LifeOnaPlate
Well-Known Member
I'm digging the culture war up in herr.
Boozer who?
- Thread starter doubledribble
- Start date
I'm digging the culture war up in herr.
JAZZFAN_2814
Active Member
I see you reply and have the same reading aptitude as you show in your handing out of infractions: i.e. capricious and incoherent.
I made the point in my reply, which you found either too difficult to follow or would prefer to ignore the content of, that the very nature of needing these votes to pass through an infraction proves the point: that they are subjective rather than objective.
It seems you're conceding the point.
Which leaves me with only one question: do you guys pump each other off before or after voting? By your very "standards" I'm sure this is offensive, and an infraction.
Have at it.
I'll do that. Right after you apply objective, rather than subjective, moderating policies, and learn how to pay attention to what the other side is saying.
In other words, I am who I am. I'm not you're serf, and I will not do as you tell me.
And, further, your suggestion just expands upon the implications, turning them into explication: you care more about personality than conduct, and moderate from under that rubric.
If you want to ban me or provide an infraction for this, it'll just be a compounding point, for the few that care, as to how lacking the moderating standards of this board are beyond popularity contests and personality preferences.
JAZZFAN_2814
Active Member
Oh, it takes days for him, but hours for me.
I see.
It's relevant because I was replying to a homophobe, who has not been punished, after there was a sticky post as to how such conduct would no longer be allowed.
Evidently, gays get less respect than bipedal afterbirth. I find that very offensive.
The standards of conduct on this board have as much relevance and truth to them as a NY traffic sign -- something like "No honking in the city - $500 fine"
JAZZFAN_2814
Active Member
I'll keep that in mind, particularly in relation to your ridiculous assertions about Kirilenko.
You can create objective standards for the use of specific words, because they either are there or they are not. You can not create objective standards for insults, trolling, or a host of other human behaviors, because contextually the possible variations concerning what would and would not be permissable would start to show behavior similar to what leads to the Goedel's first incompleteness theorem. Your suggestion shows very immature thinking.
The child erects his banner high on the hill, braying his victory over his father, who slowed down deliberately.
I don't have enough knowledge of basketball to form independent, reliable opinions in the first place. So, I don't expect anyone to care what I have to say. Instead, I digest and interpret the opinions I read of the players, coaches, and other people knowledgeable of the game. That list does not include message board poster whose abilities to examine the situation are clearly deficient by comparison, regardless of how such opinions are worded.
Will lose the wonky notion that this is a homophobic slur so I can give credibility to the remainder of your claims? If nothing else, using this sexual reference as an example of subjective rule enforcement adds credibility to your claims. Insinuating it's homophobic makes you appear hypersensitive and not worth responding to.
LifeOnaPlate
Well-Known Member
It's pretty obvious that there is no "objective" moderating policies. "Objective" moderating policies don't exist. The mods here volunteer to try and keep the board a reasonable place for discussion and I think they do a fine job of it. The mods can do whatever they want. For the most part it seems they have kept this board from becoming too troll-filled. They've been assigned by the owner of the board. I used to be one. I know they try to be conscientious and fair in their judgement, but they aren't applying a scientific methodology in order to moderate. It's rather silly for you to think they should do otherwise. Welcome to the Internet, where you have to try and get along with folks rather than expecting everyone to kiss your feet and thank you for your invaluable contributions.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
This. I'll add what I know others have said in the past. If you don't like it 2814, leave.
Hopper
Banned
My town passed an ordinance against disorderly conduct which said: "Any person convicted of engaging in disorderly conduct shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $100,000 and a sentence not to exceed one year."
One day, ole Lardass Jackson opened a door which swung out to the right with his LEFT hand (obviously a disorderly thang to do, all in itself). Then he kinda stubbed his toe on the threshhold and stumbled a bit, temporarily losin his balance (VERY disorderly).
Officer Fife arrested his sorry *** for disorderly conduct, naturally. He was given a $20,000 fine and 6 months in the county clink (all in all a very moderate sentence). At the trial, his lame-*** bottom-feeder tried to argue that the ordinance was unenforceable and void because, among other things, he said it didn't define "disorderly conduct," and hence did not inform people of what was prohibited.
