The McLeodGaming forums were permanently closed on April 30th, 2020. You are currently viewing a read-only archive.
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Fri May 15, 2020 2:14 am

Forum rules


DO NOT POST SSF2 OR GAME IDEAS/QUESTIONS IN THIS FORUM!

For SSF2 Discussion, please go here: http://forums.mcleodgaming.com/viewforum.php?f=4



 [ 14 posts ] 
Cookies 
Author Message

Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:13 pm
Posts: 18
Location: Only City, Tree Land, Dumb Country.
One Bnet group had something complicated but easily usable. Basically, it would go something like

ExampleUser1: +4 cookies ExampleUser2
ExampleUser2 goes to Cookie thread.
ExampleUser2: +4 cookies, ExampleUser1
ExampleUser2 would then link to the post from ExampleUser1 as proof, then he would add 4 to however many cookies he has in his signature. Any more or less (less to keep things simple) will result in the first three times a warning and fixing of it, after that bans start to take place.
ExampleUser1 then goes to his signature and subtracts 4 cookies from the amount he had before. He cannot give more cookies than he has. Failure to subtract the cookies results in the same punishment as ExampleUser2 would get if he added too much or too little.

ExampleUser1 may also PM ExampleUser2 with the message saying he gets the cookies, but that optional. Just as long as ExampleUser1 posts the cookie addition somewhere where anyone can see it and have little doubt that it's true.

k?

_________________
o hai i r bax 2 hax u form lol.


Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:21 pm
WWW

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:02 am
Posts: 1654
Location: Reunite with Bomberman!
Gender: Female
Monisevenor Izit wrote:
One Bnet group had something complicated but easily usable. Basically, it would go something like

ExampleUser1: +4 cookies ExampleUser2
ExampleUser2 goes to Cookie thread.
ExampleUser2: +4 cookies, ExampleUser1
ExampleUser2 would then link to the post from ExampleUser1 as proof, then he would add 4 to however many cookies he has in his signature. Any more or less (less to keep things simple) will result in the first three times a warning and fixing of it, after that bans start to take place.
ExampleUser1 then goes to his signature and subtracts 4 cookies from the amount he had before. He cannot give more cookies than he has. Failure to subtract the cookies results in the same punishment as ExampleUser2 would get if he added too much or too little.

ExampleUser1 may also PM ExampleUser2 with the message saying he gets the cookies, but that optional. Just as long as ExampleUser1 posts the cookie addition somewhere where anyone can see it and have little doubt that it's true.

k?

Example of why we need "cookies." Because what you are saying, we cannot eat them, only have attentionwhoryness with them.

_________________
Razahtleb wrote:
Thaiberium wrote:
So why do we have a moderator section? :wee:

Section for the dick suckers moderators to make them feel special talk about important issues on the forums. It's just a forum that is named "moderator section"


Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:23 pm

Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:13 pm
Posts: 18
Location: Only City, Tree Land, Dumb Country.
Lucy Nettims wrote:
Monisevenor Izit wrote:
One Bnet group had something complicated but easily usable. Basically, it would go something like

ExampleUser1: +4 cookies ExampleUser2
ExampleUser2 goes to Cookie thread.
ExampleUser2: +4 cookies, ExampleUser1
ExampleUser2 would then link to the post from ExampleUser1 as proof, then he would add 4 to however many cookies he has in his signature. Any more or less (less to keep things simple) will result in the first three times a warning and fixing of it, after that bans start to take place.
ExampleUser1 then goes to his signature and subtracts 4 cookies from the amount he had before. He cannot give more cookies than he has. Failure to subtract the cookies results in the same punishment as ExampleUser2 would get if he added too much or too little.

ExampleUser1 may also PM ExampleUser2 with the message saying he gets the cookies, but that optional. Just as long as ExampleUser1 posts the cookie addition somewhere where anyone can see it and have little doubt that it's true.

k?

Example of why we need "cookies." Because what you are saying, we cannot eat them, only have attentionwhoryness with them.

It's basically code-free Gold from the old MG forums.

_________________
o hai i r bax 2 hax u form lol.


Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:24 pm
WWW

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:02 am
Posts: 1654
Location: Reunite with Bomberman!
Gender: Female
Monisevenor Izit wrote:
Lucy Nettims wrote:
Monisevenor Izit wrote:
One Bnet group had something complicated but easily usable. Basically, it would go something like

ExampleUser1: +4 cookies ExampleUser2
ExampleUser2 goes to Cookie thread.
ExampleUser2: +4 cookies, ExampleUser1
ExampleUser2 would then link to the post from ExampleUser1 as proof, then he would add 4 to however many cookies he has in his signature. Any more or less (less to keep things simple) will result in the first three times a warning and fixing of it, after that bans start to take place.
ExampleUser1 then goes to his signature and subtracts 4 cookies from the amount he had before. He cannot give more cookies than he has. Failure to subtract the cookies results in the same punishment as ExampleUser2 would get if he added too much or too little.

