The CB.n Thread

Stamper wrote:

I just been banned for a week because I said QOS and Marc Foster were sh**e.

You stopped drinking the Kool-Aid? Bad Stamper.

CBn continues to sound like a fun loving, cool kind of place to hang out at.

Stamper wrote:

I just been banned for a week because I said QOS and Marc Foster were sh**e.

I got banned for two days because I admitted that I had a not so legal version of the SF cd while everybody was reviewing it but did not admit such an act.

But something went wrong and my account could not be reinstated, I even approuched the staff there who did not even answer my questions. I joined that site before DAD.

I am still not sure about the site, but admit that their threads on writers and their work is actually very good when compared to the other 007 minded sites.

Stamper wrote:

I just been banned for a week because I said QOS and Marc Foster were sh**e.

I wish I could be re-banned by CBn all over again; everybody should be banned by Jim at least once.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Stamper wrote:

I just been banned for a week because I said QOS and Marc Foster were sh**e.

I wish I could be re-banned by CBn all over again; everybody should be banned by Jim at least once.

Odd, I openly called him an asshole and no one banned me or sent me a single disciplinary pm...I still have a live account there but don't use it.

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Stamper wrote:

I just been banned for a week because I said QOS and Marc Foster were sh**e.

I wish I could be re-banned by CBn all over again; everybody should be banned by Jim at least once.

Odd, I openly called him an asshole and no one banned me or sent me a single disciplinary pm...I still have a live account there but don't use it.

Jim likes big butts and he cannot lie.

Anybody here that wasn't banned from CB.n? I still have an account but never was a regular. I think the most activity I did there was when MI6 would shut down randomly a few occasions.

I have an account there. Haven't used it in years.

Same here. Back during the brief period of my life when I didn't have any semblance of a life I would post at both CBn and MI6 but only posted very, very rarely over there since. I don't know if my account is still active, but given some of my well formed and cogent arguments about how Quantum was crap I wouldn't be surprised if I was banned or at least unpopular.

There are (or were) some very bright posters there but the chaff at CBn has always made MI6 look like a MENSA meeting.

The name is Banned. James Banned.

Active member over at CB.n here. I get the resentment. It definitely runs different over there than here. But the community is also much much larger which is likely it's greatest weakness. I am not necessarily approving of the removals of some members but I do understand the need to have a strict set of guidelines and sticking to them. I for one like Jim and his, to put it mildly, 'cheeky' ways of running things. But I've never had suspension or ban issues.

As far as the QoS stuff over there. I think CB.n members have an abundant of negative feelings towards it. I mean, there are more Daniel Craig leg humpers over there but some of the well articulated members have numerous times expressed there malcontent with the film. And Stamper, I am surprised you got removed for that reason. I've had a loose tongue over there on a number of occasions. Were there any other incidents?

Nope, it was just my language. Not that it matters I only post from time to time there.

Chief of SIS wrote:

Active member over at CB.n here. I get the resentment. It definitely runs different over there than here. But the community is also much much larger which is likely it's greatest weakness. I am not necessarily approving of the removals of some members but I do understand the need to have a strict set of guidelines and sticking to them. I for one like Jim and his, to put it mildly, 'cheeky' ways of running things. But I've never had suspension or ban issues.

As far as the QoS stuff over there. I think CB.n members have an abundant of negative feelings towards it. I mean, there are more Daniel Craig leg humpers over there but some of the well articulated members have numerous times expressed there malcontent with the film. And Stamper, I am surprised you got removed for that reason. I've had a loose tongue over there on a number of occasions. Were there any other incidents?

You might call it "cheeky", but I would call it hypocritical. The standards that Jim chooses to uphold and enforce are arbitrary, capricious, and select; they don't apply to everyone, and they certainly don't apply to everyone equally.

For example, Jim has a select group of people that are his leg-humpers; when they get out of line by starting unnecessary flame-wars to the point where it is so obvious that they are the instigators, Jim's default reaction is: 'This is for everybody. Knock it off!' Because he can't, and won't, call out his own leg-humpers, he simply orders a blanket statement be made to apply to everyone, even though we all know it's aimed at just a select few. He'll never criticize his own people, but he'll spare little time banning, suspending, or calling out someone he simply doesn't like or agree with, even if there's a thread full of 100 other people doing the exact same thing.

