What's new
By:

The Official Welcome Back Rasp/Trout and Hopper/Taint Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
colton said:
Which posts were those? (I don't want to take the time to look them up. I assume you were told which posts they were when the infractions were issued.)
Click to expand...

Colton, I have a feeling you're gunna be sorry you asked. I have summarized the first two sets of "bizarrely formatted" posts (aka "trolling" aka "posting too" often posts, I guess) in other threads. I will repeat my summaries for you. This first post is directed to the first warning I got, and ultimately refer back to posts made in this thread: https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical/page11

This summary was addressed to a post made by Mo. To my knowledge and recollection she never responded after I questioned her assertions. The full post can be found here: https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php...o-Stop-Already/page10?highlight=jesse+jackson

Hopper said:
I am guessing that the last post counted in the 23 post sequence in question was one I made at 8:13 P.M. on 7-7. If I count back 23 posts from there, I come to a post that Marcus made at 8:17 P.M on 7-6...Prior to making my first post in this 23-post long sequence, I had not made a post since about 8:00 P.M. the night before—about a 15 hour period. In the interim, Sharpie, Raspberry Delight (twice), Marcus, and you, Mo, all made posts, almost all of which were addressed to comments I had made before I left the thread for the night. I was not there to immediately respond to them of course, although I did address some later in the thread.

But the first thing I did was make a couple of posts that were directed to the discussion itself rather than particular posters: one quoting from atheists.org and one quoting from Richard Dawkins' website. In my view, these two posts added a LOT more to the advancement and stimulation of the general topic than the 6 posts that been made while I was gone, but that's probably just my own self-bias. Eric works, and, although he appears to have made a couple of posts during his lunch break, most of his posts are made after 5:00 P.M., so I certainly didn’t expect him to “immediately respond” to any of the posts I was making that were intended primarily for his reading and consideration.

As far as “CONSECUTIVE" posts go: On 7-7 I made 6 consecutive posts in a 46 minute period between 12:18 and 1:04. Just prior to that, at 12:11, Eric had made a post in response to me and my first two posts were directed to that particular comment (the two could have been combined, I suppose, but I had received no warnings and thought nothing of it at the time). Those two posts were followed by quotations from an article I was reading on the web about the relationship between secularism and religion, which were posted for general consideration by Eric or anyone else interested in the discussion. The last two were addressed to you, Mo. Although one of those posts specifically quoted a prior (joking) post of yours, they were both just joking posts on my part—which you may have strongly resented, I dunno, but, if so, I’m sorry.

Then Eric made another post at 1:07 P.M. which responded to one of my posts. Thereafter he did not return to the thread until 5:36 P.M., when he made his next comment. In the intervening 4-5 hours, I made a total of 5 posts, one of which one intentionally left blank, so 4, really. Of those 4, 2 were addressed to Eric’s last point, one answered a question posed to me in a previous post by Sharpie, and the final one merely noted the hateful rep hit I received for the 3rd post, and asked if Sharpie had given it to me.

If there is any more to the “CONTEXT” that you think is important here, Mo. Please feel free to point it out. If not, is there something in particular about the TIME FRAME which you think makes these posts particularly intolerable. Eric begin responding again after he got back from work. Does it bother you, or other mods that he did not respond immediately? It is really not accurate to say that “nobody is responding” to my posts, just because no one responds until later. But even if no one responds, is that a reason not to make a post in the first place? Can’t people find something of value to consider in a post even if they don’t personally respond, whether immediately, or ever? How I can I know if, or when, anyone will respond when I make a post? I can’t know, best I can tell. Should that deter me from making a post to begin with?
Click to expand...

As you can see, this post is already getting rather lengthy and it will take me a while to find the other summary anyway, so I wil provide it in my next post.
 
Colton, this post, originally addressed to Kicky, summarizes the circumstances of my first infraction, and relates to five posts which can be found here: https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/1072-Jesse-Jackson-is-a-Clown-and-Needs-to-Stop-Already/page3

Hopper said:
I started a thread in the “general discussion” forum yesterday and a response or two was made there. I was gone from the thread for a couple of hours (from 9:10 to 11:04). In the meantime you had moved the thread from the "general discussion" forum to this, the "general nba" forum for reasons entirely beyond my comprehension. While I was gone, 6 new posts were made: One by you, two by Onebrow, and 3 by Vinny. When I returned, I responded to these new posts, in the order I encountered them, over a 16 minute period. Then you stepped in and said: "I'll note that he's once again decided to go the "five posts in a row" route in this very thread."

Let me note that, in my experience, it is not the least bit uncommon for a poster to come to a thread he has not visited before and respond to posts in the order he encounters them. If no one else is posting at the time the (strictly temporary) result may be that the last 5-10 posts in that thread are all made by the same poster. This happens with whole threads, too. It is not uncommon, especially in quiet periods of low-volume activity on the board, to see that the “last post” in the top 5-10 threads on a forum were all made by the same person.

I have never seen this as being in the least bit bizarre or problematic or the product of a “deliberate attempt to disrupt the board.” On the contrary, I see it merely as welcome participation by a board member. Yet, in my case, at least, you, Catratcho, and presumably others have decided that it is an intolerable violation of published rules. Why?
Click to expand...

My last infraction occurred for my posting in the recent gay marriage thread. Kicky specifically cites a particular post on page 38 of that thread, dated 8-21, as the "third in a row" but says there were other violations in the same thread. I haven't really tried to review the details of it, but this is basically another long-*** (38 page) thread which had petered down to just me and One Brow posting (it looks like 13 of the prior 16--and all of the "serious" posts in that 16 post span--in that thread had been made by either me or Eric). I was citing a lot of Supreme Court cases, etc., and basically trying to cut the response posts down to reasonable sized chunks. No one else seemed interested in posting at that point. No one would even know if I had made 3 posts in a row unless they clicked on the thread. Again, I fail to see how any of this could possibly constitute "trolling" (a deliberate attempt to disrupt the board) or "bizarre formatting." Eric and I were simply having a sincere and serious discussion about the actions of the Judge in the gay marriage case.
 
