Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
Dear Miss Troll, Dear Mister Troll, Yes, you who are searching through messages to reply with plecos, to call people faggots or even better to start flame fights. You, who's day is a success only if you managed to cause e-drama. You, who's deliberately provocative messages have caused countless hours of moderating time. You, the master of ad hominem who lack any substance or relevence to back up your arguments. Oh you, dear Troll, please consider this gentile message from the moderating team... There, now that that's done... I'd like to note that this message is quite serious. We've noticed a serious increase of troll-messages (I don't know how to call them otherwise) during the last weeks, months, surprisingly even more so from users that recently came back (right, Dover?). We'd like it to cease. It's starting to take too much of our time. So please quit it...
Goztow wrote on Tue, 13 April 2010 02:37 Dear Miss Troll, Dear Mister Troll, Yes, you who are searching through messages to reply with plecos, to call people faggots or even better to start flame fights. You, who's day is a success only if you managed to cause e-drama. You, who's deliberately provocative messages have caused countless hours of moderating time. You, the master of ad hominem who lack any substance or relevence to back up your arguments. Oh you, dear Troll, please consider this gentile message from the moderating team... There, now that that's done... I'd like to note that this message is quite serious. We've noticed a serious increase of troll-messages (I don't know how to call them otherwise) during the last weeks, months, surprisingly even more so from users that recently came back (right, Dover?). We'd like it to cease. It's starting to take too much of our time. So please quit it... Trolling is one way to think of it, Gozy, but I look at it as appropriately replying to a thread. It's well and good to have a serious discussion when a topic has something worth discussing (Like this thread, for example). But how constructive can a post be when the topic it's replying to is "What is happening to http://www.Renegadeforums.com"? What other meaningful information can be added six pages into the Atomix thread? If the plecos and the such were just pointless spam in otherwise worthwhile topics, I would completely agree with you. However, given the quality of the topics the forums have been getting in the past weeks and months, I really don't know what you're expecting.
A topic that has no worth discussing should die.
Goztow wrote on Tue, 13 April 2010 05:49 A topic that has no worth discussing should die. Of course. And it will die. All topics do.
It should die without needing to fill it up with stupid remarks. Replicating on trolls by trolling will only result in troll².
I believe the saying goes "And nothing of value was lost".
Dover wrote on Tue, 13 April 2010 15:30 I believe the saying goes "And nothing of value was lost". You obviously don't consider time as something valuable then.
Goztow wrote on Tue, 13 April 2010 07:01 Dover wrote on Tue, 13 April 2010 15:30 I believe the saying goes "And nothing of value was lost". You obviously don't consider time as something valuable then. I don't know why you try and regulate situations like that though. What are you saving? Or is it just enforcing the letter of the law for the sake of enforcing the letter of the law? It seems like you're telling people to stop pissing in an ocean full of piss because pissing in the ocean is wrong, and it wastes your time when you try to restore the ocean to it's previous piss levels.
If it carries on, there will be no value left in these forums. It's sad to see is happen, and even worse are people actively contributing to the demise, despite knowing their actions are a contributing factor.
Dover wrote on Tue, 13 April 2010 16:12 Goztow wrote on Tue, 13 April 2010 07:01 Dover wrote on Tue, 13 April 2010 15:30 I believe the saying goes "And nothing of value was lost". You obviously don't consider time as something valuable then. I don't know why you try and regulate situations like that though. What are you saving? Or is it just enforcing the letter of the law for the sake of enforcing the letter of the law? It seems like you're telling people to stop pissing in an ocean full of piss because pissing in the ocean is wrong, and it wastes your time when you try to restore the ocean to it's previous piss levels. So you're saying I shouldn't spend my time trying to keep some value in this place, because it will be a waste of time if that doesn't succeed? And that if i try it anyway, then it's my own fault for wasting my time in a project I believe in so obviously you don't need to stop pissing? I see no fatality.
reborn wrote on Tue, 13 April 2010 10:51 If it carries on, there will be no value left in these forums. It's sad to see is happen, and even worse are people actively contributing to the demise, despite knowing their actions are a contributing factor. I disagree. A post is a post is a post. Regardless of what it says it still contributes to a discussion. As long as people keep posting, the forum wont die.
