1. The +1ing, mindless little yes-men, those who exist only to brownnose and pat the staff on the backs for a job well done. I have no idea what really compels these people at the end of the day, but generally it seems to end up consisting of those biased in favour of the decision at hand (clearly visible in this latest mass ban), those who seem to just enjoy being 'in the right' (???), and finally - the spineless little creatures who unthinkingly adhere to everything that comes out of a green, yellow or orange's posts - presumably with some sort of view towards eventually joining the staff themselves, since there's an endless need for goose-stepping little automatons up in those parts.
   
   
2. The 'conflict resolvers' - these are almost more infuriating than the herd of sheep in the previous point. These are the people who think it helps to sweep everything under the rug, time and time again. After all, it's good that we can keep having the same type of threads over and over and over and over and over again - you are the people who don't validate the staff in what they do, but you sure as hell make it easy to keep any dissent and legitimate criticism buried under mountains of the same old sh.it - pages upon pages of people just spewing the same old 'guys, let it rest, because XYZ XYZ XYZ'. Most of you have no stake or real point to press in any argument that comes up, but that doesn't stop you from spewing your worthless, totally irrelevant bile about everyone should pack up and go home every single time it happens. Every SINGLE time. How do you think things will get fixed if discussion, no matter how heated or vitriolic, only winds up smothered by these sorts of attitudes time and time again? I wouldn't doubt that many, if not all, of you haven't really bothered to even think on that point - you just want the internet validity of being the 'good guy' who calls for mediation and tries to devolve things. In actuality, you are the least helpful of anyone involved.
   
   
3. Those who disagree with the decision to varying levels of outrage. This encompasses a broad spectrum of people - there are those who make a few short, concise, nicely worded posts about how they're unhappy with things (they get ignored, of course, or caught up in the same BS of the other two parties outlined above), and everything in between, up to the kind of unhinged, screaming sort of demon who makes death threats to people on Skype because someone took their pixels away. These are the most important party to listen to, and also the hardest - primarily because you have to sort the legitimate criticism and negative feedback out from all the hatred, bile, and unconstructiveness that always surrounds arguments like these. But, guess what? I'm so sorry to say it, but the reason Discovery has it so bad is a combination of the staff's and the community at large's response to any 'crisis' that erupts. Not only do the staff get a free ball to lock themselves away and ignore any and all posts related to the subject, should they wish (and I guess they're entirely entitled to just walk away - but more on that later), but over half of the community will constantly validate this behaviour with their little gestures of support, like a crowd of people applauding a controversial decision simply because it either doesn't affect them or affects them positively. In my view, if you don't have a stake or reason to comment on something, you should simply keep your mouth shut instead of treating us to another dose of repetitive, meaningless drivel.

Quote:Even the admins said it's a bad thing. They didn't do it because they think its a good thing, but that they are left with no other choice.

Quote:[closing statement, mostly about how Lyth sucks]