Jesse Jackson is a Clown and Needs to Stop Already

[Hopper]

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.

Well, there's really nuthin more to be said at this point, Catratcho, but thanks for the offer. However, if you send me any notifications in the future, I would appreciate it if you would do whatever needs to be done to allow me to respond, which I may, or may not do, of course.

It still kinda bothers me that all "explanations" given have been strictly ex post facto, i.e. what I am "prohibited" from doing is not indicated by the written rules and is not explained until AFTER the infraction for violating the (previously undisclosed) new "rule" has already been assessed. Kicky wants to cite "explanations" which were given AFTER, not BEFORE, the behavior punished was engaged in. It very easy for Kicky, Mo, or anyone else to simply state, whether emphatically or not, that the nature of the allegedly intolerable behavior I was supposedly informed of was unequivocally "obvious" from the message you sent me, but I really don't think that a thoughtful, unbiased person could possibly conclude that. I sense that the entire exchange between me and Kicky on this topic has been little more than a determined effort at self-justification on his part, regardless of the reasonableness or accuracy of the assertions and claims he makes in the process of presenting that self-justification. Either way, it would have been nice to understand the "rule" in advance.

I still really cannot fathom, of course, how a good faith, bona fide, response to a post previously made can possibly be deemed to be "trolling," but I'm sure I've already made that failure of comprehension on my part quite clear, so there is certainly no need to repeat it now. I do kinda resent the cocksure "OF COURSE YOU KNEW" assertions of the mods on this point. Let them get that kinda message and figure out just exactly what it means, and does not mean, and they might perhaps have a different tale. But they've never looked at it as I might have, only as they, with their inside knowledge of their own minds, "saw" it.

Well, as Goat suggests, I guess that what mods are there to do, eh? Oh, well....

 

[YB85]

I haven't read this thread but for the past few posts and I watched the video of it thanks to Gameface. Not that anyone is asking,but here are my thoughts:

1. Hopper's down-on-the-corner posting style from the previous board was unreadable and I feel polluted the board. The maddening part is that I always have thought aint/hopper could be one of the best posters on the board if the schtick was dropped. This thread shows how intelligent he is and he has made numerous posts on this board that I felt were brilliant. I gave him a + rep on a post and he told me to stop because he wants the lowest possible rep. I guess goals are good. Anyway, many of his multiple posts in a row could be alleviated if he would just edit (and show that it's an edit) the last post to include new thoughts, unless he is replying to multiple posts.

2. I have read a couple times about moderators having posters on ignore. Is that fair? That seems to be a bias against that poster and influence any votes. I understand that this is not a court of law, but when it comes to fairness in moderating, I would naively like to think that there is no bias.

3. The Internet is serious business.

 

[moevillini]

Is it time for a group-hug? I do miss that emoticon - - as I also miss kicky's dancer avatar. Things just won't ever be quite the same.

but I do have just a bit more to say about this issue (of trolling, etc) - so I'm giving this warning so those who don't care to read it can skip this post...

... Not that anyone is asking,but here are my thoughts:
1. Hopper's down-on-the-corner posting style from the previous board was unreadable and I feel polluted the board....

overall, I'd say I share these feelings. I could tolerate it in small doses, and every once in a blue moon it was funny because it seemed somehow to be appropriate on certain occasions, but it got to be overused and used in situations where it seemed completely inappropriate and unacceptable to me. If it were used "too much" I think I'd consider it trolling according to this definition from the rules: "...trolling. These include (but are not limited to) comments made solely to provoke reactions, bizarre formatting of posts..." - I would consider it to fall into both of these categories. OF COURSE, the definition of "too much" is subjective and not easily defined, so there is no absolute answer I can give to to help anyone ascertain at what point it becomes "too much"

...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....

A couple comments here: Most everyone has made an occasional comment in a thread that is off-topic for that thread. Some of us do it more than others (wink, wink). It may be very annoying to those who are trying to take part in (or at least follow) the "serious" discussion taking place. I have been on some message boards where a single off-topic post results in a "warning" from a moderator. I think most folks around here are pretty tolerant - they may get annoyed, but they just skip over the off-topic post. But when the poster makes repeated, consecutive posts, it gets difficult to skip over those posts without perhaps missing something that is part of the discussion. So folks might consider that type of behavior to be trolling because it is "disrupting the readability" of the topic.

And even if the posts are on topic, I can see where it can get annoying if there are consecutive posts by one poster. For instance, many of us probably have other posters whose posts we tend to "skip" over (or perhaps put on a formal "ignore" list). There can be any number of reasons for this: we feel a poster has a particular agenda, we feel a poster has opinions we always disagree with, we feel a poster makes no sense, or we just plain don't like that poster. Whatever the reason, if we're hoping to save time by skipping over certain posts, but still keep to the topic under discussion, this is again a situation where repeated consecutive posts by one poster might disrupt the readability of the board.

OK, well at some point we may have to relabel this the "Dead Horse" topic, but I'm not completely certain it's been beaten enough quite yet.

(for someone who doesn't like to read long posts, I've certainly written enough of them lately...)

 

[Hopper]

The Internet is serious business.