R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 13 April 2010 12:44 reborn wrote on Tue, 13 April 2010 10:51 If it carries on, there will be no value left in these forums. It's sad to see is happen, and even worse are people actively contributing to the demise, despite knowing their actions are a contributing factor. I disagree. A post is a post is a post. Regardless of what it says it still contributes to a discussion. As long as people keep posting, the forum wont die. There's a difference between a post that has value, and a post that has no value. A post with no value does not positively contribute, infact it has the opposite effect. Who cares if the forum is still technically active, if the only activity is the kind of crap you see in the spam forum?
Still, I disagree. A thread could be about politics and someone could suddenly mention noodles and from then on out, the thread would be about noodles. One person alone cannot decide the value of a post because different people value different things. You never know, what you might find pointless and stupid, someone else might find informative and enjoyable. IMO, the only sorts of posts that would degrade the forum and lower its value are spam-bot advertisements.
Perhaps the community could consider registering it's non-interest in (the value of) certain topics by not posting? Better still, by not posting in "valueless topics", but instead creating or replying to better ones...
I can respect the people that laugh at you guys being retards 100 times more than the actual retards. Even the picture posting shit is more amusing than 90% of the stupid "I'm so smart, lets argue about it" shit that is 95% of renegadeforums.
HaTe wrote on Tue, 13 April 2010 17:11 I can respect the people that laugh at you guys being retards 100 times more than the actual retards. Even the picture posting shit is more amusing than 90% of the stupid "I'm so smart, lets argue about it" shit that is 95% of renegadeforums. And that is why this thread was created. The amount of spam has escalated, and I admit to helping it, but I do not intend to troll these forums. While we have weak & hilarious trolls, the "oldfag" trolls are more persistant and annoying.
I'm sure by posting a large public message to the trolls, you're sure to stop drawing attention to them and make them leave. Good work.
to whoever (im to annoyed at my internet to find it again) said that a valueless troll post is still value to the conversation... such posts make the site less desireable and then the entire site becomes nothing but retards who refuse to stop posting... this is the equivelent of a dead site... goztow and other moderaters and the admins keep this from happening therefore goztow is correct. and if he does not succeed it still made the site last much longer edit:*sorry for grammer and sentence structure and wording errors im a little to annoyed to care atm* hopefully you get the jest of what im saying
Yes, lets much rather take 7 pages of religious arguing, with a good 300 words in each post. I'd MUCH rather read that than a person laughing in the faces of retards every know and then. /sarcasm. You do realize that the more retarded topics and posts that are created (NOT trolling ones), the more that these sort of people exist, right? The more dumb arguments and retarded fighting, as well as the "know it all" dumb asses, the more people who either want to liven up the topic, or laugh at the stupidity of it. LET US TROLL.
Zeratul wrote on Tue, 13 April 2010 19:50 to whoever (im to annoyed at my internet to find it again) said that a valueless troll post is still value to the conversation... such posts make the site less desireable and then the entire site becomes nothing but retards who refuse to stop posting... this is the equivelent of a dead site... goztow and other moderaters and the admins keep this from happening therefore goztow is correct. and if he does not succeed it still made the site last much longer edit:*sorry for grammer and sentence structure and wording errors im a little to annoyed to care atm* hopefully you get the jest of what im saying If you find that a thread has lost its conversational value, then you are free to stop posting in it. But if someone can somehow relate it to something else and continue the conversation, whether it's through a stupid comment or picture, then what grounds do you have to stop them? If you don't like the conversation, post in another thread or don't post at all. The point of a forum is to have conversations. As long as they don't totally spit in the face of the forum's rules, it really shouldn't make a difference how the conversations unfold.
