a+ trolling

gg

make sure you make a motion to have theDuke866 lock this shit

7/30/2012 3:22:41 AM

There has been a motion made to make IMStoned420 the chairman. Do we have a second to this motion?

This motion will expire at 5pm on 7/30. If another motion is motioned and seconded before IMstoned420's motion is seconded, that motion shall come first. If there is no second to the motion, the motion will be dropped.

7/30/2012 4:46:38 AM

Please second my motion. My first order of business as chairman will be to dismantle this coup attempt.

7/30/2012 7:46:29 AM

Motion to permanently eject GeniusXBoy from the soapbox in the interest of increasing its general readability and credibility

7/30/2012 10:11:51 AM

First rule of TSB is that we don't talk about TSB

7/30/2012 10:13:41 AM

This assclown isn't banned yet?

7/30/2012 10:20:58 AM

Quote :

"Motion to permanently eject GeniusXBoy from the soapbox in the interest of increasing its general readability and credibility"

Motion seconded.

7/30/2012 10:56:19 AM

^ I vote YYYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

7/30/2012 12:01:01 PM

I second the motion to make IMStoned420 the leader guy

7/30/2012 2:11:45 PM

There has been a second made to make IMStoned420 the chairman.

This motion will be labelled Motion 2.

All in favor say Motion 2: Yea.
Those opposed say Motion 2: Nay.

This voting will end at 5pm on 7/31.

7/30/2012 3:13:55 PM

So geniusboy is banned, imstoned is the chairman, and imstoned decrees that this silly idea be forgotten?

7/30/2012 3:24:46 PM

^smh. Feel free to read the thread, per our new guidelines.

Motion 2: Nay

7/30/2012 4:42:57 PM

Motion 2: Nay

7/30/2012 4:45:14 PM

Motion 2: Yea HAW!

7/30/2012 4:46:08 PM

^^^smh. we don't have new guidelines.

all i see is genius proposing/trolling some silly idea that's not going to work, and you going on some vendetta against the duke.

7/30/2012 5:24:44 PM

this is painful

7/30/2012 5:52:47 PM

I would like to bring Motion 3 to the forefront.

Motion 3: One day a month will be nominated by the Soap Box community as "Silly Sarcastic Day" in which the rule in regard to sarcasm is null and void.

7/30/2012 6:22:44 PM

Point of Order: Motion 2 is currently active. We cannot start another motion until this motion is finished.



As a Point of Discussion to your motion, Everyday is a silly sarcastic day in the chit chat forum. Why can't we just be silly there?

Also, there is a motion to allow more than 1 motion at a time. Do you second it?

7/30/2012 6:35:08 PM

7/30/2012 7:02:13 PM

I cannot bring forward another motion until I pass a 2nd movement.

[Edited on July 30, 2012 at 10:56 PM. Reason :  ]

7/30/2012 10:54:34 PM

Second the motion to allow more than one motion at a time.

7/30/2012 11:34:08 PM

I propose the formation of a committee to evaluate the proposals of those favoring a system allowing multiple motions.

7/31/2012 1:53:21 AM

^^i already seconded that e-motion, you son of a bitch

7/31/2012 6:27:34 AM

Well, I just passed a 2nd movement after 12 hours in the bathroom so I believe that we can start another motion.

7/31/2012 7:05:02 AM

The motion made to make IMStoned420 the chairman has passed 3-2.


In favor:IMStoned420, ElGimpy, and Oneshot
Object: GeniuSxBoY, kdogg(c)




I hope this is a lesson for everyone for why our country is messed up. The majority of the people that can vote, simple don't. The majority of people that want to make change, can't. And the majority of people that do vote, think politics is funny and a joke, don't bother researching the people they vote for, and don't care about the consequences.


[Edited on July 31, 2012 at 5:21 PM. Reason : .]

7/31/2012 5:19:34 PM

7/31/2012 5:26:25 PM

for fuck's sake

7/31/2012 5:47:44 PM

7/31/2012 8:18:17 PM

Didn't read much of the thread. I assume this was a call for civility in TSB or something of that nature. We see those about every 6 months.

Almost everyone here is a hard-headed asshole. That's kind of the whole point. Hardly anyone comes to TSB to become enlightened. Sure, they might learn a thing or two inadvertently if they attempt to support their preconceived notions with evidence, only to find out that the overwhelming majority of evidence contrasts with their currently held beliefs. If, by some act of God, they actually change their beliefs upon finding new evidence, they're certainly not going to admit it here.

Imagine if we did come to some agreement. Eventually, someone would come along that disagreed and they'd ignore the rules. The rule abiding people would soon follow, realizing that there is no benefit to obeying the agreement. Extrapolate these principles to scale with the size of modern day government. Now, it's not posting etiquette at stake, it's an entire fucking continent of people to extract wealth from. You expect anyone to give a shit about the Constitution? Fat chance.

[Edited on July 31, 2012 at 8:22 PM. Reason : ]

7/31/2012 8:21:51 PM

My first act as chairman is to abolish all rules pertaining to any civil debate in any form whatsoever in favor of total, unregulated anarchy. Let the people make the rules.

7/31/2012 9:32:46 PM

All hail the soapbox overlord

7/31/2012 9:45:43 PM

1. The chairman isn't a dictator.
2. The rules are still in place.
3. Someone has to motion for the rules to be abolished.
4. The people were already making the rules before you got here.

Oh look. We've been taken over by Romney.