ExampleUser1 may also PM ExampleUser2 with the message saying he gets the cookies, but that optional. Just as long as ExampleUser1 posts the cookie addition somewhere where anyone can see it and have little doubt that it's true.

k?

Example of why we need "cookies." Because what you are saying, we cannot eat them, only have attentionwhoryness with them.

It's basically code-free Gold from the old MG forums.

And I can lie too. See?

Hakker wrote:
You're so sexy UGH! have 356465784654 cookies!


Hakker said so. GIMIIE MAH COOKIES

_________________
Razahtleb wrote:
Thaiberium wrote:
So why do we have a moderator section? :wee:

Section for the dick suckers moderators to make them feel special talk about important issues on the forums. It's just a forum that is named "moderator section"


Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:26 pm

Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:13 pm
Posts: 18
Location: Only City, Tree Land, Dumb Country.
Lucy Nettims wrote:
Monisevenor Izit wrote:
Lucy Nettims wrote:
Monisevenor Izit wrote:
One Bnet group had something complicated but easily usable. Basically, it would go something like

ExampleUser1: +4 cookies ExampleUser2
ExampleUser2 goes to Cookie thread.
ExampleUser2: +4 cookies, ExampleUser1
ExampleUser2 would then link to the post from ExampleUser1 as proof, then he would add 4 to however many cookies he has in his signature. Any more or less (less to keep things simple) will result in the first three times a warning and fixing of it, after that bans start to take place.
ExampleUser1 then goes to his signature and subtracts 4 cookies from the amount he had before. He cannot give more cookies than he has. Failure to subtract the cookies results in the same punishment as ExampleUser2 would get if he added too much or too little.

ExampleUser1 may also PM ExampleUser2 with the message saying he gets the cookies, but that optional. Just as long as ExampleUser1 posts the cookie addition somewhere where anyone can see it and have little doubt that it's true.

k?

Example of why we need "cookies." Because what you are saying, we cannot eat them, only have attentionwhoryness with them.

It's basically code-free Gold from the old MG forums.

And I can lie too. See?

Hakker wrote:
You're so sexy UGH! have 356465784654 cookies!


Hakker said so. GIMIIE MAH COOKIES

You missed out on the part where you have to LINK to the post. As in, not quote, LINK.

_________________
o hai i r bax 2 hax u form lol.


Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:36 pm
WWW

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 8:31 am
Posts: 496
Location: Where are you and who wants to know? The U.S. Government thats who.
Monisevenor Izit wrote:
Lucy Nettims wrote:
Monisevenor Izit wrote:
Lucy Nettims wrote:
Monisevenor Izit wrote:
One Bnet group had something complicated but easily usable. Basically, it would go something like

ExampleUser1: +4 cookies ExampleUser2
ExampleUser2 goes to Cookie thread.
ExampleUser2: +4 cookies, ExampleUser1
ExampleUser2 would then link to the post from ExampleUser1 as proof, then he would add 4 to however many cookies he has in his signature. Any more or less (less to keep things simple) will result in the first three times a warning and fixing of it, after that bans start to take place.
ExampleUser1 then goes to his signature and subtracts 4 cookies from the amount he had before. He cannot give more cookies than he has. Failure to subtract the cookies results in the same punishment as ExampleUser2 would get if he added too much or too little.

ExampleUser1 may also PM ExampleUser2 with the message saying he gets the cookies, but that optional. Just as long as ExampleUser1 posts the cookie addition somewhere where anyone can see it and have little doubt that it's true.

k?

Example of why we need "cookies." Because what you are saying, we cannot eat them, only have attentionwhoryness with them.

It's basically code-free Gold from the old MG forums.

And I can lie too. See?

Hakker wrote:
You're so sexy UGH! have 356465784654 cookies!


Hakker said so. GIMIIE MAH COOKIES

You missed out on the part where you have to LINK to the post. As in, not quote, LINK.


User could pm an admin or mod and ask them to edit all of the posts to get cookies though.

_________________
Image


Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:39 pm
YIM WWW

Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:13 pm
Posts: 18
Location: Only City, Tree Land, Dumb Country.
Heavy Confusion wrote:
Monisevenor Izit wrote:
Lucy Nettims wrote:
Monisevenor Izit wrote:
Lucy Nettims wrote:
Monisevenor Izit wrote:
One Bnet group had something complicated but easily usable. Basically, it would go something like

ExampleUser1: +4 cookies ExampleUser2
ExampleUser2 goes to Cookie thread.
ExampleUser2: +4 cookies, ExampleUser1
ExampleUser2 would then link to the post from ExampleUser1 as proof, then he would add 4 to however many cookies he has in his signature. Any more or less (less to keep things simple) will result in the first three times a warning and fixing of it, after that bans start to take place.
ExampleUser1 then goes to his signature and subtracts 4 cookies from the amount he had before. He cannot give more cookies than he has. Failure to subtract the cookies results in the same punishment as ExampleUser2 would get if he added too much or too little.

