Remembering the old GSN

[PeterMarshallFan]

[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Feb 14 2004, 09:15 AM\'] Chuck's brand of psychodrama we don't need here. Chuck-B-Gone. [/quote]
 Thank you, Chris.

[gameshowguy2000]

I also agree with Chris and everyone else here.

I saw it coming, and I'm grateful it came this Valentine's Day.

If Chuck can't show his love for this board (and I knew he couldn't), and all he wants to do is show his love for treating us like ATGSers (I'm not one of them), he can go back over to ATGS, and show his love for the trolls.

And I would like to mention that this is a G-rated site/message board. I'm sure the Ex-ATGSers like Zach and newbies like me (although I've been here for almost 3 months) would love to keep it that way.

Other than that, that's all I have to say.

[Brandon Brooks]

[quote name=\'gameshowguy2000\' date=\'Feb 14 2004, 12:52 PM\'] And I would like to mention that this is a G-rated site/message board. I'm sure the Ex-ATGSers like Zach and newbies like me (although I've been here for almost 3 months) would love to keep it that way. [/quote]
 No, it isn't.  I mean, if you're old enough to post, you're old enough to deal with potentially mature themes.  PG-13 is more like it.

Brandon Brooks

[melman1]

As someone who spent almost NO time on ATGS, I have not Clue One what any of you people are talking about on this thread.   And I can't be alone.

But I will say that I thought these boards were going to be admin'd in such a way as to keep out all the gremlins, trolls and etc. that ruined ATGS.  Now I'm not sure any more.  It always frosts my a$$ when someone claims that they don't read a message board "but have friends looking out for them".  That's always been proven to be grade-A crap.

[MikeK]

[quote name=\'gameshowguy2000\' date=\'Feb 14 2004, 12:52 PM\'] If Chuck can't show his love for this board (and I knew he couldn't), and all he wants to do is show his love for treating us like ATGSers (I'm not one of them), he can go back over to ATGS, and show his love for the trolls.

And I would like to mention that this is a G-rated site/message board. I'm sure the Ex-ATGSers like Zach and newbies like me (although I've been here for almost 3 months) would love to keep it that way. [/quote]
 I'm going to support Chuck.  Chuck doesn't have to "show his love for this board".  If someone uses Chuck's name in a way he doesn't take too kindly, I believe he has a right to object.  I wasn't too cool with Zach using my name as well, especially since <Don Smith>the flight to Clueville</DS> left without another passenger for the umpteenth time.  Y'know Zach, you don't have to reply to every damn message just so you can fulfill your own self-indulgence.

Trust me, Chuck doesn't like the trolls.  It's partially their fault that Chuck responds the way he has to certain posts, like those contained within this thread.  Yes, Chuck sometimes goes overboard on what he says or does but that's the way he reacts to certain situations.

And despite what you may think, this board is hardly G-rated.  When Chris and Matt start serving cookies and fruit punch, and there's a mandatory nap time every weekday afternoon, then it'll be more like the kindergarten you want.

If supporting Chuck makes me an idiot or an ass, let me be treated like Chuck and ban me.  I don't agree 100% with what Chuck did but I'd rather the place have a little more intelligence and even some debate like this thread than be a sterile place where the clueless and immature can spew off about total idiocy and get away with it scott-free.

[dzinkin]

[quote name=\'hmtriplecrown\' date=\'Feb 14 2004, 02:17 PM\'] I'm going to support Chuck.  Chuck doesn't have to "show his love for this board".  If someone uses Chuck's name in a way he doesn't take too kindly, I believe he has a right to object.  I wasn't too cool with Zach using my name as well, especially since <Don Smith>the flight to Clueville</DS> left without another passenger for the umpteenth time.  Y'know Zach, you don't have to reply to every damn message just so you can fulfill your own self-indulgence.

Trust me, Chuck doesn't like the trolls.  It's partially their fault that Chuck responds the way he has to certain posts, like those contained within this thread.  Yes, Chuck sometimes goes overboard on what he says or does but that's the way he reacts to certain situations.

And despite what you may think, this board is hardly G-rated.  When Chris and Matt start serving cookies and fruit punch, and there's a mandatory nap time every weekday afternoon, then it'll be more like the kindergarten you want.

