Jesse Jackson is a Clown and Needs to Stop Already

[Hopper]

Is it trolling to point out that people are adding in assumption that has a historical justification, but is not supported by the evidence? I don't think so, but if a moderator tells me I was misbehaving, i'll make sure never to do it again.

Trollin is whatever the mods sez it is round these here parts, eh, Eric? And don't go axxin them to explains how or why neither, cause they aint gunna duz it.

I gotz a warnin for "trollin" because sometimes I address separate parts of a long-*** post in separate posts. I look at it as kinda like punctuation, likes new paragraphs in posts, or periods at the enda sentences, but, turns out, it aint like that at all.

It's TROLLIN, I tellya!

 

[sirkickyass]

Aint is masterful at mischaracterizing what he's received warnings for. The way he posts has generated multiple complaints for cluttering up the board and disrupting its usability. If you need evidence that the way he posts screws up board functions I direct you to this screenshot.

Try ignoring that.

For the record, I'll note that he's once again decided to go the "five posts in a row" route in this very thread.

 

[Hopper]

Aint is masterful at mischaracterizing what he's received warnings for.
For the record, I'll note that he's once again decided to go the "five posts in a row" route in this very thread.

Well, Kicky, if you think I'm mischaracterizin anything, mebbe you, or some other mod, can explain what the issue is, eh? Nuthin has really been explained to me, repeated requests for clarification notwithstanding, other than by vague references, like yours just now, to "five posts in a row." How is that "trollin," I wonder?

To the extent that your "screen shot" explains anything, I take the explanation to be that you don't like me postin, and must therefore take some steps to stop, or at least limit, it. Is that the idea?

 

[sirkickyass]

You've been told in the past numerous times. To the extent that you don't understand you're purposely choosing not to understand. I will direct you to the following discussion of the trolling rule and your behavior regarding it.

Our rules have the following provisions: Deliberate attempts to disrupt the usability of the boards will be considered trolling. These include ... bizarre formatting of posts ... many new threads started right after each other, etc

I fail to see the distinction between what he's doing and "bizarre formatting of posts" or "many new threads started right after each other." Is there a meaningful distinction between many threads one after another and many posts one after another? They produce the same effect: a cluttered unreadable board.

In addition it shouldn't take a genius to look at the screenshot above and determine that you've effectively defeated the ignore function.

That's your explanation and we (or at least I) am not going to debate it with you. You've been told to stop, once privately and now once publicly. I'll let you imagine what the next step is.

 

[TroutBum]

For the love of Jesus Christ, (you know, the guy who got banned for doing nothing) BAN THIS HUMAN JAR OF MAYONAISE!

 

[Archie Moses]

I don't have a problem with Ain't. He just posts a lot and has his own style. So what?

 

[Hopper]

You've been told in the past numerous times.

No, I have not.

we (or at least I) am not going to debate it with you. You've been told to stop, once privately and now once publicly. I'll let you imagine what the next step is.

I come into a thread which I started, but have been away from, and which has been moved without me having any knowledge of that, and see that several posters have made comments in my absence. So I respond to them separately, and that's "trollin?" You may see it, but I can't.

As far as your citation of the "rules" go, a post is not a "new thread," is it? Nevermind, I forgot, you just said, you're not gunna "debate," anything, with "debate" meaning "respond to requests for clarification."

Don't debate it then. But don't go around, as you have, claimin that everybody knows what the standards are, that mods are never arbitrary or capricious, and that "personal animosities" have nuthin to do with who gets punished. Your personal complaint seems to be that, even though you have me on ignore, I post anyway, and that disturbs you.

 

[sirkickyass]

No, I have not.

I am personally aware of two PMs you have received on this board and multiple that you received on the previous incarnation of the board. Furthermore, I have access to copies of those private messages that have been sent to you by the moderating staff since the board was reset.

So yes, you have. And you can't bluff me on this issue.

I come into a thread which I started, but have been away from, and which has been moved without me having any knowledge of that, and see that several posters have made comments in my absence. So I respond to them separately, and that's "trollin?" You may see it, but I can't.

You've been asked to either multi-quote posts (a function that is available on this board) or to edit your previous posts rather than posting multiple times. In one thread you had something like 16 of the most recent 25 posts at one point. In this thread and others you choose to respond to a single post multiple times.

If you want to fight it, keep on posting like you have. We'll see what happens.

As far as your citation of the "rules" go, a post is not a "new thread," is it? Nevermind, I forgot, you just said, you're not gunna "debate," anything, with "debate" meaning "respond to requests for clarification."

This specific point is addressed in the sample I quoted you.

Don't debate it then. But don't go around, as you have, claimin that everybody knows what the standards are, that mods are never arbitrary or capricious, and that "personal animosities" have nuthin to do with who gets punished. Your personal complaint seems to be that, even though you have me on ignore, I post anyway, and that disturbs you.

Moderation is done on a consensus system. When you received your previous PMs regarding the subject that was after several mods decided to send you the PM rather than any individual mod. Additionally, I'm hardly the only one that's complained about it. If you feel that everything is being driven by a single moderator feel free to complain to Jason or colton.

 

[TroutBum]

I've been wearing out my Report Button and my Rep button every time I see a Tainted post. It's been rather enjoyable, actually.


DIE, Hopper, you farking Laker fan.

 

[Hopper]

I don't know how to use multi-quote, even though I've tried, sorry. I really can't see how the supposed availability of "multi-quote," however it works, turns the use of conventional methods of responding into "trollin," either way.

I received two PM's, yes. I asked for clarification and got no response. After a few days, I asked if I was even gunna be given the courtesy of a response. I got no response to that, either. Receiving a PM which I did NOT find self-explanatory, but rather found confusing and incoherent, with inaccurate references, is NOT the same as receiving an explanation of the "evil" which the mods are seeking to eliminate, sorry.

Needless to say, I still have no real explanation of how my "formatting" disrupts the board other than mebbe this: People who have me on ignore do NOT want me to make a post, because it "distubs" them to be informed that I have made a post.

I spoze that another way in which my "formatting" may be considered "bizarre," if you have no particular devotion to truth in language, is that I post too often to suit some, and that makes it "bizarre." If that's what you mean, you should just say it, rather than making obscure, incomprehensible allusions to "bizarre formatting," and letting me try to guess what you mean.

 

[sirkickyass]

To use the multi-quote function click the multi-quote button (located to the right of reply with quote) and then click "reply to thread" at the bottom of the page. Quoted versions of all posts you've marked with the multiquote will be copied to the quick reply box. Wow, that was difficult to figure out. Clearly you really tried.

You've received an explanation in this very thread that a child could understand. To check the accuracy of this claim, I forwarded a link to this thread to my 12 year old brother. He figured it out. He only disputes the characterization of himself as a child. Twelve year olds are funny that way.

 

[Hopper]

Well, Kicky, if you understand that to be an "explanation," then mebbe you, too, are a 12 year old, eh?

12 year old: Why is that, Daddy?

Bigshot Authoritarian Parent: Because I said so, boy.

12 year old: I understand.