Why was this closed?
- Thread starter _carmi
- Start date
This doesn't help either. Not to come across as arrogant but this thread was about me closing a thread so maybe it's best that you reply to my reasons for closing it rather than going on an unspecified rant and say (indirectly) that I'm abusing my power. I even quoted what Sebastian said about closing threads so perhaps we could get a discussion going about the closing of threads in general but your post is nothing more than pointing fingers without offering solutions.
To repeat in short: I closed the thread because it wasn't a thread. Although wikipedia isn't exactly the best source for definitions they define a thread as: "A thread is defined by a title, an additional description that may summarise the intended discussion, and an opening or original post which opens whatever dialogue or makes whatever announcement the poster wished"
He had a thread title (and we don't use descriptions) but where's the part in bold? Two vague, unrelated statements that did not make it at all clear what he wanted to discuss? It's not my opinion of the thread that made me close it, it's that in my opinion there was no thread to begin with.
An example:
Thread title: Cock
Original post: [nothing]
I would close that thread because there is no original post and no direction in the thread. If that person desperately wanted to discuss cocks he could re-post it with an original post, ie:
Thread title: Cock
Original post: Do you prefer the juicy or the dry, skin-eroded kind?
Then people can discuss cocks all they want. It's not the topic that I'm "denying the entire board", it's the fact that there was no (seemingly) intended discussion.
And you feel this applies to a thread where 23/24 posts are off-topic or offensive?
I'll admit that my knowledge of Yeshua's post played a part in me closing it. If another member had posted it I'd just think he was drunk/tired/forgot to complete the thread and maybe he'd explain his intentions later but with Yeshua it just seemed like another blog disguised as a thread, which is why I would've moved it to Blogs had that option been available. And since the thread went nowhere and Yeshua didn't bother to bring it back on track (rather just continued the off-topic posts) I'd say my assumptions were correct.
Now I'm going to apply some lotion, my cock's dry.
To repeat in short: I closed the thread because it wasn't a thread. Although wikipedia isn't exactly the best source for definitions they define a thread as: "A thread is defined by a title, an additional description that may summarise the intended discussion, and an opening or original post which opens whatever dialogue or makes whatever announcement the poster wished"
He had a thread title (and we don't use descriptions) but where's the part in bold? Two vague, unrelated statements that did not make it at all clear what he wanted to discuss? It's not my opinion of the thread that made me close it, it's that in my opinion there was no thread to begin with.
An example:
Thread title: Cock
Original post: [nothing]
I would close that thread because there is no original post and no direction in the thread. If that person desperately wanted to discuss cocks he could re-post it with an original post, ie:
Thread title: Cock
Original post: Do you prefer the juicy or the dry, skin-eroded kind?
Then people can discuss cocks all they want. It's not the topic that I'm "denying the entire board", it's the fact that there was no (seemingly) intended discussion.
And you feel this applies to a thread where 23/24 posts are off-topic or offensive?
I'll admit that my knowledge of Yeshua's post played a part in me closing it. If another member had posted it I'd just think he was drunk/tired/forgot to complete the thread and maybe he'd explain his intentions later but with Yeshua it just seemed like another blog disguised as a thread, which is why I would've moved it to Blogs had that option been available. And since the thread went nowhere and Yeshua didn't bother to bring it back on track (rather just continued the off-topic posts) I'd say my assumptions were correct.
Now I'm going to apply some lotion, my cock's dry.
It was quite clear to many that he wanted to discuss weather the pill was a conspiracy to control population. The thread went off topic because of certain users on the site, why is it fair that those who wanted to contribute positively to the conversation be denied it? Because it was your opinion to close it, and as i all ready mentioned, using your personal opinion to make that decision is not what a mod should do.
And i'm not just reffering to that thread alone, i'm talking about any thread past present and future.
Look at like this, you get arrested by the police because you wore a pink shirt. wearing a pink shirt isnt a crime, but because the police officer opinion is that he didn't like the pink shirt, he abused his authority and arrested you.
I know its a bit of a weird example but that is exactly what is happening here.
I also stated the correct solution to how to manage threads.
If 23/24 are offtopic/offensive, delete the 23 posts, its not hard, just tick the boxes and click delete, allow the rest of us to participate in the conversation. If you keep closing threads, people wont want to post, people will keep leaving and people will stop joining, after all, what is the point of starting a discussion if you are denying people from contributing?