R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 13 April 2010 18:06 If you find that a thread has lost its conversational value, then you are free to stop posting in it. But if someone can somehow relate it to something else and continue the conversation, whether it's through a stupid comment or picture, then what grounds do you have to stop them? If you don't like the conversation, post in another thread or don't post at all. The point of a forum is to have conversations. As long as they don't totally spit in the face of the forum's rules, it really shouldn't make a difference how the conversations unfold. I see what your saying but why derail the topic if it still has usefull conversation and why not let it die when it doesnt (i realize i am responcible for both but have been trying not to cause either) at first it may be funny but when a topic last 2 pages(exageration) and most of which is spam that was not neccessary in the first place or the topic should have died much time ago this creates problems and this Zeratul wrote on Tue, 13 April 2010 17:50 such posts make the site less desireable ... and contributes to site death
Zeratul wrote on Tue, 13 April 2010 20:19 I see what your saying but why derail the topic if it still has usefull conversation and why not let it die when it doesnt Ah, but now you are talking about something totally different. There is a difference between "spamming" in a dead thread and "derailing" a popular thread. The latter is what needs to be avoided and moderated.
R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 13 April 2010 18:27 Ah, but now you are talking about something totally different. There is a difference between "spamming" in a dead thread and "derailing" a popular thread. The latter is what needs to be avoided and moderated. yes, but spamming a dead thread still distracts and that needs to be split or locked and moved which in turn wastes a mod or admin's time... derailing a popular thread yes... it is a different thing entirely but all in all wastes time of members, mods, and admins... which in turn makes that much worse due to the fact it wastes more peoples time in other words... you are correct, but at the same time BOTH still distract and waste time... edit: quote mistake
Quote: The more dumb arguments and retarded fighting, as well as the "know it all" dumb asses, the more people who either want to liven up the topic, or laugh at the stupidity of it. I rest my case. Soon enough this topic may have trolling and cool e-pictures as well, at this rate. Bring them on.
I wouldn't wanna be the first to post plecos here... I got a feeling that would be like saying, "make an example outta me!"...
Clark Kent wrote on Tue, 13 April 2010 19:43 I wouldn't wanna be the first to post plecos here... I got a feeling that would be like saying, "make an example outta me!"... What if the PLECOS MASTER did it?
Just went from 'No way I'm reading all this shit' to 'annoying, funny, and interesting.' Improvement i'd say. Well done gentlemen.
DRNG wrote on Tue, 13 April 2010 19:45 Clark Kent wrote on Tue, 13 April 2010 19:43 I wouldn't wanna be the first to post plecos here... I got a feeling that would be like saying, "make an example outta me!"... What if the PLECOS MASTER did it? Guess we will never know... or will we?
Goztow wrote on Tue, 13 April 2010 08:02 So you're saying I shouldn't spend my time trying to keep some value in this place, because it will be a waste of time if that doesn't succeed? And that if i try it anyway, then it's my own fault for wasting my time in a project I believe in so obviously you don't need to stop pissing? I see no fatality. I'm asking you to see the difference between threads worth saving (Like this one) and threads not worth saving. For example, the Atomix thread is pretty much unsalvageable at this point. Any moderating thrown at it is trying to stop people from pissing in the ocean full of piss. I'm not saying give up on moderation entirely, I'm not saying you shouldn't try to improve the forums taken as a whole, but I am saying you should recognize a lost cause when you see one.
you've taken the entirely wrong approach goztow; instead of trying to cast the trolls out you should encourage everyone to become one so the concept suddenly loses its appeal and special kids like Dover will look for a new way to get attention Toggle Spoiler
liquidv2 wrote on Tue, 13 April 2010 18:26 you've taken the entirely wrong approach goztow; instead of trying to cast the trolls out you should encourage everyone to become one so the concept suddenly loses its appeal and special kids like Dover will look for a new way to get attention Toggle Spoiler Clark Kent wrote on Tue, 13 April 2010 17:43 I wouldn't wanna be the first to post plecos here... I got a feeling that would be like saying, "make an example outta me!"...
i have a strange feeling this topic will end in a temp/perma ban eventually
I'll admit I do my fair share of shitposting, but usually only in threads where there's nothing much to add with intelligent discussion, and it's better to lighten it up a little. If a serious discussion rolls by, I'm more than capable of helping people out. Not to mention, I actually do stop by the modding forums from time to time to help people out/give criticism (even if it's in a "mean" way... but then, y'know, if everyone was nice about things that looked like shit, they'd never wanna make anything better). I'm pretty sure some people actually come here because of the community sometimes. Because despite the fact that it's such an old game, we have such a community that *still* finds time to talk about whatever comes to mind. I don't know of any other games that have such a community. To be honest, the worst of the trolls are usually people like trooprm02 and on usually rocko (though some of his posts are atleast somewhat funny, although rarely), as well as a few others. The rest, I wouldn't go so far as to say they're outright trolls.
