Jesse Jackson is a Clown and Needs to Stop Already

[chemdude1232]

A crude analogy to make, Hopper, is the role of a parent/child:

The parent enforces a bedtime for the kid. The kid complains, asking "Why, I'm not even tired?" The parent can resort to any number of answers, "Because I told you so," or "Because you'll be tired tomorrow," etc.

(Let me add at this point that I am NOT calling you a child, Hopper; nor am I calling mods "parents.")

Now to the child, none of those answers matter. They just don't care. The parent cares because, ideally, they know "what's best" for the kid. Maybe when the kid is older (i.e., a parent themselves), they will understand and even appreciate what the parent did to them all those years ago.

In a way, I see parallels here. Personally, I don't have a problem with your posts. Frankly, I really don't have a problem with most posts (aside from the ones that viciously insult someone else for no reason other than a differing opinion). The mods/"parents" do though, and no matter what you ask/how they answer, there will most likely be a perpetual discord between both sets of people.

 

[Hopper]

What is annoying? If a moderator has to tell you that something is annoying, there are probably multiple people that feel that way.

And, of course, there could be "multiple people" who DON'T feel that way. If you get an infraction, you know that at least 3 people feel that way. Do they represent the entire "Jazz community" as you refer to it? Well, yes, and no, I guess. It's still only 3 people, but those 3 people have been entrusted with the "power" to speak for all.

I guess I'm pollyannish enough to hope, and even expect, that they will exercise that power fairly and will not abuse the power which has been entrusted to them. Kicky, for one, has long considered me to be the "most annoying" person on the board. He has his reasons for feeling this way, no doubt. I have my reasons why he "annoys" me too, but he's a mod, I aint.

Since what is "annoying" is an extremely personal and subjective thing, and since pre-existing personal animosity can influence just what people "annoy" another person, I'm not quick to conclude that because one (or three) people are "annoyed," that means the thing that triggered their loss of composure is a per se "annoyance." I would prefer some objective standards to subjective whim. To the extent "rules" have been written, such standards exist. But as soon as the clear meaning of those standards is disregarded, there are no "rules."

 

[Hopper]

In a way, I see parallels here. Personally, I don't have a problem with your posts. Frankly, I really don't have a problem with most posts (aside from the ones that viciously insult someone else for no reason other than a differing opinion). The mods/"parents" do though, and no matter what you ask/how they answer, there will most likely be a perpetual discord between both sets of people.

Like you, chemdude, I don't have a "problem" with most posts, whether I agree or not, and, like you, it seems to me that vicious insults are much more worthy of monitoring and controlling that petty matters of form. Even if I think I have reason to dislike a poster "as a person," I would never use that dislike as a basis for either (1) arguing that he should be banned, or (2) finding some devious, indirect method of asserting my dislike in such a manner as to get him banned. Those who ask (or, in some cases, "demand') that another poster be banned always strike me as exceedingly weak.

I think I was kinda drawing the same parent/child analogy as you are when I suggested that the onliest thang that needed to be said was: "I'm white, you're black." I don't mean it's a racial thing. It could just as well be "I'm Aryan, you're jewish" in another culture, another time. It all boils down to the same thing: "I'm a "first-class citizen, you're second class." One the power structure has been firmly established, entrenched, and empowered, that's ALL that need be said. Everyone immediately understands, on both sides. Questions of fairness, reasonableness, and equality of consideration are immediately understood to be completely irrelevant. The futility of resistance is obvious. Ya best just shut the hell UP. You can't win. Even if you're "right," you're wrong.

 

[G-O-A-T]

I guess I'm pollyannish enough to hope, and even expect, that they will exercise that power fairly and will not abuse the power which has been entrusted to them. Kicky, for one, has long considered me to be the "most annoying" person on the board. He has his reasons for feeling this way, no doubt. I have my reasons why he "annoys" me too, but he's a mod, I aint.

I would hope that all the mods would treat everyone fairly too. If they aren't then that's a whole other subject... But how would you define fair?

I would prefer some objective standards to subjective whim. To the extent "rules" have been written, such standards exist to some extent.

Interesting theory. May I suggest that you stop by your local law library / courthouse and take a peek through your states statutes. You will probably notice multiple shelves full of thick books with small print. You might even walk away thinking every law in the world is written in those books. But you know what, the written objective standards in those books are just the tip of the iceberg in the grand scheme of the legal system.

