WINTER '07 – Brianfast for Minister of Discussion

HomeForumsGovernmental ForumsCampaignsWINTER '07 – Brianfast for Minister of Discussion

This topic has 1 voice, contains 66 replies, and was last updated by Avatar of Legoman182182 Legoman182182 2549 days ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 67 total)
Author Posts
Author Posts
December 21, 2007 at 6:38 pm #355332
Avatar of brianfast

“Dave” wrote: I think banning is completely against the community principles of this site. I find the people running for MoD positions and using banning as a positive thing in their campaign to be poor choices. We’re supposed to accept people and guide them through this fun (and at first, hard) hobby. We shouldn’t be shutting people out due to a lack of tolerance or patience!

This is why I like the notions that brianfast is presenting, but I think that he can craft his plan a little better. Posting contradictory, one-sentence answers is not going to get you elected, brian, and there’s no denying that being arrogant about your campaigning isn’t going to attract any fans, either.

In short: every dozen has its bad eggs, but that shouldn’t matter. By accepting all and guiding people, we could have much more favorable outcomes than not accepting most of the people who come to this site!

The points that brian brings up are too minor to be tackled by one person in a leadership position… these are more like guidelines for the community. Everybody has to chip in and try their hardest to be patient and helpful. Brian’s ideas are insightful, but his approach is pathetic. Take what he is saying and do it yourself, brickfilmers. Vote for someone with bigger and better things at stake.

-Dave, who thinks that this “bad egg” shouldn’t be even considered for any Minister positions, anyway.

Well since you are calling me out…

Can you ask questions that I have been giving contradictory answers to?
My points are to minor to be tackled by one person? Don’t you mean major?
Why is my approach pathetic? I am trying to give voters what they want more so then any other candidate.

I look forward to seeing your Q&As

Hasta la victory!

December 21, 2007 at 6:43 pm #355333
Avatar of Legoman182182

“brian” wrote: I am trying to give voters what they want more so then any other candidate.

Evidently, you have not succeeded.

December 22, 2007 at 8:06 pm #355647
Avatar of Aled Owen
Aled Owen

D’you know that brainfast gave me a load of verbal abuse when I didn’t agree to him?


December 23, 2007 at 12:00 am #355703
Avatar of brianfast

Always with the slander…

December 23, 2007 at 6:26 pm #355886
Avatar of Tim

I hate kids. Everyone hates kids. Why should we allow them on the site? I lived in an age when parents smacked their kids, not send them to their rooms. Unfortunately, parents nowadays are too pussy to do that so we have other lame “GO STAND IN FRONT OF A WALL” detention times. Now kids are annoying, and they run around the house naked. The best thing kids can do to society is shut up and eat doritos (I wasn’t paid to say that).

Just because we disallow them to visit the forums does not mean that they’re not allowed on the site itself. They’ll have plenty of resources. And we’d encourage to nourish their interest by READING THE BLOODY SITE like the unused resources page instead of posting a bunch of useless threads.

December 23, 2007 at 7:11 pm #355891
Avatar of Legoman182182

Tim has stolen Christmas. :(


December 23, 2007 at 10:02 pm #355940
Avatar of Aled Owen
Aled Owen

I actually agree with Tim.


December 23, 2007 at 11:55 pm #355973
Avatar of Felix

Get a grip! This is a community dedicated to making films with LEGO. Of course there’s going to be kids!

Instead of making them feel left out our experienced members should do their best to encourage civil behaviour and proper language by actually representing the values they preach.

Besides, do you really think you could set a minimum age and expect youngsters to stay away? This is the internet, remember?

December 24, 2007 at 12:41 am #355988
Avatar of Shale

I’ve never been under the impression that this was supposed to be a child-friendly site.

December 24, 2007 at 1:38 am #356002
Avatar of Squash

Since this is a discussion about child friendliness, I thought I’d point out-

“The Rules” wrote: 1. Profanity or vulgar images – This includes inappropriate words, inappropriate sexual references and other crude statements. Again, though this is not a children’s site, we do not wish to offend or ostracize any younger members or cause their parents to bar them from accessing the website. Knowingly posting obscene pictures is enough for an automatic ban.

So in technicality, there are rules against this, but they are not enforced. I will not say whether I feel these are fair or not, I just thought I’d put them here for those discussing to… discuss.

December 24, 2007 at 4:47 am #356036
Avatar of Tim

Who cares about the rules? this is barely a children’s site. The majority of people who visit this site are at least 15.

December 24, 2007 at 7:06 am #356050
Avatar of Schlaeps

I say we divide Brickfilms into three separate entities: BrickfilmsBabies (BrickBabies? BrickBabes?), Brickfilms Classic, and BF17+. Users would decided by age group of course.

December 24, 2007 at 7:18 am #356051
Avatar of Tim

BF17+ sounds like a movie rating for porn movies.


December 24, 2007 at 10:37 am #356072
Avatar of Legoman182182

What an absolutely absurd, pompous, unfeasible and dam right idiotic approach to solving a problem which doesn’t really exist.

“Aled” wrote: I actually agree with Tim.


I though you where 12?


December 24, 2007 at 10:42 am #356074
Avatar of Night Owl
Night Owl

It seems to like most sexual references come from pubescent kids, not older people.

Anyway, I agree with Tim that younger kids probably should be reading a book (or learning to READ) before they get on the internet.
However, seeing as we have no control over this, the best solution is to make room for them. You never know who’s going to turn out to be really good; there are some younger members who are quite mature (and some older ones who are anything but, for that matter).
I’m against making the site “family-friendly”, but the rule about not posting inappropriate content should stay. Anatomical terms (when used in a relevant context), implicit sexual references (nudge, nudge) and mild profanity (damn, crap) are OK, but explicit sexual stuff is not.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 67 total)

The topic ‘WINTER '07 – Brianfast for Minister of Discussion’ is closed to new replies.