FanNation - The Republic of Sport

What is everyone's problem with all these things that have no effect on this site at all? (Except maybe bandwidth...)

Why do people care if there are a large number of inactive users? What have they done to hurt anyone? Why should they be deleted if they haven't done anything wrong. Just because someone isn't able to be a FanNation addict like you and me (and yes, we are officially addicts, for the most part...) doesn't mean they are hurting the site. Do they bring blog views down? No. They aren't the ones you necessarily are targeting anyway. Do they bring TD votes down? Not a huge amount, maybe one or two votes. The majority of voters on TDs are people that are on this site at least once per day.

Why do people care if a group is inactive or meaningless? Is it hurting you personally? Is it offending you? Just because a group is inactive doesn't mean it's meaningless and vice versa. Even if they're inactive and meaningless, they still once served a purpose.

People need to stop worrying about these ticky-tack problems that YOU think are problems and really aren't. Worry about cheaters. Worry about voting based off of reputation, not off of arguments (Which I've personally witnessed in the last week). Worry about inactivity in your own groups. Worry about the Moderators that all of you guys think are terrible. (The only thing I've personally had issues with so far are the filters)

Speaking on some of these issues as well, just because you perceive someone as a cheater or have caught someone as a cheater does NOT mean that you should automatically be given a win. If you are completely outarguing the cheater, then yeah, people should be voting for you. If the person has a 20-1 lead after the first argument and the majority of the votes are from dupe accounts, then yeah, vote for the guy who's down 20-1. But if it's not confirmed, if it's not going to make a difference in the outcome of the TD (The guy would win by 10 votes and had one dupe account), don't vote based on your prejudice for cheaters. Yes, it's wrong, but the guy is flat out outarguing the other guy and should get your vote. Voting for that guy is not condoning cheating. I know, it's a conflict of interest between the morals of voting based on arguments and voting based on the morals of what is and is not cheating. I've seen this happen with the Havertown kids too. Don't let prejudice get in the way of your voting.

I dunno...maybe it's just me, but I still think a lot of people need to shut up.