The thread that triggered getting me removed from CBn started with a post someone made about Daniel Craig (I think it was in reference to COWBOYS AND ALIENS). Whatever it was, GermanLady, who is Daniel Craig's biggest leg-humper, was extremely offended by the suggestion that Craig isn't a big box office draw outside of the Bond series. She immediately begins making personal insults. Does Jim ever address that? No. Does Jim ever apologize or help the people who are the victims of her attacks? Never. If Jim worked in a police station he'd be asking women who came in claiming to be raped 'what they did to bring on the attack.' Instead of stepping in earlier and taking decisive action against the people launching personal assaults, or going back and re-reading the entire thread (which was only a few pages at the time) before making any decisions, he simply defaults to the position of the people that he likes.

For another example, when I had to let someone go on this board (after repeated warnings and moderation), I offered that individual a full 24 hours to say goodbye to the people on the board and 'clean up his/her affairs'. Tried to offer the person a dignified, graceful exit from the board rather than abruptly pulling the plug. Did I get any such consideration from Jim? No. Not an email. Not a PM. Not a telephone call. Not a letter in the post. Nothing. Zilch. Zero. Nada. Just complete and total abandonment. Jim, and whoever else is running that show, are classless, tasteless, tactless individuals, even though they put on great pretensions that they are otherwise.

Regardless, success is the best revenge. We can always make this place better than CBn ever was or could hope to be. Or, if success eludes us, I would be willing to join or create a massive plot (like Elektra or Silva) to reek havoc upon our one-time ally. Actually, now that I think of it, success take a lot of hard work, preparation, and determination. I'm not sure I want to work hard to obtain the things that I want in life. Maybe we should take the shortcut. Let's destroy CBn instead. Anybody with me?

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Maybe we should take the shortcut. Let's destroy CBn instead. Anybody with me?

Frustrations understood. Yet, I firmly believe there is a difference between running a decade long, massive community that has public eyes on it and a smaller, tight network such as this. The very pleasant approach you take here to bringing down the ban hammer just might not work at CBn. But maybe it could. My point is merely is that it's an apples and oranges scenario to a certain extent. And destroying a usually fruitful, active, and fellow Bond community because it has management issues? I'd rather not.

Quote :

Maybe we should take the shortcut. Let's destroy CBn instead. Anybody with me?

If anyone here has the hacking skills to reverse that hideous colour scheme, I would say that's a good start.

Vesper wrote:

Quote :

Maybe we should take the shortcut. Let's destroy CBn instead. Anybody with me?

If anyone here has the hacking skills to reverse that hideous colour scheme, I would say that's a good start.

There is actually a little tab on the bottom that alters the forum to a blue/white forum provider setting. Takes all the Bond fixings away but it's easier on the eyes.

Chief of SIS wrote:

Frustrations understood. Yet, I firmly believe there is a difference between running a decade long, massive community that has public eyes on it and a smaller, tight network such as this.

I guess I'm curious why they choose the approach they take when they are as "massive" as you say they are. You'd think with a much larger database of potential posters that they could more easily absorb the occasional odd personality or two, yet they run that message board like a Stalinist concentration camp straight outta South Central Siberia. You'd think with the 'smaller, tighter network' that BAB has that we would be more tense, stiff, rigid and uptight, but we're not.

Not sure who the "eyes" are that are watching CBn (unless you mean MGM or EON, in which case it is something that CBn brought upon themselves).

Quote :

The very pleasant approach you take here to bringing down the ban hammer just might not work at CBn. But maybe it could.

It could, but I don't criticize CBn for not using the humane and compassionate approach when terminating someone if they've given that person plenty of warnings. When I had to remove someone from posting in these forums earlier this year, I viewed it as a mercy killing. I tried to give them something that was not given to me: an explanation...a warning....a friendly reminder....and then a note clearly explaining that it was not going to work anymore and that this person was going to have 24 hours to say his/her final goodbyes to the group and make any last posts he/she wanted to (a "last meal" of sorts).

I mean, what's the point of being a moderator if you're not going to actually do the moderating part? Jim is a moderator, but he never said anything to me in email about being on the edge. I never had a warning or was put on moderation or had my posts screened first. Was Jim doing his job as moderator? One day he just pulled the plug on me, like an old grandmother whose healthcare The State no longer wished to continue subsidizing. Jim, like Pontius Pilate, washed his hands of me by putting my life or death up to a popularity vote. Jim has my blood on his hands. Jim has shed righteous blood. Jim is a killer.