Judge Burke wasn't fallin for that. He said: "I'm gunna convict Lardass, like I always do. He's been convicted, so now you know what "disorderly conduct" is, see?"
The bottom-feeder tried other arguments too, sumthin along the lines of no "mens rea" (whatever that is) warranting punishment. Judge Burke shot that one down, rather handily, I must say, too. He said: "He left his house, and went onto public streets, deliberately. That wasn't no accident."
One day, ole Lardass Jackson opened a door which swung out to the right with his LEFT hand (obviously a disorderly thang to do, all in itself). Then he kinda stubbed his toe on the threshhold and stumbled a bit, temporarily losin his balance (VERY disorderly).
Officer Fife arrested his sorry *** for disorderly conduct, naturally. He was given a $20,000 fine and 6 months in the county clink (all in all a very moderate sentence). At the trial, his lame-*** bottom-feeder tried to argue that the ordinance was unenforceable and void because, among other things, he said it didn't define "disorderly conduct," and hence did not inform people of what was prohibited.
Judge Burke wasn't fallin for that. He said: "I'm gunna convict Lardass, like I always do. He's been convicted, so now you know what "disorderly conduct" is, see?"
The bottom-feeder tried other arguments too, sumthin along the lines of no "mens rea" (whatever that is) warranting punishment. Judge Burke shot that one down, rather handily, I must say, too. He said: "He left his house, and went onto public streets, deliberately. That wasn't no accident."
Ban the windbag!
Bozzer suxxxx.
Bozzer suxxxx.
Hopper
Banned
I agree, Plate, it is pretty obvious. But why make a pretense otherwise? If you're right, the FAQ's should simply say: "If you say, do, think, or act in a way that 3 moderators don't approve of you will be removed from the board."
Hopper
Banned
How does "truth" even enter into the issue? A law is a law. A law like yours is especially desirable, because that way you can bust anyone you want. Everybody honks, so if you don't like the looks of a guy, just wait a spell until he honks, and ya got his sorry *** dead to rights.
Yeah, democracies are rad. Unfortunately JF is not one of them. Get over it.
Hopper
Banned
2814's posting style is irksome to most, including me. The guy is obviously intelligent and has some worthwhile things to say, but you know before you even start readin one of his posts that it will be chockfulla self-congratulation and declarations that anyone who disagrees with him is stupid. One comes away with the impression that he has a severe inferiority complex which he attempts to disguise by projecting an exaggerated sense of self-importance and superiority. There are many like him here, although he may be one of the most extreme.
Needless to say, he gets a lot of negative feedback for his overall demeanor. Call me "crazy," but I feel like the posters on this board are capable of handling this situation in their own way, and don't need the "protection" that banishment affords the super-sensitive. If you are one of those, put the guy on ignore, but there's no need to try and drag everyone else down to your level of weakness. If they are so weak that, even though they have him on ignore, they can't tolerate the fact that he is even allowed to make posts, then, yeah, they should leave.
They should leave, not for 2814's benefit, but for their own sake. They really have no more business participating in a chat board (this, or any other) than a 3-year old girl has in joining in a gangfight. They're just gunna git hurt, and are incapable of preventing or avoiding injury to themselves.
Last edited:
LifeOnaPlate
Well-Known Member
Why make a "pretense" otherwise? Probably because it isn't a pretense at all. It's their prerogative (and in posters' best interest) to explain some the the ground rules for participation in order to cultivate a certain type of interactive experience for you and me.
Hopper
Banned
How could they possibly be "ground rules," if they aint no real rules?
Inn Dawn
Well-Known Member
Do you find your own posting style irksome by any chance?
Hopper
Banned
I'm sure many (mebbe most) others do. Many here have made a special point of announcing, for the approval of all, that they have put me on ignore.
Others, who haven't put me on ignore, apparently read some of my posts and feel compelled to regularly express their sincere desire that I be banned. If only they were mods, eh?
Last edited:
What?
Anti-trolling rules are still real rules, even though you can't quantify trolling. Anti-spamming rules are still real rules, even though you can't quantify spamming. Sure, we'd all like bright-line rules, but it's not always possible.