Name the cliques of Boards.ie

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

If you get satisfaction from killing innocent villagers then werewolf is your clique.

Strawbs: always on the hustle!

Ush1 wrote: »

And now we move on, to liars....

That's not true.

Clique cliches

facehugger99 wrote: »

The train and train drivers appreciation society.

gozunda wrote: »

Ah you mean the Little Brothers of Steam and Diesel?

Cliquetty click..................cliquetty click...................cliquetty click..........;)

branie2 wrote: »

sixty-six

Bingo

I refuse to belong to any clique that would have someone like me as a member. Yizzer are all bollixes, so yiz are, and yiz can go and shi'e.

jimgoose wrote: »

I refuse to belong to any clique that would have someone like me as a member. Yizzer are all bollixes, so yiz are, and yiz can go and shi'e.

Full marks for the grouchy post !

Deleted User wrote: »

The posh gym patrons. Less to do with fitness more content how different members were offended in some way at their cool gym, by lower castes and common folk.

Such mugs.

Paying over the odds for something that you can do for free.

Bigbagofcans wrote: »

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery

Gratuitously bashing other posters about alleged 'bashing' lol.

Parody is always the best way to address mendacity. But hey truth hurts ...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

Bigbagofcans wrote: »

You're relentless..

I like you too

Bigbagofcans wrote: »

The vegan bashers. They unite together to berate. I swear some of them have multiple accounts & are constantly liking each others' posts.

Not a vegan myself but always find it bizarre that people would get upset about what other people choose to eat.

I've never noticed this oft-maligned aspect of Boards. I remember at one point there was a great guffufle about clique-forming in two specific threads - "where are you right now" and "trivial things that annoy you". So much so that both threads were closed for a while and there was this ridiculous rule imposed involving not being allowed to respond to another person's post agreeing or disagreeing with that they said, or something like that. Ostensibly, this was because some stuff going on around AH at the time made the place hostile to newcomers?

Personally I've just never noticed or been impacted by this at all. The only time I'd see it is when someone posts an extremely controversial or opinionated message and people point to their registration date or low post count as evidence that they're a troll or re-reg banned user, which I can imagine must be annoying for someone who's legitimately just joined to post in a controversial thread, but beyond that it's just not something I've ever really understood.

Can anyone who posted regularly in either of the two threads I cited above give an explainer or summery as to why they generated so much controversy in the area of people having conversations within those threads? The rules which were temporarily imposed seemed bizarre to me at the time (even as someone who never really posts in those threads) in that they turned them into a sort of "notice board without conversation" type thing, which always just seemed to be at odds with the purpose of a thread-based discussion forum like this - but I'm sure those who actually participate in those threads could shed some light on what that was all about at the time?

gozunda wrote: »

The moaners and the b1tchers ....

yes, absolutely.