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Tue, 13 April 2010 21:13 I'll admit I do my fair share of shitposting, but usually only in threads where there's nothing much to add with intelligent discussion, and it's better to lighten it up a little. This is almost exactly what I mean.
lol this whole topic is a troll attempt in itself...
Dover wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 06:53 GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Tue, 13 April 2010 21:13 I'll admit I do my fair share of shitposting, but usually only in threads where there's nothing much to add with intelligent discussion, and it's better to lighten it up a little. This is almost exactly what I mean. Dover, please point me to intelligent posts you made since your comeback? The very fact most people seem to agree that there is trolling going on - beit they don't agree if it's legit or not - validates the point I'm trying to make. If anything, a reason not to abuse from topics that seem dead to you is for archive purposes.
Goztow wrote on Tue, 13 April 2010 23:51 Dover, please point me to intelligent posts you made since your comeback? Comeback? I wasn't aware I ever really left. When was the period that you consider to be my comeback, so I know in what time to search for? Goztow wrote on Tue, 13 April 2010 23:51 If anything, a reason not to abuse from topics that seem dead to you is for archive purposes. The only things that are truely archived are the HoF topics, and there's an (unwritten?) rule not to post in those. Anything that doesn't end up there eventually gets bumped a few years later and gets abused anyway (If it was a worthwhile topic) or forgotten (If it wasn't).
Did you change your nick at some point? I could have sworn you took a moment off... Those 5 year old topic bumps are done by... trolls most of the time. Some of time are actually funny, unlike the roofgnomes one.
Goztow wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 03:02 Did you change your nick at some point? I could have sworn you took a moment off... Those 5 year old topic bumps are done by... trolls most of the time. Some of time are actually funny, unlike the roofgnomes one. Nah, they're usually done by random idiots (see: gman/the executor/MSwindows/the_elite_officer/whatever he goes by now, archerman, etc) that browse the forums that can hardly be called "trolls". And no, Dover never changed his nick. He just changed his avatar, but... that's about it. I never recall him leaving. You might have him confused with Cheesesoda or Ryu or Sadukar or something. Also, roofgnomes is the best thing to ever happen to Renegade. No, wait, make that gaming as a whole.
http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&client=opera&rls=tr&t bs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=pleco&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= &start=0 Go ahead and ban me Goztow. What is keeping you? ps: check my new signature.
^perfect example of not trolling, but just plain spamming. There's also two types of trolling- hilariously trolling a massive idiot who's obviously in the wrong, and being an annoying dickwad in a semi-serious discussion. The former hardly hurts much considering it's generally only affecting an unwanted and less-than-helpful community member anyways, while latter is more detrimental to a community. Example of the former: http://www.renegadeforums.com/index.php?t=msg&th=36022&start=0&rid=2 0896 (I'm too lazy to recall other situations similar to this one, but there's plenty of them).
Goztow wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 01:02 Did you change your nick at some point? I could have sworn you took a moment off... No... >:[
stirring up shit on here isn't even funny anymore...no warring factions, no irl-drama, no personality...rocko and troop were kinda entertaining, but since they got banned the only people looking for drama are so lame that nobody even responds to(like that archerman guy)
archerman wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 03:36 http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&client=opera&rls=tr&t bs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=pleco&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= &start=0 Go ahead and ban me Goztow. What is keeping you? ps: check my new signature. You didn't really post PLECOS on these forums. You simply linked to PLECOS. But I believe I am wasting my time here, responding to this. It's like talking to a brick wall.
DRNG wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 14:43 archerman wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 03:36 http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&client=opera&rls=tr&t bs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=pleco&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= &start=0 Go ahead and ban me Goztow. What is keeping you? ps: check my new signature. You didn't really post PLECOS on these forums. You simply linked to PLECOS. But I believe I am wasting my time here, responding to this. It's like talking to a brick wall. I thought it was a better idea to post a link of a plenty of plecos instead of a single one. If I am not wrong all those topics and posts mentioned are within the borders of "spam fest" section of the forums. if moderating all those posts are pretty much hard for you goztow, maybe you should just let CarrierII handle them; since he is the one who splits topics and edits posts in a random and insincerely way, then gets away with it like he didnt do anything childish at all.