True dat, Blood!

I have at least one "annoying" trait, I know, in that I like to joke around sometimes. I realize that this can completely piss some "dead serious" types off at times. It's not that I'm trying to piss them off. Truth be told, I tend not to give a second thought to posters who respond that way. My comments are made for my own amusement and for the benefit of those, if any, who can appreciate my humor, not for the detriment of those who don't. But the dead serious types can only see it one way--that I have done, and have intended to do, nothing except disturb them. Of course, that's the quintessential nature of the "dead serious" types to begin with, so, like, what else would ya expect, ya know?

Many of them, if they had their way, would ban me. I would never ban them (assuming I could) just because they are the dead serious type and I aint, but that's irrelevant. They would ban me. And, if they are mods, they eventually will, no doubt. It's not hard to manufacture "good reasons" for doin what you have already determined you will accomplish, so they are never lacking in absolute, indubitable justification for banning me, either, at least not from their perspective.

Anyway, many of his multiple posts in a row could be alleviated if he would just edit (and show that it's an edit) the last post to include new thoughts

Yeah, Blood, I have pretty much done that since receiving a rather confusing "warning." In the past, if I made a post while a thread was quiet, and then another thought occurred to me, I would generally just put it in a new post if it wasn't particularly closely-related to the one I just made (if it was related, I would add it to the existing post). I figured that it was totally irrelevant if both thoughts were in one post or not.

Actually, I thought it was often easier, for both the comprehension and potential response of others, to present separate thoughts in separate posts, kinda like starting a new paragraph within a post. I never saw the harm in it--still don't truth be told. It seems the "harm" is strictly contingent upon the accidental circumstance of whether another poster has entered a post while you are composing yours. If so, fine. If not--strike one. But that aint why I got an infraction now, anyway, as you will see if you care to read the thread (which no one would, but, still....).

...unless he is replying to multiple posts.

That's what I done, right there. Come to find out, this is "trollin," eh? It is a "deliberate attempt to disrupt the board" as the rules define "trollin." Like, whooda thunk, I ax ya?

P.S.: Thanks for sayin some of the kind thing about me that you did. Just cause I didn't repost them don't mean I didn't read them.

 

[sirkickyass]

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.

The discussion doesn't quite match up (it looks like you tried to do it in two post segments so it doesn't sound like a natural conversation, and doesn't capture replies to replies organically). However, I don't feel nearly so bad about being long-winded after watching that segment and seeing the long drone of aint's doppelganger prattle on for minutes on end.

Also, I really liked the way the voice intonates "I see, so it's a conspiracy."

 

[Hopper]

...many of us probably have other posters whose posts we tend to "skip" over (or perhaps put on a formal "ignore" list). There can be any number of reasons for this: we feel a poster has a particular agenda, we feel a poster has opinions we always disagree with, we feel a poster makes no sense, or we just plain don't like that poster. Whatever the reason, if we're hoping to save time by skipping over certain posts...this is again a situation where...posts by one poster might disrupt the readability of the board.

OK, well at some point we may have to relabel this the "Dead Horse" topic, but I'm not completely certain it's been beaten enough quite yet.

Well, Mo, if this here hoss aint quite dead yet, then lemme share a brilliant idea that just come to me with the mods, eh?

If a particular poster, by his very postin, annoys a mod, and "intereferes" with his ability to "use" the board by impedin his haste to git to the next "non-annoyin" poster, why not solve ALL problems actual and potential, past present, and future, for ALL time, immediately. Ban his sorry *** if he annoys you! If he annoys you, he undoubtably annoys a couple of your mod homeys too. He's just "trollin" if he posts. Anytime, ever, see? Ban his sorry ***, right now, I tellya! That will keep the board annoyance-free, for the mods at least.

You can see that I selectively quoted from your post to demonstrate the necessary rationale, eh?

 

[Hopper]

If ya aint gunna change the rules and just bar all annoyin posters from ever postin, can I make a request? Can I give the mods a list of 276 posters who annoy me, and then have them issue an infraction to all five of them if any on the list happen to make posts right after each other? I find it "annoyin" to have to look at five posts in a row by posters I don't wanna read. As it stands, I am forced to endure the insufferable inconvenience of skippin over DOZENS of posts made by posters I'm not interested in readin, ya know?

 

[sirkickyass]

I haven't read this thread but for the past few posts and I watched the video of it thanks to Gameface.

I daresay you missed the meat of the conversation then.

I gave him a + rep on a post and he told me to stop because he wants the lowest possible rep.

You know, that sounds like an essential admission that he's seeking to troll other users into giving him negative rep to me. Why would we be forced to tolerate a poster that actively seeks to have the worst reputation on the board? Isn't that EXACTLY the kind of behavior we're supposed to be against? If seeking to have the worst reputation on the board isn't trolling for negative reactions, then what is?

