Jesse Jackson is a Clown and Needs to Stop Already

[Hopper]

...regarding One Brow's "confession" I did a quick search of his posts and found no points where he..made a conversation screech to an absolute halt through his posting tactics.

I aint gunna go back and try to analyze all them posts in that long-*** "firin squad" thread, Kicky, and aint no one else gunna, neither. I do note that the "absolute halt" of the conversation you allege occurred on page 6 of a thread that ended up being 12-16 pages long. Some of the comments I made at a time when other posters interested in the thread were at work, or doin sumthin else, were no doubt considered by interested posters later in the thread, whether or not they responded to them. On what possible basis can you conclude that my posts "absolutely halted" conversation?

The link you gave does go to a page which helps illustrate another problem that I have brought up, though. Mo made a post, and I responded with a question. Rather than respond to my question/request AFTER my post, she went back and, unbeknownst to me, responded by "editing" her original post. I therefore was unaware of her response.

As I have said, it's not at all clear to me just what behavior the mods are demanding, but it could well include the demand that you MUST edit any prior post where you "could have" said more than you did and are prohibited from sayin anything more in a new post. This could be what the mods demand, even if there have been intervening posts in the interim and even if those following the thread would have no reason to go back and re-read prior posts. The ultimate result would be that if you're on page 10 of a 10-page thread, you must go back and re-read every post if you are looking for a response, and must find some prior post of your own to "add to," via editing, if there's anything else you want to say on the topic.

Makes no rational sense to me, but who can say for sure if that's the demand from the mods to begin with? And who said they had to be rational or reasonable to begin with? I don't see where the rules require that the mods be either rational or reasonable, do you?

... you would want to define usabilty and readability. I'm not venturing down the rabbit hole. We have a system that operates on moderator consensus. You agreed to abide by that system when you began posting here. That's the whole story.

I don't need to define "trolling," the rules already do..."a deliberate attempt to disrupt the readability and usability of the board," or sumthin like that. I understand that you and your mod homeys have re-defined that to say trollin is "whatever we say it is." Makes it purty simple for mods to know what trollin is, even if no one else does, I spoze.

 

[TroutBum]

Hahaha at Taint not knowing our "Inside Joke" -- what a butt hugger.

 

[Hopper]

Mo, in another thread I remember you getting a little irked at me because I didn't agree with your claim that "everyone knew" what behavior was expected of them on this board. You're a mod, you have access to the records, and I know you voted on my first "warning," so let me ask you:

Do you honestly think that the warning I got gave me any reason to believe that I would, or should, be given an infraction for the "five posts in a row" I made in this thread?

 

[moevillini]

Mo, in another thread I remember you getting a little irked at me because I didn't agree with your claim that "everyone knew" what behavior was expected of them on this board. You're a mod, you have access to the records, and I know you voted on my first "warning," so let me ask you:

Do you honestly think that the warning I got gave me any reason to believe that I would, or should, be given an infraction for the "five posts in a row" I made in this thread?

(LOL, I hope this isn't gonna be the first post on a new page, I don't think so, from the post number, but who knows?)

with regard to your first statement, off the top of my head, if I'm thinking of the right thread, I'm not sure I was "irked" for the reason you state. If I'm recalling correctly, what I meant there was that after reading the board for a while, and paying attention to things that might get a warning/infraction, most folks develop some degree of understanding of what's acceptable on Jazzfanz, and most manage to avoid making the same mistakes to the point they risk a permanent ban. It may take an occasional warning/reminder every so often, but most people manage to figure it out - and figure out a way to post and follow the rules enough not to warrant repeated warnings/infractions.

As far as your second question, I'd have to review the threads, and review the actual warnings that you were sent and that's not real easy to do. Plus, you're sort of asking me to "read your mind" and try to figure out how you interpret the warning you received. At any rate, I don't have time now to go back and try to track all that stuff to see exactly what was posted.

Another thing to mention here is that I think to some degree, each of the mods have particular issues that annoy them more than others, and so the "penalty" that may be issued (just a PM reminder, an official "warning" or a full "infaction") may depend in part on what mods are on the board at what times, and who checks in and has a chance to review the reported posts. Also "reports" may be acted upon quickly because the first three mods who review it all vote the same - other "reports" sit for days with 2 votes to "ignore" - 2 votes for a "warning" and 1 vote for "infraction" (for example) - - so until the last mod or two checks in to break the deadlock, or one of the other mods changes their vote, the report is still "pending" and no action is taken.

I know that doesn't do anything to answer your question, but I'm not sure I really can. It's not a black and white issue, either - as I'm sure you're well aware.

At any rate, as far as the issue with the way the first post on a page displays, and the particular display issues that you have that seem to be rather extreme from how they display for most other posters, I might suggest trying a different browser. I usually use Firefox (the computer I'm using now is running v. 3.5.5 which is an older version) and I know things are displayed different if I use Safari. I seldom have a chance to view the board when I'm at work, but there I'm usually using some version on Internet Explorer (the computer runs some networked version of Windows XP) and the board displays much differently then. I'm not sure how much of the difference is due to the OS, the browser and/or the monitor itself, all I know is that there's definitely a major difference. Maybe try a different computer, or a different browser, and see if that helps with some of the display issues you have.

 

[Hopper]

I know that doesn't do anything to answer your question, but I'm not sure I really can.