Like I said, if SiGh and me are able to do this, why can't the rest of the Mods?
I'm not pointing fingers, nearly all mods here are guilty of it.
And I'm in no way point my finger at you Chronic, I wuv u <3
Again this isn't aim at any one individual, im talking to all mods here.
And i'm not just reffering to that thread alone, i'm talking about any thread past present and future.
Look at like this, you get arrested by the police because you wore a pink shirt. wearing a pink shirt isnt a crime, but because the police officer opinion is that he didn't like the pink shirt, he abused his authority and arrested you.
I know its a bit of a weird example but that is exactly what is happening here.
I also stated the correct solution to how to manage threads.
If 23/24 are offtopic/offensive, delete the 23 posts, its not hard, just tick the boxes and click delete, allow the rest of us to participate in the conversation. If you keep closing threads, people wont want to post, people will keep leaving and people will stop joining, after all, what is the point of starting a discussion if you are denying people from contributing?
Like I said, if SiGh and me are able to do this, why can't the rest of the Mods?
I'm not pointing fingers, nearly all mods here are guilty of it.
And I'm in no way point my finger at you Chronic, I wuv u <3
Again this isn't aim at any one individual, im talking to all mods here.
Yes when he said
it seemed quite clear that he wanted to discuss that. But then...
Key phrase in bold. Now it's not so clear anymore. So what does he want to discuss? A conspiracy theory? Or the moral issues of providing pills that interfere with your biology?
Well lets test that theory.
For the sake of conversation lets say Yeshua wanted to discuss A) conspiracy theory surrounding the pill and B) moral issue of issuing the pill. Quote me all the posts that reply to that. I need to point out beforehand that simply mentioning the pill doesn't make it on-topic, it needs to reply to either point A or B. So "the pill is great!" or "when my girl takes the pill she can't get pregnant hihi" do not apply.
I think you'll find that the only person who was on-topic was vg4030. Only he "contribute[d] positively to the conversation". Not saying I have a problem with most of the posts there, it's not their fault the thread was unclear and they simply looked at the title (which is not the way a thread works).
As for your police analogy, even though you said it's a weird example it still doesn't apply. I didn't arrest him for wearing a pink shirt, I arrested him for wearing a pillowcase with 2 holes and trying to pass it off as a shirt. It wasn't a bad thread, it was no thread (remember the definition of a thread, it's more than just a topic title).
I still feel I was right on closing that particular thread and I haven't seen a single argument that proves me wrong but I think you're more interested (rightfully so) in discussing the closing of threads in general so go for that. I've personally never seen a problem with the way threads are closed so I might stay out of that discussion.
By the way, I didn't take any offense to the whole pointing fingers thing. I just feel that whenever I was an admin/super mod/mod I've always been fair and open to criticism so I'll never let someone say I've abused my powers, even online
it seemed quite clear that he wanted to discuss that. But then...
Key phrase in bold. Now it's not so clear anymore. So what does he want to discuss? A conspiracy theory? Or the moral issues of providing pills that interfere with your biology?
Well lets test that theory.
For the sake of conversation lets say Yeshua wanted to discuss A) conspiracy theory surrounding the pill and B) moral issue of issuing the pill. Quote me all the posts that reply to that. I need to point out beforehand that simply mentioning the pill doesn't make it on-topic, it needs to reply to either point A or B. So "the pill is great!" or "when my girl takes the pill she can't get pregnant hihi" do not apply.
I think you'll find that the only person who was on-topic was vg4030. Only he "contribute[d] positively to the conversation". Not saying I have a problem with most of the posts there, it's not their fault the thread was unclear and they simply looked at the title (which is not the way a thread works).
As for your police analogy, even though you said it's a weird example it still doesn't apply. I didn't arrest him for wearing a pink shirt, I arrested him for wearing a pillowcase with 2 holes and trying to pass it off as a shirt. It wasn't a bad thread, it was no thread (remember the definition of a thread, it's more than just a topic title).
I still feel I was right on closing that particular thread and I haven't seen a single argument that proves me wrong but I think you're more interested (rightfully so) in discussing the closing of threads in general so go for that. I've personally never seen a problem with the way threads are closed so I might stay out of that discussion.