True story: We've literally been talking about aint's posting style for over a month when it became obvious that this was spiralling out of control. We didn't step in for two reasons: 1) we thought maybe it might be some isolated incidents and 2) some of us didn't want to have to get into the inevitable interminable back and forth that always accompanies sending aint any disciplinary message. Aint, intentionally or not, behaves in such a way that he was deterring moderation because he's such a pain in the *** to deal with (as this thread demonstrates). That's practically the definition of a problem poster because it interferes with our ability to do our job. In the future, I may suggest that aint gets a single post as an appeal that is sent directly to colton/Jason and that their response is final.

Anyway, many of his multiple posts in a row could be alleviated if he would just edit (and show that it's an edit) the last post to include new thoughts, unless he is replying to multiple posts.

That is precisely the recommendation he was given via PM.

2. I have read a couple times about moderators having posters on ignore. Is that fair? That seems to be a bias against that poster and influence any votes. I understand that this is not a court of law, but when it comes to fairness in moderating, I would naively like to think that there is no bias.

I for one have put aint on ignore at times because I figure no one wants to read what I have to say to him and even though I think I have a very long tolerance for continuing a discussion, aint's is surely longer. In his previous incarnation, he and I went close to 450 posts just going against each other on a single topic. That's bad for everybody and preventing things from spiralling out of control is, at least for me, an act of self-moderation for the benefit of everybody.

Furthermore, I think aint has done far more well-poisoning with respect to moderator bias than any ignore feature could ever do. I think you're asking too much to claim that we have to read all posts (as distinct from all posts that are reported in context with their threads) in order to fairly moderate. If anything, being on ignore should actually decrease the amount of disciplinary actions a single poster receives because the moderators are unable to report his posts. Part of the reason I put aint on ignore originally is that it's difficult for him to claim I'm running around trying to witch hunt him if I can't read his posts in the first place. So at the primary report level the ignore feature may actually promote moderater neutrality.

The consensus system operates to obviate some of these concerns. Fairness in moderating questions are nowhere near what they were in the bad old days when a single moderator could unilaterally issue a user an infraction. In any event, you'd have to get nearly half the moderating staff to be actively against you for "bias" to have any real effect. Furthermore, you'd have to keep those antaganistic attitudes running for months at a time in order to get suspended or banned.

 

[sirkickyass]

I find it "annoyin" to have to look at five posts in a row by posters I don't wanna read.

I have asked you repeatedly to identify a single instance of another poster responding with a string of five or six posts in a row. You have thus far declined to do so.

My position is that this behavior is essentially unique to you, particularly as it applies to responding to a single post multiple times or not responding to any post at all (I've given you links to examples where this is the case that you have conveniently ignored.) So this argument is a non-starter.

 

[Hopper]

I many of his multiple posts in a row could be alleviated if he would just edit (and show that it's an edit) the last post to include new thoughts, unless he is replying to multiple posts.

That is precisely the recommendation he was given via PM.

It was!? Like, who knew, eh? Now I'm really confused......

 

[Hopper]

I have asked you repeatedly to identify a single instance of another poster responding with a string of five or six posts in a row.

No, you haven't asked me "repeatedly" and you know there is no need to bother. I done tole ya...I don't run around droppin no dimes.

My position is that this behavior is essentially unique to you, particularly as it applies to responding to a single post multiple times or not responding to any post at all (I've given you links to examples where this is the case that you have conveniently ignored.) So this argument is a non-starter.

You're just repeatin yourself, Kicky, so I guess I'll briefly repeat my original responses, too.


1. Even though I refused to bring such posters to your attention, I did point out a poster's voluntary confession to doin it.

2. Nothing following the word "particularly" in your post has anything to do with the infraction I was given. Please just admit that, rather than continuing to distort the factual situation at hand, OK?

3. I wasn't talkin about a "single poster" to begin with. That doesn't matter to me. Only one thing matters to me, MY annoyance. Therefore there is only one question to ask: Am *I* annoyed (or inconvenienced). If so, then I figure any person who contributed to my annoyance or inconvenience is "trollin" and should be punished. It aint that hard, OK? Simple request, simple to understand, easy to implement.

 

[sirkickyass]

No, you haven't asked me "repeatedly" and you know there is no need to bother. I don't tole ya...I don't run around droppin no dimes.

In any event, you would be unable to.

1. Even though I refused to bring such posters to your attention, I did point out a poster's voluntary confession to doin it.

I told you before, I investigated this and it was a false confession. One Brow has no consecutive strings of posts longer than three and none replying to the same post multiple times. You have had no response to this. You have been given multiple examples of where you do this. Your comparison of your own posting behavior to that of others is inapropo.

2. Nothing following the word "particularly" in your post has anything to do with the infraction I was given. Please just admit that, rather than continuing to distort the factual situation at hand, OK?

Actually, in your string of five in this thread you replied to the same post twice and another user twice. It is you who has conveniently forgotten this. Go back and look if you don't believe me.

3. I wasn't talkin about a "single poster" to begin with. That doesn't matter to me. Only one thing matters to me, MY annoyance. Therefore there is only one question to ask: Am *I* annoyed (or inconvenienced). If so, then I figure any person who contributed to my annoyance or inconvenience is "trollin" and should be punished. It aint that hard, OK? Simple request, simple to understand, easy to implement.

Feel free to submit your list. Since no one else posts in this manner, I'm sure it won't be a problem.