In short, my point is that it's impossible to answer every question in writing and preplan every potential problem.

On the other hand, maybe you just want to see certain important rules put into writing... May I suggest you offer to write up your own objective rules and submit it to the mods to OK. The mods probably (and rightfully so) don't want to take the time to create the Jazzfanz bylaw page... it's a lot of work to do, especially when your only "pay" will be undue criticism. I'm sure if you put together a coherent set of reasonable bylaws, the mods would love it... they might even promote you to mod yourself.

Under the circumstances that are presented here, free and open membership, the current system (a modified dictatorship) is the only reasonable way to run this forum. Like you, I don't always agree with the leadership around here, but considering that my only contributions here have been bandwidth usage, I don't really feel that I am entitled to anything more than... well anything.

Finally, don't get me wrong, if you have something to say, then say it... just don't be surprised if you don't get the reaction you expected from going off the deep end.

 

[Hopper]

considering that my only contributions here have been bandwidth usage, I don't really feel that I am entitled to anything more than... well anything. Finally, don't get me wrong, if you have something to say, then say it... just don't be surprised if you don't get the reaction you expected from going off the deep end.

Heh, good overall post, Goat, even though I didn't repost it all. Yeah, they can immediately ban me anytime they want and I have no legal right to complain. That's fully understood. And by "fully" I mean about 3 years worth of bein banned. And, as you suggest, I will say what I think is appropriate to say. If it's "off the deep end" then it is. Again, who but the mods can really say.

Deep end, or not, I would rather speak my mind and be banned than eat crap.

 

[Hopper]

May I suggest you offer to write up your own objective rules and submit it to the mods to OK. The mods probably (and rightfully so) don't want to take the time to create the Jazzfanz bylaw page...

Well, I really wouldn't expect anyone, other than me and Kicky, maybe, to have paid much attention to what was said in our exchanges, but if you had, you might have seen the point. I have no desire to write rules. None whatsoever. I could live fine with NO rules coupled with the "protection" required by those with no will power of an "ignore" feature.

That said, some rules have been written. Including one that defines "trolling." If your point is that any word can be used to mean anything whatsoever by those who have enough imagination and no semantic scruples, then, sure, I agree.

 

[G-O-A-T]

Deep end, or not, I would rather speak my mind and be banned than eat crap.

IMO, Jazzfanz is a better place with you than without... so seeing you get banned would be quite unfortunate. But... if you do decide to go that route, I hope you'll keep the banning offense short, sweet, and entertaining.

 

[Hopper]

...if you do decide to go that route, I hope you'll keep the banning offense short, sweet, and entertaining.

Witcha there, homey! If Imma go out, Imma trys and goes out with a bang, sho nuff.

 

[Gameface]

I dunno. This could be pretty lame...

https://www.xtranormal.com/watch/6805111/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40lMw5JXPsk&feature=youtube_gdata

This is quoted directly from Hopper's and Sirkickyass's posts in this thread. If either of them want it removed I'll do so immediately.

 

[Hopper]

Heh, Game, not sure anybody is really interested in the exchanges between me and Kicky, but if anyone is, they should thank you for your efforts in trying to make it all easier to follow. Generally a statement or claim is made in one post, and the response, if any, is presented in another post, perhaps with many posts in between. It is much easier to follow the statement and response sequence when presented together. And it’s much easier to listen to something than it is to wade through, and actually read, voluminous text. Needless to say, it is also much more entertaining to look at cute little cartoon characters than stark black and white text on a monitor, too.

I can only imagine the process of cutting and pasting all that, and trying to keep straight what was what, so it’s not at all surprising that the sequence kinda gets outta whack about half-way through. It starts out well, as far as matching statement to response goes, but there comes a point where the responses are not related to the claims, and vice versa, so it all takes on a kinda randomness that makes no real sense. Unfortunately, that detracts from your finished production, but again, you deserve an A+ for effort.

 

[bigb]

I finally had the time to wade through this mess of a thread. I had to take Hopper of my ignore list to read his posts and get a good view of it all.
I'm not sure who you PM'd, hopper, but if it was me, I never got them. (Maybe because you were on my ignore list?) If you'd like to send me a PM again, I'll leave you off the list for a while and we'll see if they come through. I'll be happy to converse with you via PM for a little bit and answer your questions.