By the way, I didn't take any offense to the whole pointing fingers thing. I just feel that whenever I was an admin/super mod/mod I've always been fair and open to criticism so I'll never let someone say I've abused my powers, even online
Yes when he said
it seemed quite clear that he wanted to discuss that. But then...
Key phrase in bold. Now it's not so clear anymore. So what does he want to discuss? A conspiracy theory? Or the moral issues of providing pills that interfere with your biology?
Well lets test that theory.
For the sake of conversation lets say Yeshua wanted to discuss A) conspiracy theory surrounding the pill and B) moral issue of issuing the pill. Quote me all the posts that reply to that. I need to point out beforehand that simply mentioning the pill doesn't make it on-topic, it needs to reply to either point A or B. So "the pill is great!" or "when my girl takes the pill she can't get pregnant hihi" do not apply.
I think you'll find that the only person who was on-topic was vg4030. Only he "contribute[d] positively to the conversation". Not saying I have a problem with most of the posts there, it's not their fault the thread was unclear and they simply looked at the title (which is not the way a thread works).
As for your police analogy, even though you said it's a weird example it still doesn't apply. I didn't arrest him for wearing a pink shirt, I arrested him for wearing a pillowcase with 2 holes and trying to pass it off as a shirt. It wasn't a bad thread, it was no thread (remember the definition of a thread, it's more than just a topic title).
I still feel I was right on closing that particular thread and I haven't seen a single argument that proves me wrong but I think you're more interested (rightfully so) in discussing the closing of threads in general so go for that. I've personally never seen a problem with the way threads are closed so I might stay out of that discussion.
By the way, I didn't take any offense to the whole pointing fingers thing. I just feel that whenever I was an admin/super mod/mod I've always been fair and open to criticism so I'll never let someone say I've abused my powers, even online
it seemed quite clear that he wanted to discuss that. But then...
Key phrase in bold. Now it's not so clear anymore. So what does he want to discuss? A conspiracy theory? Or the moral issues of providing pills that interfere with your biology?
Well lets test that theory.
For the sake of conversation lets say Yeshua wanted to discuss A) conspiracy theory surrounding the pill and B) moral issue of issuing the pill. Quote me all the posts that reply to that. I need to point out beforehand that simply mentioning the pill doesn't make it on-topic, it needs to reply to either point A or B. So "the pill is great!" or "when my girl takes the pill she can't get pregnant hihi" do not apply.
I think you'll find that the only person who was on-topic was vg4030. Only he "contribute[d] positively to the conversation". Not saying I have a problem with most of the posts there, it's not their fault the thread was unclear and they simply looked at the title (which is not the way a thread works).
As for your police analogy, even though you said it's a weird example it still doesn't apply. I didn't arrest him for wearing a pink shirt, I arrested him for wearing a pillowcase with 2 holes and trying to pass it off as a shirt. It wasn't a bad thread, it was no thread (remember the definition of a thread, it's more than just a topic title).
I still feel I was right on closing that particular thread and I haven't seen a single argument that proves me wrong but I think you're more interested (rightfully so) in discussing the closing of threads in general so go for that. I've personally never seen a problem with the way threads are closed so I might stay out of that discussion.
By the way, I didn't take any offense to the whole pointing fingers thing. I just feel that whenever I was an admin/super mod/mod I've always been fair and open to criticism so I'll never let someone say I've abused my powers, even online
Closing threads isn't the answer to moderating.
I'm going to try to make my opinions brief and simple.
-Mods should leave an explanation when closing threads.
-Mods should lave an explanation when deleting posts.
"Too many off-topic posts. Make a new thread if you want to discuss the pill's pollution"
That should satisfy most people.
-Most threads should be left open
I agree with staying on topic thing but, then again, expanding the topic could prove useful.
Case in point: "Do You Believe In God? Why?" - It should end with "yes/no/maybe, because..." but it has expanded into a more broad discussion. It's not easy to read but most of the thoughts are relevant. And that broad discussion could open a new door in ones mind without leaving that particular thread.
When I posted the pollution post, it was all about trying to make something out of not-much. Maybe that's wrong, I don't know for sure, and I'm not here to make that kind of decision - I'll try to adapt to whatever rules are laid out for me. Personally, I think it's impossible to have a thread without jokers making jokes in it. This very thread is a proof of that, and I personally think those jokes add flavor.
Only thing I'm certain of is, there wasn't enough communication in this particular case.
-Mods should leave an explanation when closing threads.