Spam fest isn't modearted (or hardly). I'm referring to posts made outside of the spam fest, of course.
I did feel Dover left for a while...it was around early Jan 2009...then he was gone till almost mid April 2009. I remember thinking "damn I miss Dover around here"
Starbuzzz wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 11:55 I did feel Dover left for a while...it was around early Jan 2009...then he was gone till almost mid April 2009. I remember thinking "damn I miss Dover around here" Fancy that! I took a look through my post history and you're right. I made posts in January and April 2009, but nothing in between. I guess I just forgot about this place for a while. :S Still, looking at the big picture of my time spent on these forums, those few months gone feel like a drop in the bucket, hardly worth calling being "gone" or making a "comeback".
archerman wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 03:36 Go ahead and ban me Goztow. What is keeping you? !vote yes
Clark Kent wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 14:01 archerman wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 03:36 Go ahead and ban me Goztow. What is keeping you? !vote yes !vote FUCK yes
Zeratul wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 22:03 Clark Kent wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 14:01 archerman wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 03:36 Go ahead and ban me Goztow. What is keeping you? !vote yes !vote FUCK yes Fools! If he is asking for it, then I don't see further reason to object to his request.
Goztow wrote on Tue, 13 April 2010 02:37 Dear Miss Troll, Dear Mister Troll, Yes, you who are searching through messages to reply with plecos, to call people faggots or even better to start flame fights. You, who's day is a success only if you managed to cause e-drama. You, who's deliberately provocative messages have caused countless hours of moderating time. You, the master of ad hominem who lack any substance or relevence to back up your arguments. Oh you, dear Troll, please consider this gentile message from the moderating team... There, now that that's done... I'd like to note that this message is quite serious. We've noticed a serious increase of troll-messages (I don't know how to call them otherwise) during the last weeks, months, surprisingly even more so from users that recently came back (right, Dover?). We'd like it to cease. It's starting to take too much of our time. So please quit it... A very elequent post, my liege. However, trolling is a matter of opinion. One could argue that a recent PM I received regarding the size of my signature - from one of the very moderators on behalf of whom you speak - was naught but an attempt to invoke angst. I edited my signature, effectively removing but one line break, and now it is said that "No further changes are required." IMO squabbling over a line or two of text is more inappropriate and immature than posting a picture of a fish. With all due respect, you can't have posted this thread not expecting to get a few responses, so it puzzles me why it was not locked from the word go. Nonetheless, I concur with your finding that 'evil begat evil' and extend some degree of appreciation. edited to fix quote.
crazfulla wrote on Thu, 15 April 2010 04:15 With all due respect, you can't have posted this thread not expecting to get a few responses, so it puzzles me why it was not locked from the word go. Because Goztoe is super awesome. Seriously, he's an internet hero, and he doesn't run away from opposing opinions. Now all the has to do is give archerfag what he's asking for and this thread shall be complete.
Your signature is effectively still too big. Please make it so your entire signature fits in the space currently used by your image. Quote: Signatures: These should be nothing more than a small image and few lines of text. Once signatures start getting larger than 8-10 lines of text in size(approximately 450 pixels ACROSS * 150 pixels DOWN), it distracts from the actual post. The purpose of a forum is to read what other people have to say, not to look at the "pretty pictures" in their signature. The file size of signature should also not exceed 512Kb. If you think that this is too large, you can choose to hide signatures in the Control Panel. Administrators and Moderators reserve the right to restrict your access to the "signatures" feature if you abuse the privilege by using it to violate any of the forum rules.
I did measure it in MS Paint (he's referring to me) and I'm pretty sure it's within the limits. Has to be said, of all the responses I've had to signature requests, this has been the most interesting.
Fool! If a signature is described as distracting, shouldn't it be... well... distracting? I don't even know who's signature you're referring to..