As far as Raspberry Delight and me being friends...so what? He's the only person to request me (I know, what a loser I am) and I'm not interested in requesting friends. I personally find that kind of lame for this board. I list my location as Delighting the Raspberry because it is part of an inside joke, and I happen to be friends with him outside of this board. In fact, he's the reason I even found out about this board. On the last incarnation of the board, my location was "Trout's dreams, doing a pole dance". Nobody seemed to have a problem with that.

There's one thing I try to keep in mind. If you have the same problem with multiple people, it's probably not the fault of the other people. For example, my father-in-law has been married six times to five different women. Who is the issue? The ex-wives? Or my father-in-law?

 

[Hopper]

...considering the way you were pumping up your post count over the past few weeks, I think Kicky was perfectly justified in doing what he did)

I thought I would briefly comment on this statement of yours Goat, even though it has nuthin to do with Jesse Jackson. My comments may nonetheless be somewhat appropriate in a "site feedback" forum. The issues here are insignificant, I just find them interesting enough to comment on, even if they don't matter in the overall scheme of things.

It has never even remotely occurred to me that it would have any meaning or value whatsoever to "pump up" my post count, yet I see people accusing me and others of "trying" to do that. I used to wonder why. If they think someone else is merely trying to increase his post count, then it must be something they think is desirable, but again, what difference could it possibly make?

After a while I start to see why: Many posters judge others, and want to be judged, by virtue of the number of posts made (or not made, in the case of "noobs'). I have always found this to be utterly ridiculous. Whether it is a poster's first, or his 10,000th, post is utterly irrelevant to me. I simply look at the content of the post to evaluate it's merit, NOT the number of prior posts made by its author. The "status" of a poster, from my perspective, is TOTALLY unrelated to the number of posts made in this forum. I have seen cases where a poster making his very first post completely outclasses the poster he is addressing, who has 5,000+ posts. Yet many people still seem to think that the "status" of both themselves and others is somehow determined in whole or part by the number of posts they have made, versus someone else. I guess this just goes to show how superficial, shallow, petty, and arbitrary message board posters can be in their methods of evaluating the "worth" of another poster, eh?

On a related note, the seemingly sincere complaints about "off-topic" comments have always puzzled me. To me these thing just naturally meander, and that hurts no one. Everyone is free to compose any post they want and publish it. If they are interested in commenting about the topic indicated in the thread title nobody is "preventing" them from doing so, as they appear to think.

Here you, in passing, mention "pumping up a thread count." For me, this now becomes a comment that is part of the thread, and there is no other thread in which to respond to such, admittedly secondary, points, other than the thread where the comment was made. Yes, it would be much more "orderly," but also much more stifling to natural discussion, to ABSOLUTELY PROHIBIT any allusion to ANY matter that is not STRICTLY and DIRECTLY related to the "post topic," whatever one may interpret that topic to mean.

There was a point in this thread where the commentary between One Brow and 2814 took on a much more "general" socio-political tone than could be strictly related to the particular exchanges made by and between specific and particular NBA owners, players, commissioners, and outside activists. I found that direction interesting, but unrelated, so I started a new thread in what I thought was the more appropriate "general discussion forum" to pursue it.

Kicky'a response was to insist that it ALL belonged in the same thread, so it seems to me that what constitutes "thread hijacking" is itself a very subjective thing. All said and done "thread hijacking" is a concept that, for me, at least, is virtually unintelligible and useless. Separate forums I think I understand but trying to analyze each and every sentence within a particular thread which is in the appropriate forum seems pointless to me. It does, however, seem to provide a convenient excuse for an officious type poster to berate another and whine about the "harm" being caused to himself by reading a sentence that is not directly related to words contained in the title of the thread. This is a message board, a place for people to discuss things. If you're in the "general" forum, I really can't see why virtually any comment made in virtually any thread is not a "general" one that "fits" if it develops out of the natural course of an ongoing discussion.

I understand that if I take a tolerant, liberal view of "relevancy" then I am losing a potential basis for complaining that I am "disturbed" by what other posters are doing, but I can live with that, ya know?