-Mods should lave an explanation when deleting posts.
"Too many off-topic posts. Make a new thread if you want to discuss the pill's pollution"
That should satisfy most people.
-Most threads should be left open
I agree with staying on topic thing but, then again, expanding the topic could prove useful.
Case in point: "Do You Believe In God? Why?" - It should end with "yes/no/maybe, because..." but it has expanded into a more broad discussion. It's not easy to read but most of the thoughts are relevant. And that broad discussion could open a new door in ones mind without leaving that particular thread.
When I posted the pollution post, it was all about trying to make something out of not-much. Maybe that's wrong, I don't know for sure, and I'm not here to make that kind of decision - I'll try to adapt to whatever rules are laid out for me. Personally, I think it's impossible to have a thread without jokers making jokes in it. This very thread is a proof of that, and I personally think those jokes add flavor.
Only thing I'm certain of is, there wasn't enough communication in this particular case.
Let's discuss thread-closing, as Chronic suggested.
I believe that in the present condition of the board, threads shouldn't be closed until they are completely swept over by beef between members. Although that seems arbitrary, it's fairly easy to see. This will enable us to preserve activity in Our Block, while decreasing "why was my thread closed" activity in Letter to President.
It is to my understanding that a thread will die out if nobody has anything worth reading to say and if there is no beef. You achieve the same effect with closing a thread, but letting a thread die out gives people who hadn't seen the thread at first to reply with something worth saying.
The problem we've had lately is that certain rules haven't been enforced for over a year and members have gotten used to that. Now, all of a sudden, some admins and mods are pulling out the Rules and judging by them. Which is all fine and right, but you have to understand why the citizens of the board will rebel to that.
You can either lax the rules while keeping racism and beef out of threads or you can enforce the rules to the fullest extent. What we have nowadays is mods and admins being nit-picky when they choose to do so, and avoiding other threads as they wish.
Was Chronic right in closing Yeshua's thread when it comes to the rules? Yes.
Should 90% of active threads be closed because of the argument given by Chronic? Yes.
I believe that in the present condition of the board, threads shouldn't be closed until they are completely swept over by beef between members. Although that seems arbitrary, it's fairly easy to see. This will enable us to preserve activity in Our Block, while decreasing "why was my thread closed" activity in Letter to President.
It is to my understanding that a thread will die out if nobody has anything worth reading to say and if there is no beef. You achieve the same effect with closing a thread, but letting a thread die out gives people who hadn't seen the thread at first to reply with something worth saying.
The problem we've had lately is that certain rules haven't been enforced for over a year and members have gotten used to that. Now, all of a sudden, some admins and mods are pulling out the Rules and judging by them. Which is all fine and right, but you have to understand why the citizens of the board will rebel to that.
You can either lax the rules while keeping racism and beef out of threads or you can enforce the rules to the fullest extent. What we have nowadays is mods and admins being nit-picky when they choose to do so, and avoiding other threads as they wish.
Was Chronic right in closing Yeshua's thread when it comes to the rules? Yes.
Should 90% of active threads be closed because of the argument given by Chronic? Yes.
That's quite true. I was rather annoyed at first wondering why Carmi gave a fuck in the first place but now in retrospect I guess people saw it as part of the situation that's been going on for the past week. Combined with the fact that I didn't leave a reason for closing I can see now why this thread was made (I haven't really been on the board for the past 1-2 months so I didn't connect the dots).
Kudos to S O F I and Salty for explaining it briefly and in an objective manner. Those posts are the type that help. If a moderator is doing something wrong you put it the way they do (constructive criticism based on looking at the entire situation) rather than the passive-aggressive approach Carmi takes. Sorry if I'm making this personal Carmi but from what I've seen you've simply been a pain in the ass with the whole banning/moderating situation lately. You made this thread yet the only person who contributes less was Da_Funk (but that's by default eh Funky? :amuse
.
If there's one thing about discussions that fucking annoys me is when it doesn't come to a conclusion because otherwise it's just bitching back and forth.
So do people have a problem with moderation in general? Maybe it's best someone with a problem makes a new thread so a fresh discussion can start.