Thanks for the reply, Mo. I certainly don't expect for you to go to any extraordinary efforts to answer my question, but there may be some confusion about what I'm even asking. It also occurred to me that you might feel somewhat loyalty-bound to support, or at least refrain from disagreeing with, your fellow mods, so I don't know if that is the complete reason that you "duck" the question Just to be clear, I am NOT asking you to "read my mind." I merely asked you about what I would "have reason" to believe or expect, in your opinion, not to tell me what I actually expected. I can tell you that a lot easier than you can tell me, so that wasn't my question.

In an attempt to make it easier on you, I'll repost this "summary" that I made in a prior post:

"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 (Kicky) 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."

Mo, please assume that summary is accurate. That should save you the trouble of "reviewing the threads." It's understood that, if it isn't accurate, then of course any answer you give based upon it might change.

It's not a black and white issue, either - as I'm sure you're well aware.

Yeah, we've already agreed that such preferences as "short vs long" posts, and subjective conclusions about what one finds "disturbing," are kinda personal ones. But I'm really not asking you to give some absolute answer to such questions. My question is basically this: When YOU voted to give me a warning, did YOU think that I was being warned not to make "five posts in a row" in the circumstances which led to the issuance of this particular infraction?

 

[TroutBum]

So, Hopper, how does it feel to be the most hated pig in the pen? I would love to hurl pooh at you.

 

[VINYLONE]

If I'm recalling correctly, what I meant there was that after reading the board for a while, and paying attention to things that might get a warning/infraction, most folks develop some degree of understanding of what's acceptable on Jazzfanz, and most manage to avoid making the same mistakes to the point they risk a permanent ban.

Well, eh, dis is the issue right here...isn't it? Mebbe, I've said it before, mebbe I haven't, but dat guy right there, Hoppy, he just don't get it. N prolly never will. If brains were leather, he wouldn't have enough to saddle a junebug.

 

[sirkickyass]

Hopper, I have reviewed the text of the PM that was sent to you. You unequivocally had reason to know that posting multiple times in a row in the manner in which you spam individual threads was prohibited.

In part:

For an example, please refer to the Mormon Hypothetical thread. On pages 14 and 15 alone, you have 16 of the current 23 posts, including one group of 6 in a row and another of 5 in a row. This is not an isolated incident. Posting repeatedly like this is viewed as trolling. In the future, please edit posts to add to them, rather than making new ones.

If that's not explicit enough, nothing ever will be.

 

[Hopper]

You unequivocally had reason to know that posting multiple times in a row in the manner in which you spam individual threads was prohibited. If that's not explicit enough, nothing ever will be.

So you assert, Kicky, as your never-failing MO would lead one to expect. But, even though you are entirely unaware of it, the fact is that your personal assertions are not what makes things true, false, "unequivocal" or "explicit."

Your inclusion of the word "spam" carries it's own prejudicial and perjorative connotations, but, again, the choice of noun does not dictate the nature of the thing being described. At times the choice of words reveals nothing more or less than an attempt to vaguely state one subjective conclusions without any supporting rationale whatsover for the conclusion being given.

One thing you leave out is that there ARE NO "pages 14 and 15" in the thread referred to. This is one thing I pointed out in my request for clarification, which was totally and deliberately ignored. The mere phrase "including 6 in a row," especially when it is simply part of a much larger context, does NOT say that "responding to 5 posts in a row is trolling, regardless of the context or circumstances." If it did say that, it would be ridiculous in my opinon. The only thing which is "explicit" and "unequivocal" here, as far as I can see, is simply your own attempt to "justify" unjustfiable positions.

 

[Safetydan]

It was actually on page 11 and overlaps into 12.

This is endlessly fascinating.

 

[sirkickyass]

It was actually on page 11 and overlaps into 12.

This is endlessly fascinating.

This will actually depend on your local setting with respect to how many posts per page you allow. For example, this is on page 4 for me because I allow 40 posts per page. It could be on page 12 for someone else. This also responds to aint's characterization of the issue.

In any event, it should not be difficult to figure out where those strings of posts reside or to figure out what kind of behavior the PM discusses.

Aint: You have a recourse, take it up with Jason/colton. You're not relitigating it to your satisfaction here. You will not get your infraction rescinded simply by posting here interminably. Furthermore, you're probably not doing yourself any favors with respect to an event where the issue comes up again. This line of argumentation you're taking is probably simply serving to harden positions rather than soften them.

 

[Hopper]

This also responds to aint's characterization of the issue.

What mischaracterization? Just so you don't think this question I'm asking is simply rhetorical, let me make it clear that I am asking you directly: WHAT MISCHARACTERIZATION?

This is just another of your attempts to slander by assertion and innuedo, as I see it Kicky. Completely predictable, of course, but still not appreciated. To the extent your response addresses a question I posed, it actually reinforces, rather than undermines, my point. Now, by you own admission, a reference to page numbers specifies nothing. However, you did not deny, and you cannot plausibly deny, that I explicitly asked for clarification, due in part to this lack of specificity, and that my request for clarification was totally and deliberately ignored.

Yet at the same time, you want to insist that the contents of the notification were "explicit, unequivocal," and should have been fully understood to be such by me. If it were clear to me, I wouldn't have asked for clarification. Go figure, eh?

You're not relitigating it to your satisfaction here. You will not get your infraction rescinded simply by posting here interminably. This line of argumentation you're taking is probably simply serving to harden positions rather than soften them.

Well, to begin with, I simply asked Mo a question. You intervened with new, and equally dubious, assertions in an attempt to re-open the argument. I did not ask that the issue be "relitigated," and believe me, I NEVER had any expectation that you would even consider changing your position on this and "rescind the infraction" even if you sincerely came to believe that the infraction was unwarranted. Your fragile ego would never allow that.