What's new
By:

The Official Welcome Back Rasp/Trout and Hopper/Taint Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hopper said:
I was told to change my posting style so that I add to prior posts rather than make new ones. I have NEVER understood it, or the reason for it, either. Many attempts to find out what this rule is, and how it applies, have garnered me no new insight. Kicky explicitly refuses to discuss the parameters of this so-called rule. He won't give what he wants to call "advisory opinions," in his words. What he WILL do, in a heartbeat, is issue an infraction whenever he determines that a vague "rule" has been violated. A very convenient tool to have for use against your "enemies," I spoze.
Click to expand...

Hopper, I think you're a very bright guy. So, when you make statements like that, I'm either forced to re-evaluate my opinion on your intellect, or to believe that you are simply trolling.

But just to be clear, kicky cannot unilaterally give ANYONE a warning/infraction. Nor can any other moderator. When a post is being discussed by the moderation staff, the first opinion (infraction/warning/ignore/other) to garner three votes from the moderators (sometimes including Jason and myself) wins. Typically that's the majority view, but at times it might not be. (That's one reason why infractions can be appealed.) So, anyway, it takes at least THREE moderators to give you a warning/infraction. One of the three voting for warning/infraction typically volunteers to notify the individual. In your case, perhaps that has been kicky more often than not.

So when you say "What he WILL do, in a heartbeat, is issue an infraction whenever he determines that a vague "rule" has been violated", you are severely mis-stating the moderation process. Please stop doing that, or I *will* vote on an infraction for you for trolling.

And as far as the posting rules go, let me clarify what the moderators expect in case this really wasn't made clear to you: If you are responding to a post, do so ONCE rather than in three (or insert number here) separate back-to-back-to-back posts. If you are posting without quoting anyone, do so ONCE rather than in three separate back-to-back-to-back posts. If you are posting replies to several different people, then by all means do so in separate posts. But try not to post replies like that in five (or insert number here) posts immediately following each other, as it is very annoying to people who have you on ignore (among others) to see post after post of "Hopper wrote this. You have him/her on ignore." (Or whatever the standard message is.)

Since those issues do substantially impact the readability of the board, the moderators voted and decided that they constitute trolling, especially if someone continues to post like that after having been notified. Exceptions will be made (for example, I don't see any moderators voting for an infraction for tatermoog's back-to-back posts in this thread, https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/63-Jazzfanz-is-dead-long-live-Jazzfanz), but that's the general feeling among moderators right now.
 
I'm surprised there hasn't been complaining about the ambiguity of "bizarre formatting of posts."

I mean, come on, if there isn't a full page on what the meaning of "of" is, then it's quite the arbitrary rule where the "mods" can "interpret" any "way" they want and thus their actions are "nothing" short of "un"fair.

EDIT:

I was wrong. How could I have missed it?
 
Last edited:
Hopper said:
Do you even realize that you have just publicly called One Brow a deliberate liar? Do you even care?
Click to expand...

I realize I said he deliberately (most likely) implied a falsehood about the moderation policy in order to jab the moderating staff. Personally I think it was sarcasm rather than lying. Either way he deserved to be called on it, in my opinion. If he has a problem with my reaction to his post, he should contact me himself. If he convinces me he was simply misinformed, I'll apologize for my statement.

Edit: you also asked,
Hopper said:
That's part of the problem around here. Just because the mods know what they have in mind when they write something ambiguous, they feel it's wholely warranted to insist that EVERYONE reading it knows exactly what they meant. They seem to have NO conception of how their "declaration" might be perceived by a reader without the gift of mind-reading powers. Perhaps they should express themselves more clearly, respond to questions, when asked, etc. rather than insist that everyone KNOWS what they mean when they don't even say it.
Click to expand...
Do you even see the question (problem)?
Click to expand...

When *you* are the only one that is having trouble in this respect, is it the moderators' fault for not being clear, or is it your fault for not figuring it out?
 
Hopper said:
Well, my sincere thanks for that input, Colton, but it's really not very helpful, I'm afraid. Can you tell me in what way the post(s) I have received infractions for constitute "bizarre formatting?" I have honestly never understood how they could possibly be interpreted as such.
Click to expand...

Which posts were those? (I don't want to take the time to look them up. I assume you were told which posts they were when the infractions were issued.)
 
Archie Moses said:
Tough while online, eh? You're unemployed, live in the woods, a hippy, have terrible personal hygiene, and you were adopted. Your mother doesn't even love you.
Click to expand...
I give it a 3/10. Pretty vanilla, overall.

I wasn't going for tough, just accurate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page
Back
Top