Hopper said:
Colton, I have a feeling you're gunna be sorry you asked. I have summarized the first two sets of "bizarrely formatted" posts (aka "trolling" aka "posting too" often posts, I guess) in other threads. I will repeat my summaries for you. This first post is directed to the first warning I got, and ultimately refer back to posts made in this thread: https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical/page11
Click to expand...

I remember that thread, and I remember thinking at the time that kicky went above and beyond the call of duty to explain things to you. You posted 16 out of 19 posts in a row in that thread. If you received an infraction for that, it's because that was considered by at least three moderators to be spamming the board.

This summary was addressed to a post made by Mo. To my knowledge and recollection she never responded after I questioned her assertions. The full post can be found here: https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php...o-Stop-Already/page10?highlight=jesse+jackson

I am guessing that the last post counted in the 23 post sequence in question was one I made at 8:13 P.M. on 7-7. If I count back 23 posts from there, I come to a post that Marcus made at 8:17 P.M on 7-6...Prior to making my first post in this 23-post long sequence, I had not made a post since about 8:00 P.M. the night before—about a 15 hour period. In the interim, Sharpie, Raspberry Delight (twice), Marcus, and you, Mo, all made posts, almost all of which were addressed to comments I had made before I left the thread for the night. I was not there to immediately respond to them of course, although I did address some later in the thread.

But the first thing I did was make a couple of posts that were directed to the discussion itself rather than particular posters: one quoting from atheists.org and one quoting from Richard Dawkins' website. In my view, these two posts added a LOT more to the advancement and stimulation of the general topic than the 6 posts that been made while I was gone, but that's probably just my own self-bias. Eric works, and, although he appears to have made a couple of posts during his lunch break, most of his posts are made after 5:00 P.M., so I certainly didn’t expect him to “immediately respond” to any of the posts I was making that were intended primarily for his reading and consideration.

As far as “CONSECUTIVE" posts go: On 7-7 I made 6 consecutive posts in a 46 minute period between 12:18 and 1:04. Just prior to that, at 12:11, Eric had made a post in response to me and my first two posts were directed to that particular comment (the two could have been combined, I suppose, but I had received no warnings and thought nothing of it at the time). Those two posts were followed by quotations from an article I was reading on the web about the relationship between secularism and religion, which were posted for general consideration by Eric or anyone else interested in the discussion. The last two were addressed to you, Mo. Although one of those posts specifically quoted a prior (joking) post of yours, they were both just joking posts on my part—which you may have strongly resented, I dunno, but, if so, I’m sorry.

Then Eric made another post at 1:07 P.M. which responded to one of my posts. Thereafter he did not return to the thread until 5:36 P.M., when he made his next comment. In the intervening 4-5 hours, I made a total of 5 posts, one of which one intentionally left blank, so 4, really. Of those 4, 2 were addressed to Eric’s last point, one answered a question posed to me in a previous post by Sharpie, and the final one merely noted the hateful rep hit I received for the 3rd post, and asked if Sharpie had given it to me.

If there is any more to the “CONTEXT” that you think is important here, Mo. Please feel free to point it out. If not, is there something in particular about the TIME FRAME which you think makes these posts particularly intolerable. Eric begin responding again after he got back from work. Does it bother you, or other mods that he did not respond immediately? It is really not accurate to say that “nobody is responding” to my posts, just because no one responds until later. But even if no one responds, is that a reason not to make a post in the first place? Can’t people find something of value to consider in a post even if they don’t personally respond, whether immediately, or ever? How I can I know if, or when, anyone will respond when I make a post? I can’t know, best I can tell. Should that deter me from making a post to begin with?
Click to expand...

As you can see, this post is already getting rather lengthy and it will take me a while to find the other summary anyway, so I wil provide it in my next post.
Click to expand...

I don't know what kind of answers you were looking for, from Moe. If your posts really added that much to the discussion then I suspect three moderators would not have voted the way they did. Sorry, but I'm not going to get into a play-by-play of the merits of each of your posts. As far as you not wanting to get hit with a similar infraction in the future goes, I suspect that any time you post 16 out of 19 posts in a row, you will likely get an infraction. Will two posts in a row? Almost certainly not. Will three or four posts in a row get you an infraction? It probably depends on the merits of the posts (see the example of tater's posts that I mentioned, above). Will five or six in a row get you an infraction? Probably so.

I'm sorry if you really dislike that kind of imprecision, but we're only human. Judging whether something is trolling, spamming, or otherwise disrupting the functionality of the board, is necessarily an imprecise science.
 
colton said:
You posted 16 out of 19 posts in a row in that thread. If you received an infraction for that, it's because that was considered by at least three moderators to be spamming the board.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, now the justification of "spamming" comes up for the first time. According to the rules:

Spamming: Accounts set up primarily to post advertising notices, whether or not the items for sale or services offered are related to the Jazz or basketball, will be considered spam. The offending posts will be removed and the user who posted the notices will be issued infractions as appropriate. On the other hand, similar posts by established Jazzfanz members will not be considered spam, and may be posted to the General Discussion board
Click to expand...
.

Not sure how "spamming" applies. Just curious, Colton--would that have been the extent of your consideration and analysis if I had "appealed" the warning directly to you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page
Back
Top