If supporting Chuck makes me an idiot or an ass, let me be treated like Chuck and ban me.  I don't agree 100% with what Chuck did but I'd rather the place have a little more intelligence and even some debate like this thread than be a sterile place where the clueless and immature can spew off about total idiocy and get away with it scott-free. [/quote]
 Let me be the second to support Chuck -- in fact, I concur with everything Mike said.  Save for the "flight to Clueville" line... I think it was Chris Lemon and not Don Smith who first used it in ATGS, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that point. :-)

I would rather have a thousand Chuck Gibsons than one gameshowguy2000, one whoserman, or one Thad Dixon.

[Dbacksfan12]

[quote name=\'gameshowguy2000\' date=\'Feb 14 2004, 12:52 PM\'] And I would like to mention that this is a G-rated site/message board. I'm sure the Ex-ATGSers like Zach and newbies like me (although I've been here for almost 3 months) would love to keep it that way.
 [/quote]
I'd like to throw my voice in to support Chuck too.  Back in the ATGS days, we didn't see eye-to-eye; mainly cause I watched NASCAR.  Since then, we've chatted on MSN regularly, and gotten to know each other pretty well.

If some of you took one nanosecond to think before you posted, this kind of crap wouldn't be happen.  But when you post something that makes you look like an idiot; expected to be treated like one.

As for gameshowguy 2000, I wasn't aware of the "G" rating.  I suppose you take your girlfriend [if you have one] to see the afternoon matinee of "Bambi" too--and after that, hit the sack because it's your 7:00 bedtime.  

And PeterMarshallFan--Your comments were only bait to Chuck.  IMO, you should be in the isolation booth or something for your "Pull-Ups" crap; but once again, that's not for me to decide.

Oh and Mike--it was indeed Chris Lemon, not myself who came up with the "flight to Clueville" line.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'melman1\' date=\'Feb 14 2004, 11:28 AM\'] It always frosts my a$$ when someone claims that they don't read a message board "but have friends looking out for them".  That's always been proven to be grade-A crap. [/quote]
Much of Gibson's utterances over the years were essentially nothing but Grade-A crap, so we've pretty much come to expect it.

I checked back once, at the old ATGS, and I remember finding a string of three months where he posted almost daily, and NOT ONE POST was topical, they were all "STFU" or "go away"-type flames.

Say what you will about how I posted back then (hell, say what you will about how I do it here , but at least I keep it germane to the subject matter most of the time.

Over Chuck's last couple of appearances here, I'm heartened to see everyone rise up, especially those who had to tolerate his act at ATGS, and tell him in no uncertain terms that his schtick is not welcome here. Standing up to the neighborhood bully is never easy, and I'm proud of all of you.

[chris319]

Here's a clue for everyone:

Some members make occasional, well-thought-out contributions and that's all. Some make a lot of on-topic contributions but ruffle feathers in the process. Some don't contribute very much to the arena of game show discussion yet when they open their mouths all that comes out is off-topic invective and "defending-my-honor" posts. The first two we can deal with; the third makes it very hard for us to justify keeping that member around.

Chuck has posted a grand total of seven messages. How many of those posts have been on-topic? Zero. How many of those posts insulted others on the board? All of them. If all he's going to do is antagonize other members without contributing anything to the discussion, we might as well be back at ATGS. Matt and I don't want to spend a whole lot of time refereeing these incidents. If Chuck brought anything worthwhile to the party we might be inclined to keep him around and tell him to cool it with the ad-hominems, but such is not the case.

[PeterMarshallFan]

Now what, a petition to reinstate Chuck? This gets more and more bizarre by the moment.

I still fail to see what Zach did wrong. He might have said something stupid, but he didn't inslut Chuck or Mike. IMO, it was some kind of grudge or something he has for Zach that made Chuck come on here last night, otherwise I'm stumped.

And PeterMarshallFan--Your comments were only bait to Chuck. IMO, you should be in the isolation booth or something for your "Pull-Ups" crap; but once again, that's not for me to decide.

