INDB 2.0?

Shitpost central. Also known as the Ratfuck and Mucha containment board.

INDB 2.0, yay or neigh?

You may select 1 option

 
 
View results

User avatar
Griever
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 1:44 am

INDB 2.0?

Post by Griever » Mon Mar 27, 2017 2:25 am

Hey guys,

Since we have our own domain name again, I was wondering if anyone would be interested in relaunching the old Internet Nobody Database (INDB) wiki. Obviously, Poonoo would have to be on-board with the idea, since he owns the domain, but I figured it was a question worth asking since we are no longer at the mercy of the freeforums free speech gestapo. Personally, I always got a kick out of reading/writing the sperg on the old INDB.

User avatar
RAPEMAN
Posts: 819
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2017 1:22 pm

Re: INDB 2.0?

Post by RAPEMAN » Mon Mar 27, 2017 2:59 am

Nah. It all turns into a mixture of edgy Cwcki shit. Unless we have a really good mod and article writer.

User avatar
Kugelfisch
Supreme Shitposter
Posts: 5018
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2017 1:36 pm

Re: INDB 2.0?

Post by Kugelfisch » Mon Mar 27, 2017 3:22 am

It's worth a shot. Larry will write most of it anyway. :lol:
Hail Eris, all hail Discordia!
Rapeculture wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:41 am
Have I forgotten to call Lindsay a cunt today?

User avatar
rabidtictac
Posts: 4061
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2017 9:25 pm

Re: INDB 2.0?

Post by rabidtictac » Mon Mar 27, 2017 3:48 am

As long as we moderate the FUCK out of posts and edits. If we do it again, my thought was to try for a sort of NPOV, but not entirely. Just mostly give facts. Be rude, sure, but try to avoid the PURE LEVELS OF SPERGE that dominated old INDB. I'll accept my share of the blame for that too. If we bring it back, it has to have less personal attachment. Because it shouldn't be a personal thing to point out how shit these e-celebs are.

My bare minimum suggestion would be no unregistered edits, no signing up without some kind of confirmation process (this would also keep the nobodies themselves from getting accounts) and links/citations provided for most claims. That last one could prove very troublesome as some of the information we know about on DHI is just gone (lost to the mists of time and the deaths of various video hosts/websites.)

User avatar
Kugelfisch
Supreme Shitposter
Posts: 5018
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2017 1:36 pm

Re: INDB 2.0?

Post by Kugelfisch » Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:04 am

Fuck citations.
Hail Eris, all hail Discordia!
Rapeculture wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:41 am
Have I forgotten to call Lindsay a cunt today?

User avatar
Poonoo
Site Admin
Posts: 1509
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:16 pm

Re: INDB 2.0?

Post by Poonoo » Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:05 am

rabidtictac wrote:As long as we moderate the FUCK out of posts and edits. If we do it again, my thought was to try for a sort of NPOV, but not entirely. Just mostly give facts. Be rude, sure, but try to avoid the PURE LEVELS OF SPERGE that dominated old INDB. I'll accept my share of the blame for that too. If we bring it back, it has to have less personal attachment. Because it shouldn't be a personal thing to point out how shit these e-celebs are.

My bare minimum suggestion would be no unregistered edits, no signing up without some kind of confirmation process (this would also keep the nobodies themselves from getting accounts) and links/citations provided for most claims. That last one could prove very troublesome as some of the information we know about on DHI is just gone (lost to the mists of time and the deaths of various video hosts/websites.)
Yeah I have been thinking about the possibility of us doing it long before we came here. And my concerns and how to do it are pretty much summed up in this post, and I would make sure only regulars here on DHI will be able to write articles, and I would be extremely fucking selective about that too. Because if you are not, as Rapeman said, it can turn into CWCki cancer or what the old DHI wiki became, an ED ripoff.

I don't want it to come across as a bunch of attack articles or read like our posts here, more like a formal exposé as you said with facts, like detailing Spoony scamming his patreons or examples of Boogie being manipulative. No sentences with shit saying "If this fat fucking lardass spent as much time walking as he did manipulating people, he might finally be able to see his shrivelled up pindick for the first time since age 13".

I would be way more strict with it than I am here on the forum.
Guest wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:46 pm
The main problem with the movement is that it's a movement in the first place.

User avatar
Griever
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 1:44 am

Re: INDB 2.0?

Post by Griever » Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:26 am

I definitely agree that, if we make a second attempt at INDB, we should heavily moderate whoe writes the kahntent. I'm definitely guilty of writing some of my old INDB edits like forum shitposts, but I feel like there was some quality effort and research put into some of the pages that made INDB worth wading through the shit sometimes. If we could just capture the essence of those better INDB pages, it might be worth doing.

User avatar
Kugelfisch
Supreme Shitposter
Posts: 5018
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2017 1:36 pm

Re: INDB 2.0?

Post by Kugelfisch » Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:40 am

Only regulars should get editing rights to it.
Not me, though. I'd shit it up when I'm drunk.
Hail Eris, all hail Discordia!
Rapeculture wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:41 am
Have I forgotten to call Lindsay a cunt today?

User avatar
Poonoo
Site Admin
Posts: 1509
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:16 pm

Re: INDB 2.0?

Post by Poonoo » Mon Mar 27, 2017 5:32 am

Griever wrote:I definitely agree that, if we make a second attempt at INDB, we should heavily moderate whoe writes the kahntent. I'm definitely guilty of writing some of my old INDB edits like forum shitposts, but I feel like there was some quality effort and research put into some of the pages that made INDB worth wading through the shit sometimes. If we could just capture the essence of those better INDB pages, it might be worth doing.
Yeah, the escapist pages revealing the rampant censorship of their and Spoony's forum are more in line with what it should be.
Guest wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:46 pm
The main problem with the movement is that it's a movement in the first place.

User avatar
Rushy
Posts: 826
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2017 11:52 am
Location: He he he he

Re: INDB 2.0?

Post by Rushy » Mon Mar 27, 2017 7:15 am

Isn't Encyclopedia Dramatica good enough?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests