ress.



AW FUK IT THA 4:15 TRAIN SUPPOS'D TA COME AT 4:17 FUKS SAKE MAN FUKIN SPA


----------



## Pikonic (Nov 25, 2013)

I like it.


----------



## brooklynbailiff (Nov 25, 2013)

CompyRex said:
			
		

> AW FUK IT THA 4:15 TRAIN SUPPOS'D TA COME AT 4:17 FUKS SAKE MAN FUKIN SPA



FUK U SPA BARSTERD U SED RAIN WUD HAPPEN FUKIN SPA


----------



## bradsternum (Nov 25, 2013)

I'm a fan.


----------



## exball (Nov 25, 2013)

I think most of the Chris stuff should be subforms. The front page feels squished.


----------



## spaps (Nov 25, 2013)

yes i agree great change


----------



## Foulmouth (Nov 25, 2013)

Null is evil genius dictator that must be appeased with virgins and gold.
I,for one, welcome our new Forum Structure Overlords.


----------



## rocket (Nov 25, 2013)

Thetan should be a VIP since she drops so much content imo


----------



## Watcher (Nov 26, 2013)

rocket said:
			
		

> Thetan should be a VIP since she drops so much content imo



Seconded

Thetan's a boss, she's gotten so much good shit for us.


----------



## Himawari (Nov 26, 2013)

^ thirded.  Or at least give him posting access to Updates, even if he isn't let into the VIP usergroup. (im dum and didn't notice he was already orangetext'd)

On that note, did anyone suggest the Updates forum being called "Da Update"??


----------



## Null (Nov 26, 2013)

Himawari said:
			
		

> ^ thirded.  Or at least give him posting access to Updates, even if he isn't let into the VIP usergroup.


Thetan has had invisible VIP forum privileges for a while now, but I didn't splash the gold on her name because it's hard to tie her to any particular christorical event like Marvin or ABL. Doing it too early would have caused confusion and it'd of been hard to explain. We're still not at a point where we can say what Thetan is doing or has done, but basically she took advantage of something and has exploited it very wisely to get this new information. She'll probably never acquire an identity like the man in the pickle suit or ABL, but she's contributed a lot and needless to say everyone appreciates it.

I upped her rank after sitting down just now and seeing she had released another email I had never heard of before. Only after the fact did I see other people were thinking the same thing.




			
				Himawari said:
			
		

> On that note, did anyone suggest the Updates forum being called "Da Update"??


I didn't want it to sound too cliche.


----------



## Mr. 0 (Nov 26, 2013)

Null said:
			
		

> a bunch of crap



Hasn't the Operating Thetan FB been capped in Chris's clusterfuck? Use that as a point of reference or something.


----------



## Null (Nov 26, 2013)

Mr. 0 said:
			
		

> Null said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's a non-issue at this point. Everyone is seeing what Thetan has done and there's no ambiguity left.


----------



## Mr. 0 (Nov 26, 2013)

Null said:
			
		

> Mr. 0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, no, I meant for the persona thing.


----------



## ChurchOfGodBear (Dec 4, 2013)

Just realized... as a bonus, having mods only in the Update forum prevents weens from posting fake news.  Not a super-frequent problem before, but it's a nice filter nonetheless.


----------



## José Mourinho (Dec 9, 2013)

ChurchOfGodBear said:
			
		

> Just realized... as a bonus, having mods only in the Update forum prevents weens from posting fake news.  Not a super-frequent problem before, but it's a nice filter nonetheless.



Or godawful updates from weens with their ween trolling plans.


----------



## CatParty (Dec 9, 2013)

Alan Pardew said:
			
		

> ChurchOfGodBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




"hey guys! i have intel from google maps!!"


----------



## Holdek (Dec 9, 2013)

CatParty said:
			
		

> Alan Pardew said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well that Google Street image of Son-Chu at a red light was pretty awesome.


----------



## TL 611 (Dec 10, 2013)

Holdek said:
			
		

> Well that Google Street image of Son-Chu at a red light was pretty awesome.



Agreed. But he didn't pretend it was from a sooper secret intel, and he wasn't being a weener ("hey lets go look at Chris's house! ") he just happened to see it on streetview.


----------



## Tommy Wiseau (Dec 11, 2013)

I'm tired, I'm wasted, I love the new CWCki!


----------



## Dork Of Ages (Dec 11, 2013)

ChurchOfGodBear said:
			
		

> Just realized... as a bonus, having mods only in the Update forum prevents weens from posting fake news.  Not a super-frequent problem before, but it's a nice filter nonetheless.



Yeah, I remember seeing a thread from a ween posting a pic of Chris when it was fact some fat emo kid or something like it. I think he was banned, but not having that around doubles the quality of threads.


----------