R315r4z0r wrote on Thu, 15 April 2010 10:09 Fool! If a signature is described as distracting, shouldn't it be... well... distracting? I don't even know who's signature you're referring to.. what ya said? i couldnt stop looking at your tiny sig
CarrierII wrote on Thu, 15 April 2010 15:05 I did measure it in MS Paint (he's referring to me) and I'm pretty sure it's within the limits. Has to be said, of all the responses I've had to signature requests, this has been the most interesting. I also measured it back to front. Maybe I was looking at it sideways, it is still too large. :-s Sorry.
CarrierII wrote on Thu, 15 April 2010 11:21 CarrierII wrote on Thu, 15 April 2010 15:05 I did measure it in MS Paint (he's referring to me) and I'm pretty sure it's within the limits. Has to be said, of all the responses I've had to signature requests, this has been the most interesting. I also measured it back to front. Maybe I was looking at it sideways, it is still too large. :-s Sorry. maybe if you remove some space between the lines
Measuring signatures? ROFL. Ironic troll is ironic. It says I am entitled to one image and a few lines of text. At present my signature is exactly that. Have a nice day. PS I do realise there is an extra line break in the quote, however it is put there magically. PPS: If my signature infuriates you so, just take it our on that anchorman?? guy.
crazfulla wrote on Thu, 15 April 2010 16:05 Measuring signatures? ROFL. Ironic troll is ironic. It says I am entitled to one image and a few lines of text. At present my signature is exactly that. Have a nice day. PS I do realise there is an extra line break in the quote, however it is put there magically. PPS: If my signature infuriates you so, just take it our on that anchorman?? guy. the funny thing is, you're serious that's the best part
Quote: Once signatures start getting larger than 8-10 lines of text in size(approximately 450 pixels ACROSS * 150 pixels DOWN), it distracts from the actual post
OK - I'll try one more time with the reasonable approach: Your signature is too large. When I mistakenly informed you via PM that your prior modification was enough, I was wrong. There's no point providing pixel based measurements if we don't enforce them. You signature is currently 100 pixels too large, give or take a couple. I apologise for measuring your signature incorrectly last time - now please edit it! (And I won't disable signatures in my CP because as a moderator I need to enforce the rules, which includes ensuring the content of signatures is within the rules)
Fools! It looks to me that Gozy, Carrier, Crazfulla, & Starbuzz (people on this page) have about the same size signature... (Carrier's being eyeballed as the smallest) If you're going to enforce one of them, then you should enforce all of them... I mean, the difference is a hair. My point is that just by eyeballing, it is very hard, if not impossible, to determine the exact length specifications of a signature unless you are specifically looking for it. The only time a large signature is a distraction is if it is a distraction.
By approximately 46 pixels. Byebye second quote. In a spoiler now.
spoilers in sigs are broken. When clicking, it only unspoilers the first in of your posts on that page. Just get rid of that huge honking image. the woman is wearing a terrible shade of lipstick anyway.
Dover wrote on Fri, 16 April 2010 12:01 spoilers in sigs are broken. When clicking, it only unspoilers the first in of your posts on that page. Just get rid of that huge honking image. the woman is wearing a terrible shade of lipstick anyway. Dover, I would suggest you withdraw this.
CarrierII wrote on Fri, 16 April 2010 05:18 Dover wrote on Fri, 16 April 2010 12:01 spoilers in sigs are broken. When clicking, it only unspoilers the first in of your posts on that page. Just get rid of that huge honking image. the woman is wearing a terrible shade of lipstick anyway. Dover, I would suggest you withdraw this. ? It's true. Try unspoilering your sig and reading it in one of your further-down-the-page posts.
No, not the spoiler part, you fool!
Took me some time to get the sig, dont be so angry at dover.
The part about the image being huge? I guess relative to desktop wallpapers or PLECOS or other high-resolution images, it isn't that big, but it does take up a majority of the signature, so I guess I should have quantified my statement better. Or the part about the lipstick? It's true. It's much too dark. If she wasn't quite as pale, or if she was a brunet, she could pull that off, but as it is I would have recommended something in a lighter pink. EDIT: In other news, why hasn't Archerfag been banned yet? >:[
nobody wants to read any more archerman posts...mods do your job already
there's already one in this thread...i wouldnt bring it up otherwise
Goztow wrote on Sat, 17 April 2010 05:31 Make a poll... you never know... I've seen plenty of polls about Archerman and G-man, and no action was ever taken.
One in its own topic, with a clear title.