Jesse Jackson is a Clown and Needs to Stop Already

[Gyp Rosetti]

Yeah, he did, sho nuff, Killa. And I responded to that claim. But to know that, you'd have to be able to read, I spoze, so....

Why are you asking the question if you go on to answer it yourself?

 

[Hopper]

No, that's been used so much it shouldn't get sore any more.

Just curious, eh, Killa? Why are you so anxious to join in with Bum with the disgusting homosexual innuendo?

Do you have an agenda here? Are you looking for trouble? Looking for enemies?

After your virtually endless tasteless attacks on Moses in the Steinbrenner thread ( https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/1131-RIP-George-Steinbrenner ) that seems to be the case.

What is it you're lookin for? A fight?

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

Just curious, eh, Killa? Why are you so anxious to join in with Bum with the disgusting homosexual innuendo?

Do you have an agenda here? Are you looking for trouble? Looking for enemies?

After your virtually endless tasteless attacks on Moses in the Steinbrenner thread ( https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/1131-RIP-George-Steinbrenner ) that seems to be the case.

What is it you're lookin for? A fight?

No but it seems as though you're looking for one. No?

 

[sirkickyass]

Kicky, I see this as a deliberate and disingenuous attempt, by you, to cast unwarranted aspersion on my veracity, and I have decided not to let it go without comment.

Hooray. I'm sure everyone is thrilled. I'll answer substantively, if briefly.

I'll come back to the "so" part of this post in a minute, but, for now, do you realize that, on the face of it, this is inconsistent with your own prior statements on the topic?:

Of course, the "and now once publicly" part refers to the very post you are making. So, tell me, how does the "once privately" portion amount to being told "numerous times" in the past, which is what I denied?

Your argument here is entirely semantic. In describing you being told "once privately" I was grouping the two different PMs you've been sent, both the original and the follow-up, on this board. The "numerous times" refers to both of those PMs and other messages you were sent on the topic on the previous board. There is no inconsistency here of any relevance.

I will unequivocally state, for the record, that in all my years on the previous board I NEVER received any warnings or explanations against/about consecutive posts from any moderator or admin. I would be amazed if Colton, Jason, or anybody else told you otherwise.

Two points:

1) As a moderator on the old board I could view in every user's "user log" notes that any previous moderator had left regarding PMs that were sent and the text of any warning that was given to a user going back to (I think) 2006. Furthermore, all the moderator conversations were archived so I could go back and look at any moderator conversation from significantly before I became a moderator, similar to the way that users who register today can view threads that were started last month. When I first became a moderator, in an effort to fully understand some of the moderating precedents, I combed through a substantial percentage of those threads so I'm familiar with their contents. As a result, I did not need to rely on hearsay from Jason or colton, I've seen the texts of your warnings and the moderator discussions that led to them personally. That said, I stand by my statement that you've been told about this on the old board through PM and the warning feature.

2) I think you're probably playing the semantic game again. Given that you swear you haven't been given any explanation here either (despite nakedly plain explanation) it wouldn't shock me if you received an explanation previously and have simply deemed it "not an explanation."

i.e., the glitch that often causes first posts in a new thread to appear in lines that are only 10-12 characters long. This often results in such "difficult to read clutter" as single words being chopped up and, without even the benefit of a hyphen, properly placed or not, "continued" to the following line (the continuity is hard to discern, in many cases).

This appears to be a problem that is specific to you and your computer system/browser/whatever. For myself and the other moderators the first post is thinner, but far greater than 10-12 characters across (I would venture to say the actual number is over 100 characters) and we have not seen the chopping up of words that you describe. I'm willing to post a screenshot of any thread you like to show you how it appears to us. Furthermore you appear to be the only poster that has chosen to "solve" this problem through alternative posting means.

I do recall an exchange between you and me personally, years ago, at a time when your were NOT a moderator. In that exchange, you expressed your preference that I post in a form that you preferred. We went on to discuss the reasons why you preferred one form and I preferred another. As I recall, the discussion ended with me saying something like this: "Tell ya what, Kicky, how about you post the way you prefer, and I'll post the way I prefer. Fair enough?"

Apparently you have NEVER forgotten that I wouldn't do your bidding at that time, and greatly resent it. You have since been given moderator "powers" and now seem bent on imposing your caprious will on all who haved dared to "defy" you on past occasions.

Actually, I have no recollection of this conversation. Far from creating years of resentment, it turns out it didn't matter a whit to me. The only conversation I have a recollection of regarded your (since somewhat toned down) extreme use of dialectized text that rendered your posts completely unreadable. Others have commented on the same issue and noted that you seem to have somewhat corrected it in this iteration of your constructed digital identity.

Furthermore, your charge of imposing my will on you is unfounded. As you've been told before, the moderating staff operates on a consensus basis. I have no ability to unilaterally issue you warnings or infractions. You can't point to a specific moderator and blame the boogeyman. If you feel that you are being treated unfairly you have the same recourse as everyone else, take it to Jason or colton. Any fair review of the moderating forum will show that you have not been unfairly targeted, were given a warning prior to receiving an infraction, and received an infraction for engaging in the very behavior you were warned not to engage in.

Let me throw this out there for you aint: one of your very first posts on this board was to start an entire thread about me specifically as a moderator despite the fact that you had been subject to no moderator sanctions to that point and had never been a board member during the time that I've been a moderator. Has it occurred to you that rather than me being fixated on you, that you're fixated on me for some reason?