7/31/2012 11:08:00 PM

Wait, the best argument against having a rule forbidding sarcasm was given in the first post.

Quote :

" We never know who's serious and who's not, or who's sarcastic or not."

7/31/2012 11:29:30 PM

^^ Sounds like someone is talking shit against the market place of ideas.

7/31/2012 11:48:46 PM

Quote :

"1. The chairman isn't a dictator. 2. The rules are still in place. 3. Someone has to motion for the rules to be abolished. 4. The people were already making the rules before you got here. Oh look. We've been taken over by Romney. "

Immediately thought of that. +1

8/1/2012 12:07:21 AM

Quote :

"And the majority of people that do vote, think politics is funny and a joke, don't bother researching the people they vote for, and don't care about the consequences."

I just want to point out that I voted against you directly due to your behavior in this thread, where you refused to answer people's questions about your argument because they hadn't agreed that your premise was correct.

message_topic.aspx?topic=556098&page=124#15466260

This is not the kind of behavior becoming of a made up internet message board constitution chairman.

And since there were only 5 votes, and I am going to assume you aren't counting yourself in the above quote, I therefore represent 25% of the people you are talking about, and I can say without a doubt that I did not vote they way you have presumed.

8/1/2012 9:23:31 AM

Fact 1: I was not a chairman at the time of that thread. A constitution didn't even exist. This thread didn't even exist. That was the behavior of every typical soapbox user. As a matter of fact, it was that very thread that pushed to form this thread.

Fact 2: I am disrespected to a higher degree than any other user in the board because people have a vendetta against my username and my occupation.

Fact 3: I am disrespected to the highest degree because I answer more troll questions seriously than any other user on the board. To claim "I refuse to answer" any reasonable question is absurd.

Fact 4: I am currently the poster that provides the most information and material in the soapbox, whether you agree or classify the content as information or not.

Fact 5:

Quote :

" I therefore represent 25% of the people you are talking about, and I can say without a doubt that I did not vote they way you have presumed."

You voted for a man who thinks the chairmanship is a dictatorship.
You voted for a man whose first words were "abolish all rules pertaining to any civil debate"
You voted for a man who was an obvious troll from the first motion "4.2"
You voted for a man who is illiterate in the process.

You sir, voted exactly how I presumed.

8/1/2012 1:07:06 PM

^i really can't tell if you're being serious about this whole thing. you can't possibly be serious, can you?

but just in case you are, i have to let you know that it's not gong to work. nobody is going to pay attention to your rules and guidelines.

8/1/2012 1:09:18 PM

If everyone, or (more realistically) the majority of users make the rules, why is nobody is going to pay attention to our rules and guidelines that the majority creates themselves?

[Edited on August 1, 2012 at 1:19 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2012 1:18:00 PM

because almost everybody (or the realistic majority, at least) think this is a silly idea and won't participate in "rule-making".

[Edited on August 1, 2012 at 1:21 PM. Reason : ]

8/1/2012 1:21:22 PM

We've established that people can't be civil or mature by their own graces. I am perfectly capable of treating people with respect and maturity. It's when people do this:

{
User post:

Quote :

"We've established that people can't be civil or mature by their own graces. I am perfectly capable of treating people with respect and maturity."

lmao!
}



that ruins all sense of seriousness and gets people riled up.

[Edited on August 1, 2012 at 1:25 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2012 1:24:38 PM

To rebut your facts:

Fact 1: It matters not that the thread in question came about before the constitution idea. If someone were to create a "Chairman of the World" position tomorrow, I would be perfectly justified in immediately not voting for Bin Laden, were he alive, due to past behavior. I do not need to know what his current views are.

Facts 2, 3, and 4: I don't post on here often so I can't even tell you whether these are correct or not, which makes them irrelevant. I had a good enough reason to vote against you regardless of the circumstances. If you are trying to win a public office, you should probably consider how you come off the general public no matter how badly you are being treated.

Quote :

"don't bother researching the people they vote for"

I researched your shitty responses in some thread, and didn't see shitty responses from the other guy.

Quote :

"You sir, voted exactly how I presumed."

Just because I didn't do the research you would have liked for me to have done, doesn't mean I voted blindly.

8/1/2012 1:39:02 PM

Quote :

" didn't see shitty responses from the other guy."

therefore:

Quote :

"voted blindly."

[Edited on August 1, 2012 at 1:45 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2012 1:44:55 PM

^that's what i'm talking about

8/1/2012 1:46:09 PM

Lack of being a moron is a good enough reason to vote for someone if the other person is a moron. I'm sorry you were that other person and lost.

8/1/2012 1:47:17 PM

I understand the point you're trying to make.

It doesn't work when you say you didn't see something that is abundant all around you.

8/1/2012 1:53:44 PM

Wait, you're complaining that you didn't win a meaningless 'election' on a internet sub-forum? Yeah, do you really have to think very hard as to why you didn't win?

8/1/2012 2:16:02 PM

You guys hold me to some high standard of posting yet this thread just illustrates the hypocrisy of the immaturity.

You guys ask for proof all the time for my claims: This thread is your proof that everyone in here is an immature troll and that's the way you like it.

Feel free to troll but don't cry when I troll you back.

8/1/2012 5:03:27 PM

absurd proposals deserve absurd responses.

this thread is so ridiculous, i'm pretty convinced the whole thing is a troll.

8/1/2012 5:09:39 PM

Tragic you feel this way.

8/1/2012 5:12:04 PM