Whhhhhhhhhhhhhhhyyyyy Jim? Why?

But I'm not bitter or anything.

Vesper wrote:

Quote :

Maybe we should take the shortcut. Let's destroy CBn instead. Anybody with me?

If anyone here has the hacking skills to reverse that hideous colour scheme, I would say that's a good start.

Like Constantinople or Rome before it, the message board has become a breeding ground for suffering and injustice. It is beyond saving and must be allowed to die. CBn... must be destroyed

I'm all for destroying CBn after they destroyed me.

So like this, i have always prefered MI6 over CB.n and i have also always thought that the site is better and the discussions are better at MI6. But what does upset you guys about that site? Is it the members or the mentality of the mods?

Mr Bond wrote:

So like this, i have always prefered MI6 over CB.n and i have also always thought that the site is better and the discussions are better at MI6. But what does upset you guys about that site? Is it the members or the mentality of the mods?

I wasn't at MI6 when the unpleasantness started (I had been suspended from MI6 back in 2006; I was terminated from CBn in August 2011; the only way BAB can top MI6 or CBn is to murder me), but I think a lot of long-time posters at MI6 were upset not only with the format change, but the indifference shown by the moderators and administrators who refused to leave the old posts standing so that people could access their history and their writings. Basically, MI6 told the members to take it or leave it, and a lot of people left it.

We've had one or two people leave BAB, but not because we are too restrictive; just the opposite, really. We've had a few leave the site because they thought we were too free; that we gave people too much freedom to say what they felt. We are also much less politically correct around here. At different times some individuals have had avatars that included full-frontal nudity, which you would never get away with over at the other two sites. The avatars are bigger over here, and they can be changed whenever you want. There's more freedom of expression at BAB than the other two sites, but on the down-side we don't allow signatures. We have an "Adults Only" section that the other two sites never had that I can recall.

That's what i like about this forum. It can take a joke and that everyone can joke with each other. Back at MI6 everyone take's everything so serious. And there's a lots of spammers who always are looking for a brawl or to re-post old news etc... The forum layout isn't good there either..

And of course the copyright issues over there that can't allow anyone to post something EoN related... :x

Mr Bond wrote:

That's what i like about this forum. It can take a joke and that everyone can joke with each other. Back at MI6 everyone take's everything so serious. And there's a lots of spammers who always are looking for a brawl or to re-post old news etc... The forum layout isn't good there either..

And of course the copyright issues over there that can't allow anyone to post something EoN related... :x

MI6 or CBn? I know CBn can't post any images from any of the Bond films or use them on their website because they published parts of the script for DAD before the film came out. I do wonder, though, if anybody at SONY, MGM, or EON ever visits the site to make sure they are complying.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Mr Bond wrote:

That's what i like about this forum. It can take a joke and that everyone can joke with each other. Back at MI6 everyone take's everything so serious. And there's a lots of spammers who always are looking for a brawl or to re-post old news etc... The forum layout isn't good there either..

And of course the copyright issues over there that can't allow anyone to post something EoN related... :x

MI6 or CBn?

Both, though I think Cb.n's loosened up on copyright recently.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

I wasn't at MI6 when the unpleasantness started (I had been suspended from MI6 back in 2006; I was terminated from CBn in August 2011; the only way BAB can top MI6 or CBn is to murder me), but I think a lot of long-time posters at MI6 were upset not only with the format change, but the indifference shown by the moderators and administrators who refused to leave the old posts standing so that people could access their history and their writings. Basically, MI6 told the members to take it or leave it, and a lot of people left it.

There's also the way MI6 was moderated. Those who stayed after the format change got a rude shock when Page started ruling the place with an iron fist.

The short version is that Page wanted to create a forum that was open to all ages and where everyone respected everyone else. Which is fair enough, but the way he went about it was to root out any and all disagreements. I could post "I think the sky is red" and no-one could criticise me for it. All ideas were good ideas because someone had had those ideas, and to criticise them - however much they might be deserving of it - was a cardinal sin. And it didn't help that there were a few finge lunatics who gamed the system; they had some extreme ideas that a lot of people thought were ridiculous, but as soon as anyone disagree with them, the lunatics ran straight to the moderators and made a song and dance about how they were being stifled, and the mdoerators - stupidly - bought it.

CBn was going the same way when I left.