Chuck needed to get back what he deals out. His "waaah, someone said my name" act was juvenile, hence the Pull Ups comment.

No, Chuck didn't have to "show his love for the board." But coming up once in a while to toss a few flames, then going back into remission makes him just slightly above a troll in my book. If he actually contributed something to this board, I would have less of a problem with him. But he didn't, unless saying "ZHIFOS" and flaming everyone who questions him makes him "intelligent," in which case I'm glad to be ignorant. I digress to Chris L. and Chris C.

Now we're starting to sound like the GSN board. Do we really want to end up like that?

[beatlefreak84]

As somebody who had to deal with a lot of Gibson's antagonistic remarks at ATGS, I for one am glad to see that many are opposed to his trash talk here and, especially, kudos to Chris and Matt for taking care of it in a hurry.

His recent posts here made Chris Lemon's look like olive branches!  But, seriously, for those in support of his actions, I will admit, nobody is perfect.  Perhaps many of you were angry at those Gibson was flaming.  But, there is never an excuse for showing up specifically to flame other people and offer absolutely nothing constructive.  Chris L., I have to side with you:  you may get out of hand on occasion, but at least you stick with the topic at hand:  game shows.

Basically, here's my short little rant:  People may not be perfect, but it still gives nobody the right to simply show up and slam those who aren't.  That's for ATGS, the place we all left for that exact reason!  For those of you who like Gibson and his antagonistic ranting, then may I suggest going back to ATGS and, while you're there, say hi to Harvey and Grant for me!  

Otherwise, let's keep the posts on-topic (as I didn't do here!).

ObGameShows:  Super Millionaire is New!  New!  New!  (he he; just had to get it out of my system!)

Anthony

[Brandon Brooks]

[quote name=\'beatlefreak84\' date=\'Feb 14 2004, 04:28 PM\'] As somebody who had to deal with a lot of Gibson's antagonistic remarks at ATGS... [/quote]
 Okay, this is getting old.  Could we move on?

Brandon Brooks

[Matt Ottinger]

This thread probably should be named "Remembering the old ATGS" for the direction it's taken.  I might as well weigh in also.

Chuck and I have had many respectful, civil correspondences in the past.  Until very recently, I thought we saw eye-to-eye on a lot of this internet stuff.  Many of us remember and respect his anti-troll crusades on Usenet.  From all indications, he seems like he'd be an interesting guy to hang out with.

Still, the decision to ban him was easy.  Painful, but easy.  As Chris said, he was 0-for-7 on posts.  He clearly had nothing to say to this group except to insult the intelligence of everybody here, and of some members he personally doesn't like in particular.  No, of course Chuck didn't have to "show his love for this board".  He was welcome to post his thoughts about game shows, and if an insult landed here or there within such a message, he wouldn't be the only one to have ever done that.  But if his only reason for having an account is to slam fellow members, that's something we just don't need.

And what made him go so ballistic?  Because Zach Horan mentioned his name in one of his posts?  And not even a negative mention at that.  I'm sorry, but for someone who's specifically claimed that he's found peace and happiness, that's a whole bunch of unfocussed hostility that we just don't need focussed here.

Finally, many of you have made it clear -- ABUNDANTLY clear -- that there are members here that you don't particularly care for.  I can sympathize; there are a number of members here that *I* don't particularly care for.  But that doesn't make them "trolls".  One reason this place succeeds is because of the number of members we have.  We know not every post is going to be a gem, and we know that not everybody is going to find our inclusionary system to be their cup of tea.  But we still think we've got a pretty good thing going.  If you like it, that's great.  If you merely tolerate it to find the gems, that's good too.  If you don't like it, all I can say is that there are plenty of alternatives.

[dzinkin]

[quote name=\'PeterMarshallFan\' date=\'Feb 14 2004, 04:19 PM\'] I still fail to see what Zach did wrong. He might have said something stupid, but he didn't inslut Chuck or Mike. [/quote]
 BAN PETERMARSHALLFAN!  HE CALLED CHUCK AND MIKE SLUTS!

Just kidding.  I'm not normally one to comment on spelling, but this was too good to resist. :-D

[gameshowguy2000]

3 words: Let's Move On!