 

[VINYLONE]

Looks like Hoppy is done finished. Mebbe he'll get learned this time. Doubtful.

 

[Safetydan]

Plus, you're super annoying

 

[Hopper]

Your argument here is entirely semantic.

No, it is not. It has to do with the substantive facts. Facts, not words.

As a result, I did not need to rely on hearsay from Jason or colton, I've seen the texts of your warnings and the moderator discussions that led to them personally. That said, I stand by my statement that you've been told about this on the old board through PM and the warning feature.

And I stand by my categorical statement that this is untrue. I don't have to rely on my memory (if that's what you're relying on) of my reading of "a substantial percentage of the threads" to know this. I got 3-4 PM's from mods and, although I cannot repeat them verbatim, I remember the general nature of the "complaints" against me. NONE of that content had to do with making 5 posts in a row, or anything even remotely similar to that.

This appears to be a problem that is specific to you and your computer system/browser/whatever.

This is not the point of my post, but I will simply note that I have seen others complain about the same problem. The column width does vary, I agree. From my experience it is when a post starts out with a quote (as many do, from newspaper articles, for example), the width becomes extremely narrow. I have asked mods for ways to correct this in the past but have been given no help.

I have no ability to unilaterally issue you warnings or infractions. You can't point to a specific moderator and blame the boogeyman.

My bad. I should have said you and at least two of your mod homeys, who you may or may not have some kinda influence over, I dunno.

I think you're probably playing the semantic game again...it wouldn't shock me if you received an explanation previously and have simply deemed it "not an explanation."

I realize that, for you, the mere assertion that "you have been told not to do it" is a full and complete explanation. But not for me. I asked for some clarification about the perceived "evil" that you and your fellow mods felt compelled to address. Since you claim to have access to all relevant PM’s, then you should be no means be "surprised" when I remind you that no reply was ever given.

As you know, and as you promised, I have now received a new infraction, based on this very thread. The notification “explains” the need for the issuance of an infraction as follows:

"You have received an infraction at JazzFanz Community.

Reason: Trolling
-------
Once again, you have made multiple posts in a row. This is after you were warned about it."

The notification was issued by Catratcho, not you. Looking at his profile reveals that his one, and only, “friend” on this board is Troutbum, aka “Raspberry Delight.” Catratco reveals his “location” as being “delighting the raspberry.” As you know, Raspberry Delight routinely announces his extreme hatred of me on this board and his sincere wish for my death. Perhaps this is all irrelevant co-incidence, perhaps not, I dunno. But either way, it’s not the main point.

Catratcho’s notification ends with a link to a post I made on page 3 in this thread yesterday. Indulge me a minute, Kicky, while I briefly review the facts and circumstances which led up to the issuance of this infraction. Perhaps then you will have a better understanding of what I don’t understand and about the kind of “explanations” I am asking for.

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? The explanation I would like might be given if you answered questions such as the following:

1. What is the harm being done, who is being harmed, and in what way(s) are they harmed?

2. When is the “rule” violated? Do 2 consecutive posts in the same thread by the same poster constitute an intolerable and impermissible violation which will generate an infraction notice?

3. Have any other posters who have committed this “offense” (and it happens everyday, I’m sure) been given infractions?

There is more to your post that I would like to respond to, but this post is already long enough, I figure. As I (poorly, no doubt) understand your “rule” if I don’t respond now, then I must FOREVER forfeit my right to do so. Again, makes no sense to me, but….

 

[Jean-Luc]

guys like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson will be out there making mountains out of mole hills because they NEED attention.

this

and, I guess more importantly this thread seems to have moved on to the topic of, ... how much attention can "hopper" get from the rest of the board... g'damn that clown is annoying.

 

[Archie Moses]

I even think that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton need to take it down a notch on being an attention whore. Seriously, leave some attention for me already.

 

[Jean-Luc]

I've now read where Ain't hijacks this thread, and ... seriously??

I find it ironic that someone with over 12 hundred posts already on this new board and, someone who obv. does this a lot on the internet ... and he doesn't know how to use the multiquote function!!? I call b.s. ... y'all are just getting played. "I'm sorry officer... I didn't know I couldn't do that."

Forget Jesse Jackson being an "attention whore," this "hopper" is the real "attention whore" wow! also very much a troll (the way I understand that word) and is a disruption to the flow of the board.

 

[Hopper]

I've now read where Ain't hijacks this thread

Glad that you were able to confine your comments to the "main topic" here and join the numerous posters who randomly pop in to call me "numbnuts" a homosexual, "dumb," and/or otherwise offer some brilliant, on-topic insight, eh, Jeannie?

 

[moevillini]

personally, in most cases I would rather read several shorter posts rather than one humongously long post, because then I tend to forgot whose post it is I'm reading. Maybe I've got some form of adult-onset ADD or something, I dunno.

that being said, the rules to some degree are subjective - what exactly constitutes "trolling" - "filter avoidance" - "inappropriate content" - is somewhat a matter of personal opinion, and also somewhat a matter of context. It's sort of like whoever it was that made that comment about defining good art (or whatever it was) "I can't explain it, but I know it when I see it"
But I don't think it's really something that can be strictly "defined" to anyone's complete satisfaction.