Reputation Comments, positive and negative

[Hopper]

I read through that thread, and still do not follow your inability to understand trolling...


I suspect you misunderstood me then, but frankly I'm not sure which specific thing you are referring to.

OK, Colton, briefly:

1. I start a thread and come back to it later.

2. Although the thread is now quiet, several posters have made a total of 5-6 comments in my absence.

3. I respond to the posts in the order I encounter them.

4. As soon as I post my 5th response, Kicky, who has apparently been silently observing me respond, jumps in and says I am "trolling" because I have made 5 posts in a row, and I git an infraction.

How is this "deliberately disrupting the board?" I'm simply making normal responses to prior posts.

When asked (in the thread locked by Jason) you said replying to separate posts separately would not be an infractable offense, unless I am mistaken.

This seems to be an entirely novel definition of "trolling" to me. Certainly nuthin in the FAQ's would suggest this was punishable.

 

[Hopper]

I read through that thread, and still do not follow your inability to understand trolling. Unless you yourself are trolling by pretending to not understand it... which frankly seems the most likely thing to me (as I've mentioned before).

But, if our description of trolling still confuses you, please feel free to use this description instead:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

Colton, I haven't read every word on that wiki page, but I do notice this:


"Application of the term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often used as an ad hominem strategy to discredit an opposing position by attacking its proponent. Often, calling someone a troll makes assumptions about a writer's motives. Regardless of the circumstances, controversial posts may attract a particularly strong response from those unfamiliar with the robust dialogue found in some online, rather than physical, communities."

I don't know about you, but when I am told that the application of a term is "highly subjective," that itself raises questions about whether the term is "clear enough." As noted here, calling a poster a "troll" may itself be a "troll."

 

[colton]

OK, Colton, briefly:

1. I start a thread and come back to it later.

2. Although the thread is now quiet, several posters have made a total of 5-6 comments in my absence.

3. I respond to the posts in the order I encounter them.

4. As soon as I post my 5th response, Kicky, who has apparently been silently observing me respond, jumps in and says I am "trolling" because I have made 5 posts in a row, and I git an infraction.

How is this "deliberately disrupting the board?" I'm simply making normal responses to prior posts.

When asked (in the thread locked by Jason) you said replying to separate posts separately would not be an infractable offense, unless I am mistaken.

This seems to be an entirely novel definition of "trolling" to me. Certainly nuthin in the FAQ's would suggest this was punishable.

This again???

Wasn't that the topic of a 10 page thread which ended by Jason saying,

I'm done with this thread. Hopper's constant questioning is outrageous and wasteful. He (and others) have had 12 pages of this crap and we've gotten nowhere.

Locked.

https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php...ack-Rasp-Trout-and-Hopper-Taint-Thread/page10

I'm not going there again. Suffice it to say that you had been specifically warned about doing that, prior to receiving an infraction for it. And that at least three moderators felt that your posting style was indeed disrupting the usability of the board (in particular, if I recall correctly,we had received complaints by people who had you on ignore, but were completely unable to ignore you because of your posting so many messages in a row).

 

[Hopper]

Suffice it to say that you had been specifically warned about doing that, prior to receiving an infraction for it.

Suffice it to say that you must not have read the warning I got, at least not carefully.

 

[Gameface]

Suffice it to say that you must not have read the warning I got, at least not carefully.

Just a helpful suggestion, quote someone's comment and respond to it, then quote the next in the same post and respond to it. Do that until you've caught up with everyone else's posts. Wallah! Now the mods will have to find a new way to victimize you.

 

[C l u t c H 385]

Just a helpful suggestion, quote someone's comment and respond to it, then quote the next in the same post and respond to it. Do that until you've caught up with everyone else's posts. Wallah! Now the mods will have to find a new way to victimize you.

Sounds cold and impersonal.

 

[moevillini]

Suffice it to say that you must not have read the warning I got, at least not carefully.

a couple FYI's here, not just for Hopper, but for everybody who's raised some of these questions regarding warnings and infractions

1 - Unlike the OLD BOARD, the number of warnings/infractions a user has received is NOT displayed by their screen name. That's been mentioned a few times already - - but anyhow, it means that other posters generally have no idea how many times any individual poster has been warned.

2 - Specific to Hopper's comment above, unlike the old board, Warnings and Infractions are sent as Private Messages from the mod issuing it. Therefore, other mods cannot see what was sent beyond a VERY brief description. On the old board, all warnings/infractions were posted automatically in the Mod forum so everyone could see exactly what was said in the warning. The new board does not have that feature, so that unless a mod takes the time to actually post something in the forum or elsewhere, other mods have no idea what was actually said in the warning.





The bottom line is that 99% of the posters are able to follow the rules well enough not to rack up five infractions within a six month period and thus are able to avoid a permanent ban.

 

[Hopper]

Mo, or any mod, can you help me understand sumthin?

The "infraction box" (which I guess only I see) under my avatar, says: 6/4 (4). My settings box shows 2 infractions and three warnings. Are there others? If so, is there a way for me to view them?

 

[sirkickyass]

Mo, or any mod, can you help me understand sumthin?

The "infraction box" (which I guess only I see) under my avatar, says: 6/4 (4). My settings box shows 2 infractions and three warnings. Are there others? If so, is there a way for me to view them?

Are there multiple pages you can scroll through?

I see this for example:

 

[Hopper]

Hmm, that's funny. I don't see that. The "page 1 of 3" part, I mean.

Is there sumthin I mighta done to delete my scroll bar, ya think?

 

[sirkickyass]

Have you tried looking under "my profile" rather than using settings? The tabs may be different there.

 

[Hopper]

Have you tried looking under "my profile" rather than using settings? The tabs may be different there.

Well, I have now, but I don't see anything pertinent there. Nor do I see any "tabs."