Kudos to S O F I and Salty for explaining it briefly and in an objective manner. Those posts are the type that help. If a moderator is doing something wrong you put it the way they do (constructive criticism based on looking at the entire situation) rather than the passive-aggressive approach Carmi takes. Sorry if I'm making this personal Carmi but from what I've seen you've simply been a pain in the ass with the whole banning/moderating situation lately. You made this thread yet the only person who contributes less was Da_Funk (but that's by default eh Funky? :amuse
.If there's one thing about discussions that fucking annoys me is when it doesn't come to a conclusion because otherwise it's just bitching back and forth.
So do people have a problem with moderation in general? Maybe it's best someone with a problem makes a new thread so a fresh discussion can start.
That's quite true. I was rather annoyed at first wondering why Carmi gave a fuck in the first place but now in retrospect I guess people saw it as part of the situation that's been going on for the past week. Combined with the fact that I didn't leave a reason for closing I can see now why this thread was made (I haven't really been on the board for the past 1-2 months so I didn't connect the dots).
Kudos to S O F I and Salty for explaining it briefly and in an objective manner. Those posts are the type that help. If a moderator is doing something wrong you put it the way they do (constructive criticism based on looking at the entire situation) rather than the passive-aggressive approach Carmi takes. Sorry if I'm making this personal Carmi but from what I've seen you've simply been a pain in the ass with the whole banning/moderating situation lately. You made this thread yet the only person who contributes less was Da_Funk (but that's by default eh Funky? :amuse.
If there's one thing about discussions that fucking annoys me is when it doesn't come to a conclusion because otherwise it's just bitching back and forth.
So do people have a problem with moderation in general? Maybe it's best someone with a problem makes a new thread so a fresh discussion can start.
Kudos to S O F I and Salty for explaining it briefly and in an objective manner. Those posts are the type that help. If a moderator is doing something wrong you put it the way they do (constructive criticism based on looking at the entire situation) rather than the passive-aggressive approach Carmi takes. Sorry if I'm making this personal Carmi but from what I've seen you've simply been a pain in the ass with the whole banning/moderating situation lately. You made this thread yet the only person who contributes less was Da_Funk (but that's by default eh Funky? :amuse
.If there's one thing about discussions that fucking annoys me is when it doesn't come to a conclusion because otherwise it's just bitching back and forth.
So do people have a problem with moderation in general? Maybe it's best someone with a problem makes a new thread so a fresh discussion can start.
I'm pointing out stuff and asking for answers. That's it. What's wrong with that? Wow I ask one thing once in a while and I'm the pain in the ass that annoys people all the time with questions. Fuck I have not been the only one asking questions, or about closing threads and whatnot.
Yeye
Contributed to this thread. I didn't mean contribute to this board in general. Considering some of my posts lately I'm not exactly in the position to be commenting on peoples' posts.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you wouldn't have made this thread if it weren't for the recent "problems". Some mod stuff was going on that you already had questions about and after seeing that thread closed you decided to ask why in here. I don't have a problem with that as long as you contribute to the discussion that follows afterwards. You were "asking for answers" and I fully answered your question but all you could muster was:
That's barely fits the description of an argument. And as I explained it's not about being a 'good' or 'bad' thread, it's about being or not being a thread. I felt that what was posted was a 'blog' and therefore in the wrong part of the forum. Can't be moved? I close it. So the other threads that you mention are in no way connected to this discussion and therefore irrelevant.
Like you said you're not the only one asking questions so it's not needed for you to "point out stuff". If you were simply looking for "answers" then my reply would've been satisfactory, whether or not you agreed with my reasons.
You can't hide behind "don't shoot the messenger" (or as you put it, simply pointing out stuff and wanting answers) when you offer your own opinion. Although your opinion is more than welcome (I've even said in the past that I'd like for you to express your opinion more) please offer constructive criticism.
This obviously isn't about that one thread alone, it's about modding in general. Sebastian suggested we talk about the real issue. Thankfully S. Fourteen and S O F I offered their (helpful) opinion. Even though I disagreed with Gotti he still contributed. Do I have a problem with any of them? No. Why not? Because they were given the opportunity to express their opinion on the issue and they took it. Did you take it? No. Instead of joining the discussion that was started in your thread you go into another thread and post this:
And that's why I call you a pain in the ass.
You see a problem with modding and you offer your opinion (which extends beyond a single sentence and uses valid arguments)? Helpful member.
You see a problem with modding and you offer only snippy little comments? Pain in the ass.