ExampleUser1 may also PM ExampleUser2 with the message saying he gets the cookies, but that optional. Just as long as ExampleUser1 posts the cookie addition somewhere where anyone can see it and have little doubt that it's true.

k?

Example of why we need "cookies." Because what you are saying, we cannot eat them, only have attentionwhoryness with them.

It's basically code-free Gold from the old MG forums.

And I can lie too. See?

Hakker wrote:
You're so sexy UGH! have 356465784654 cookies!


Hakker said so. GIMIIE MAH COOKIES

You missed out on the part where you have to LINK to the post. As in, not quote, LINK.


User could pm an admin or mod and ask them to edit all of the posts to get cookies though.

To be honest, it sounds like you're calling the admins and mods retarded.

_________________
o hai i r bax 2 hax u form lol.


Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:41 pm
WWW

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 8:31 am
Posts: 496
Location: Where are you and who wants to know? The U.S. Government thats who.
I'm not, But you have to realize that some of the admins and mods are friends with normal users and could easily edit posts.

_________________
Image


Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:45 pm
YIM WWW

Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:13 pm
Posts: 18
Location: Only City, Tree Land, Dumb Country.
Heavy Confusion wrote:
I'm not, But you have to realize that some of the admins and mods are friends with normal users and could easily edit posts.

They weren't given their positions so that they would help out cheaters. If they do so, they're pretty much saying "Hey, we're going to suck our friends c*** and screw over normal users", in which case they don't deserve their rank. And besides, doesn't it say the name of who edited it last at the bottom? Even if it doesn't, there's a place to go where admins can find out recent actions done on their forum. Cleod WOULD find out, and if they don't at least get warned then he deserves to be slapped (no offense to him)

_________________
o hai i r bax 2 hax u form lol.


Sat Jan 03, 2009 6:21 pm
WWW
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 10:45 am
Posts: 4454
Gender: Male
Skype: belth666
THEY SERVE NO PURPOSE

KTHX

_________________
play league of legends it's a fun game :)
http://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref= ... 7960510125
ImageImage


Sat Jan 03, 2009 6:51 pm

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:02 am
Posts: 1654
Location: Reunite with Bomberman!
Gender: Female
Belth wrote:
THEY SERVE NO PURPOSE

KTHX

It promotes postwhoring.

VERY IMPORTANT

_________________
Razahtleb wrote:
Thaiberium wrote:
So why do we have a moderator section? :wee:

Section for the dick suckers moderators to make them feel special talk about important issues on the forums. It's just a forum that is named "moderator section"


Sat Jan 03, 2009 7:03 pm
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:43 am
Posts: 641
Gender: Male
Lucy Nettims wrote:
Belth wrote:
THEY SERVE NO PURPOSE

KTHX

It promotes postwhoring.

VERY IMPORTANT

Postwhoring? You don't get cookies just from posting, do you?
Besides this, I have a couple things to add to make this system more fool-proof
The cookie mod/mods have to agree that what the person did was cookie-worthy.
A log is kept to keep track of how many cookies each person should have. That way, someone can't give themselves one hundred cookies without ever posting on the cookie board.

Though, like multiple users have pointed out, there is no point to this. What would you get from having cookies?

_________________
Tyler~


Sat Jan 03, 2009 7:58 pm

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:02 am
Posts: 1654
Location: Reunite with Bomberman!
Gender: Female
Living Shadow wrote:
Lucy Nettims wrote:
Belth wrote:
THEY SERVE NO PURPOSE

KTHX

It promotes postwhoring.

VERY IMPORTANT

Postwhoring? You don't get cookies just from posting, do you?
Besides this, I have a couple things to add to make this system more fool-proof
The cookie mod/mods have to agree that what the person did was cookie-worthy.
A log is kept to keep track of how many cookies each person should have. That way, someone can't give themselves one hundred cookies without ever posting on the cookie board.

Though, like multiple users have pointed out, there is no point to this. What would you get from having cookies?

Attentionwhoreness

_________________
Razahtleb wrote:
Thaiberium wrote:
So why do we have a moderator section? :wee:

Section for the dick suckers moderators to make them feel special talk about important issues on the forums. It's just a forum that is named "moderator section"


Sat Jan 03, 2009 8:13 pm
Legendary Ghost
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 6:42 am
Posts: 12630
Location: Belgium
Country: Belgium (be)
Gender: Male
Currently Playing: Final Fantasy XI, Left 4 Dead 2
Belth wrote:
THEY SERVE NO PURPOSE

KTHX

_________________
Play Smite with me? (It's like LoL or Dota, but less frustrating)

Image

"Jesus promised the end of all wicked people. Odin promised the end of all ice giants. I don't see many ice giants around."


Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:19 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 [ 14 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.