Fanmail.biz

Ive had enough of the childish nonsense now.

Read this thread - http://www.fanmail.biz/mboard/viewtopic ... 016&hilit=

Assuming my post hasnt been deleted If my post has been deleted, then this is my post below -

Andy316 wrote:Ive unlocked this for a couple of reasons. Firstly it makes much more sense to have it unlocked so people can just post any extra names, and secondly it enables people to correct mistakes on the list.

The thread title stats "usually sign via venue", which suggests (a) that they sing most of the time via venue, and (b) that they sign authentically via venue.

The fact that Johnny Depp (who you see 1-2 authentic via venue successes a YEAR from) was on the list makes a mockery of it, as 99.9% of requests will get an autopenned photo, which obviously contradicts the thread title.

If you want to add people who send AP/PP/Sec/Stamp to the list then by all means go ahead, but make sure to label them as such or the list is pointless :neutral:

Also might be worth making it clear that its more important to check the venue passes mail on BEFORE checking if the star actually replies via venue.

Edit - It may be a better idea just to change the title to "Stars who are known to sign via venue". Its your thread though so I'll leave it upto you....

I then PM'd Lizanne and told her I'd posted that. Then I got this response, saying my post was "rude" and shes going to complain about me to admin

Lizanne wrote:Yeah I saw what you did to my topic... You know I don't go and change your topics.

I did pm admin and he approved of my idea. I kept my topic very specifically LOCKED for certain reasons:
- members don't have to browse through 10 pages to see who signs
- it looks more organised
- it can be easily updated by me (and Larisie who agreed to help too)

And yes, Depp is a very good signer vv - I know about 3 authentic successes:
- via "Secret Window"
- via "POTC 1"
- via "Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus"
I can get links for you. My list is very accurate as I only post names with scans and of whom there were at least 2 different successes (thus Depp!). Now I'm going to pm admin and delete your insulting post.

This is complete nonsense. Johnny Depp is NOT a "very good signer" via venue, that is ludicrous to suggest it. You're saying TWO successes makes him "very good"? This is a joke.

Is that we do now, supply fake information to members?

This is completely ridiculous, and I cannot believe how stupid it is.

I suggest improvements and instead of them being accepted/discussed like any mature person, I get childish responses and a refusal to understand basic logic.

So Mods, GMs, AEs, I ask you, was I wrong?

I Agree Andy, People should be able to post names to add to the list....It should be unlocked... Also I don't think you was rude.

I also agree it should be left unlocked. People should be able to add to it.

I think it should remain locked because as Lizanne commented about - I would not want to scroll through numerous pages of people's comments to find out who does sign via venue. Some users may ignore the other posters and add the same name to the thread. This would just be the same as the 'Via Venue' forum. However, having a locked post means that people can go to one place to find their information. I think that there needs to be 5 authentic successes from a celebrity before they go on the list on the locked thread to make sure that we are supplying the correct information in one place, as opposed to unstable information all over a thread.

I think it should stay unlocked because I just think its easier for a poster to be able to give his or her own thoughts or feedback, instead of having to go through someone else with the chance of it not being posted for multiple reasons,

1. The person doesnt agree with you

2. The person is busy and forgets or something (it happens to us all)

3. People can comment on there successes to try and help others instead of it being all one sided.

celebrityfan wrote:I think it should remain locked because as Lizanne commented about - I would not want to scroll through numerous pages of people's comments to find out who does sign via venue.

People wouldnt need to scroll through the entire thread, as the 1st post would be constantly updated, so saying it should be locked for that reason is irrelevant.

And thanks trottersfan and ozzman, at least you can see where Im coming from

Hi everyone

Maybe we should ask Lizanne. It her idea/thread

Lizanne: Would you like to let people add new names to your list? Then you could add them to your post.

Fanmail

Admin, What? "Its her thread"? This is YOUR FORUM, you can make decisions. We're supposed to do "What is best for the FORUM", not "What is best for one member"

And this PM you just sent me, threatening to ban me for being rude to Lizanne, when as I have shown above, I was NOT rude in ANY way at all, this is ridiculous. You've read what I posted, now show me where I was rude? Oh, you can't, because I WASNT rude at all.

Since when is HELPING and trying to STOP THE POSTING OF LIES considered "rude"?

You wont do anything to protect our members from a guy whos asking teenage girls for photos, but you'll threaten to ban me for trying to HELP THE FORUM? What?????

I have done nothing but help this forum since I was promoted, and I stayed on when other people got fed up with this sh*t and quit. Since they quit, I - like others - have tried to get this forum back on track, spending many hours daily on here, and now you threaten me with a ban for something that quite clearly IS NOT TRUE? :mad:

admin wrote:Hi Andy316

I've just received an PM from Lizanne. She say you insulted her.

I would like you to be nice/polite with her and the other members of this forum or i'll have to ban you

Thanks for you understanding.

Fanmail

Hi guys!

OK, I'm not going to fight but here's exactly what I meant when I said Andy was rude:
- he edited my thread without pm'ing me first
- he mocked me (what on earth do you mean "who usually sing via venue"???)
- he acts as an admin by telling me what to do

So far, everything worked very smoothly by members pm'ing me with names and scans. The reason I will keep it locked is otherwise I won't see any proof of the success - Shambler already posted names without any proof. And thank celebrityfan! {thumb2} Larisie already volenteered to help out so I won't forget to update too.

And Andy, you're the childish one by making a thread like this... And you were wrong, I didn't do anything!

Also, I'll change it from 2 vv feedbacks to 5, that would probably be more accurate.

Thanks to everyone who helps me with this!

Lizanne wrote:Hi guys!

OK, I'm not going to fight but here's exactly what I meant when I said Andy was rude:
- he edited my thread without pm'ing me first

I removed false information. As a Moderator, I'm well within my rights to do this.

- he mocked me (what on earth do you mean "who usually sing via venue"???)

I quite clearly never said that at all, that is a blatant lie.

- he acts as an admin by telling me what to do

Again, a lie. I suggested things, thats all. Again this is quite clear to see.

So far, everything worked very smoothly by members pm'ing me with names and scans. The reason I will keep it locked is otherwise I won't see any proof of the success - Shambler already posted names without any proof. And thank celebrityfan! {thumb2} Larisie already volenteered to help out so I won't forget to update too.

And Andy, you're the childish one by making a thread like this... And you were wrong, I didn't do anything!

Also, I'll change it from 2 vv feedbacks to 5, that would probably be more accurate.

Thanks to everyone who helps me with this!

You just completely ignored the entire point of my post. Please go back, re-read it, and then comment.

The whol "2 feedbacks" or "5 feedbacks" thing doesnt work within the current way the thread is shown. It stats "usually sign" which is my whole point here, 2 or 5 feedbacks does not equal "usually signs VV". I dont see how much clearer I can put it, you just seem to be ignoring what I'm saying

I dont see how me making this thread is childish. You are posting false information, I object to it, and other people agree with me. Thats not childish.

Whats childish is insisting the thread stays locked, insisting you're the only one who is right, and posting lies about what I said. Also a Global Mod (that outranks you) unlocked the thread, and now - childishly, again - you have locked it.

Everything is there for people to see, plain as day. The only person in the wrong, is you.