Same with the "SH Irony" thread. Saying your rights have been violated because you can't say ****** without it being censored? I thought that was an incredibly stupid argument and if I was a little more bitter I would've been offended as a black person.
But later in the thread you said:
This is what helps. It's a constructive, thought-out argument. Even if it's about my mistakes as a mod I'd like to hear those type of arguments.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you wouldn't have made this thread if it weren't for the recent "problems". Some mod stuff was going on that you already had questions about and after seeing that thread closed you decided to ask why in here. I don't have a problem with that as long as you contribute to the discussion that follows afterwards. You were "asking for answers" and I fully answered your question but all you could muster was:
That's barely fits the description of an argument. And as I explained it's not about being a 'good' or 'bad' thread, it's about being or not being a thread. I felt that what was posted was a 'blog' and therefore in the wrong part of the forum. Can't be moved? I close it. So the other threads that you mention are in no way connected to this discussion and therefore irrelevant.
Like you said you're not the only one asking questions so it's not needed for you to "point out stuff". If you were simply looking for "answers" then my reply would've been satisfactory, whether or not you agreed with my reasons.
You can't hide behind "don't shoot the messenger" (or as you put it, simply pointing out stuff and wanting answers) when you offer your own opinion. Although your opinion is more than welcome (I've even said in the past that I'd like for you to express your opinion more) please offer constructive criticism.
This obviously isn't about that one thread alone, it's about modding in general. Sebastian suggested we talk about the real issue. Thankfully S. Fourteen and S O F I offered their (helpful) opinion. Even though I disagreed with Gotti he still contributed. Do I have a problem with any of them? No. Why not? Because they were given the opportunity to express their opinion on the issue and they took it. Did you take it? No. Instead of joining the discussion that was started in your thread you go into another thread and post this:
And that's why I call you a pain in the ass.
You see a problem with modding and you offer your opinion (which extends beyond a single sentence and uses valid arguments)? Helpful member.
You see a problem with modding and you offer only snippy little comments? Pain in the ass.
Same with the "SH Irony" thread. Saying your rights have been violated because you can't say ****** without it being censored? I thought that was an incredibly stupid argument and if I was a little more bitter I would've been offended as a black person.
But later in the thread you said:
This is what helps. It's a constructive, thought-out argument. Even if it's about my mistakes as a mod I'd like to hear those type of arguments.
^I don't think Chronic is bagging on her personally. I think he is just saying that if your going to bring something up, bring it with energy. Not just state something anyone else can, with no argument to address the validity of creating a thread to question (a)nother mod.
That said, I think SOFI hit it on the spot. Nothing should really get closed and if so please have a reason to close it.
A lot of times I seen threads get closed, it takes a few days or so to get back into activity...and it creates less bitching.
If you ask me, closing a thread sensors more than just the word ******. There are people here who wouldn't use it, and they may have had something to say.
I propose that we just close threads if they need to keep everyone from beefing, but really, those tend to die out unless you have e-rebel's against each other, but when does that happen? It's usually e-rebels toward a regular member.
Furthermore, some mods don't help with the situation b/c instead of saying e-rebels, they specifically point out people that shouldn't be pointed out even if they are the retards of the forum. We all know they are e-rebels, pointing it out will just put more fuel on the fire and have them come back for more.
(Just think of the past 2-3 members that keep getting banned and you will see the point).
That said, I think SOFI hit it on the spot. Nothing should really get closed and if so please have a reason to close it.
A lot of times I seen threads get closed, it takes a few days or so to get back into activity...and it creates less bitching.
If you ask me, closing a thread sensors more than just the word ******. There are people here who wouldn't use it, and they may have had something to say.
I propose that we just close threads if they need to keep everyone from beefing, but really, those tend to die out unless you have e-rebel's against each other, but when does that happen? It's usually e-rebels toward a regular member.
Furthermore, some mods don't help with the situation b/c instead of saying e-rebels, they specifically point out people that shouldn't be pointed out even if they are the retards of the forum. We all know they are e-rebels, pointing it out will just put more fuel on the fire and have them come back for more.
(Just think of the past 2-3 members that keep getting banned and you will see the point).
can you read english lol? he said something along the lines of that only Da Funk contributes less than her. Now in defense of what Chronic said, it could be argued that by purchasing VIP to support the site, Carmi has contributed more to streethop than alot of other people. my post was in response to that part of Chronics post and nothing else. i just wanted to make that single point.
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.