›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Forget zombies! What will you do when...

ProfPanglossProfPangloss
edited October 2006 in Everything Else
What will you do when the GeekNights fanboys attack the forums?

If GN really is gaining listeners as fast as Rym and Scott say, there will inevitably be GN fanboys!

Let's assume the following:

1. They all have REALLY bad grammar (or at least talk in 1337 5P34K)
2. One out of 15 fanboys is a FANboy
3. Not to sound evil or anything, but let's just say you can't leave the forums forever (which I'm sure would be the response of many weaker-willed forum users)
4. We still only have one Mr. Period
5. Rym and Scott can't ban them at a positive rate, or prevent them from joining (merely a thought...)

I'm just curious to hear your thoughts on this impending apocalypse, and/or how you'll prepare.

As for me, I'll probably just troll them as much as I can, whilst acting as a messenger for Mr. Period.

Comments

  • La Petit MortLa Petit Mort
    edited October 2006
    Then discourage them from staying here.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • AndrewAndrew
    Actually, despite The Flamming Geek, there have yet to be any other users who are truly annoying/retarded. Most people have one or two slip up posts where the grammar sucks, but this is merely just trying to get out of the habit of writing poorly in other places of the intraweb. I'm happy so many people are joining the forums. :D
  • ThaedThaed
    edited October 2006
    But what's your definition of FANboy? Does it have to be negative? It rolls off the tongue so well...

    /immitates Rym: "PHANboy!" (I think he was talking about some guy named Steve from CWRU, I remember this because I, too, went to CWRU).

    If fanboy is the derogatory term, then what's the positive term for hardcore Geeknights fans who aren't, per se, undesirable?

    Geektakus?
    Post edited by Thaed on
  • thaneofcawdorthaneofcawdor
    I'd deal with the punks in a manner reminiscent of this particular incident with The Flamming Geek. Either that, or ignore them completely. Probably the latter.
  • baltmatrixbaltmatrix
    edited October 2006
    Rym and Scott will deal with the fanboys in ways so horrible they cannot be discussed.
    Post edited by baltmatrix on
  • ProfPanglossProfPangloss
    But what's your definition of FANboy? Does it have to be negative? It rolls off the tongue so well...

    /immitates Rym: "PHANboy!" (I think he was talking about some guy named Steve from CWRU, I remember this because I, too, went to CWRU).
    I'm referring to the same Steve (AKA FANboy) that you mentioned in your post. So.... Yes. That would be VERY negative.

    Also, I know there will be "good' fanboys out there, but there will inevitably be "bad" fanboys too. Nothing is perfect (well, except for the current state of the forums, which pwns all.)
    Rym and Scott will deal with the fanboys in ways so horrible they cannot be discussed.
    Okay, baltmatrix? As much as I enjoy (and share) your trust and enthusiasm for Rym and Scott's "methods" of dealing with spammers, let's just say they can't use them in this particular case, and we all have to deal with them as normal forum users. What then?
  • NinjaNedNinjaNed
    The fanboys can be handled by Rym and Scott handing out the banhammer to a group of their friends that are on the forums and whom they trust to make good decisions regarding who gets banned.
  • Kate MonsterKate Monster
    I think that fanboy has a negative connotation intentionally. When I was introduced to geekery, it was explained to me that the positive term and the general collective of those that liked any one hobby quite a bit, were GEEKS. Then there was a subset of these people designated as FANBOYS or FANGIRLS. This subset represented a group of geeks that took geekery to its socially stunting extreme. People who loved their particular hobby so much that they ignored other basic aspects of life (i.e. hygene, voice modulation, doing homework, getting jobs, talking about anything other than their one or two interests, and basically interacting or functioning with society other than fellow fanboys).

    I am sure that there are other subsets of geeks, and that is possible to be extremely into an interest without becoming a fanboy. However, those that are inhibited by their enthusiasm are fanboys and that, by definition, is a negative.
  • ProfPanglossProfPangloss
    edited October 2006
    Here's what I find as a definition of fans, fanboys, and FAN boys:


    Fans are people who are obsessive about whatever they're fans of, and they're usually proud of it. Nobody (as far as I know) really has any problem with them, or that.
    I also find that fans and geeks are different, as (from what I see) us geeks are - in general - fans who know just how to curb our enthusiasm, so we don't really give off that "fannish" aura.
    Fans, however, not only have great enthusiasm, but they show it. Luckily, they don't really show it quite to the extent of fanboys, as stated below.

    Fanboys are fans who generally assume that everyone else agrees with their views, and also assume that they give a crap. As a result, they talk about it all the time in painstaking detail to people who don't usually care, causing many people to use "fanboy" as a negative term.

    FANboys are fanboys who take it to the next level, generally disliking people who don't listen to them, believe that the world revolves aroud their obsession, and who possibly even have a drop of social ineptitude in to boot, typically making them extraordinarily annoying and crazy.


    When I say fanboy, I typically use it as a negative term, as stated above. This doesn't overlap with the average fan, whom I'm fine with, and generally admire for their enthusiasm. By FANboy, I'm talking about the ever-loving GODS of fanboyism, which I don't hate so much as fear (I mean, just look at what Steve the FANboy did in that GN special about him!)

    Anyway, those are my typical definitions of fan, fanboy, and FANboy, based on my perspectives.
    Now, don't take this as a perfect guide to the "fanisms", but merely as a list of my views on the subject.

    As for the forums...
    I find that there are already plenty of GN fans on the forums (otherwise, what are we all doing here, anyway?), but I'm referring (in my original post) to the eventual army of fanboys and FANboys, who are coming for you... (Dawn of the Fanboys, anyone?)
    Post edited by ProfPangloss on
  • Kate MonsterKate Monster
    edited October 2006
    See, that seems be defining another subset within fanboys of super-fanboys or FANboys... to me the description for "fanboys" still sounds negative, and rightly so. While not completely inhibited by their fandom, they are restricted... there is nothing good about that.

    BTW, I would pay to see a short movie entitled "Dawn of the Fanboys".
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • ProfPanglossProfPangloss
    Well, like I said, that's just my personal opinion, but I see what you mean.

    Yeah, so many people have so many different opinions on what defines the different types of fan & fanboy, but I believe that most of us can probably agree:

    "Fan" is typically used to define somebody who really likes something,
    "Fanboy" is a negative term for a very obsessive fan (usually to the point of being annoying and disliked),
    and "FANboy" is (as far as I know), a GN and FRC-only term that defines a fanboy with bad social skills.

    I dunno. If you have a different opinion, just post below, I suppose.

    Oh, and here's a scary thought. What if there was an UBER-FANboy? I'd see that as a FANboy of multiple geekeries. Oh god! That would probably be a nightmare to geeks everywhere!


    PS. Yeah, somebody should make that and post it here! "Dawn of the Fanboys" would be a standard must-see for geeks within a week! OOH OOH! I'VE GOT IT! Listen up:

    Somebody take a clip of the original Dawn of the Dead, and photoshop it to be filled with fanboys! OH! And dub it too! That would be CLASSIC!
Sign In or Register to comment.