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

[moevillini]

Here again, Mo, I don't see the problem. Can you point out where I failed to indicate when I was quoting, and when I wasn't?

you don't see a problem but others do. that's the bottom line. as has been stated, it is subjective. and a number of people do feel it makes it difficult to identify those posrtions of a post that are quotes and those that are not. that's the bottom line.

same situation applies on other issues - such as pornography or other content deemed "inappropriate". doesn't much matter what the person who makes the post thinks, what matters is what the moderating staff thinks. that's just how it works - here and on just about every other message board that I know of.

contrary to the way you may think it seems, you are not being picked on here. Personally, I have not noticed others doing this to any degree such as yourself.

for instance:

This is interesting:

https://twitter.com/DesNewsEborn

Rumor is SDSU and UNLV would work to join BYU in WAC because it's more western. LaTech may go CUSA and TCU may also. MWC might die as result

The WAC would be pretty sick in basketball if that happened and BYU/ESPN could get a nasty football schedule put together as an Independent as well. I'm really liking this the more I read about the ESPN/BYU relationship that is burgeoning anew.

the quoted content is easily identified from the poster's own comments

 

[Hopper]

...you don't see a problem but others do. that's the bottom line.

Mo, my specific question was this: "Can you point out where I failed to indicate when I was quoting, and when I wasn't?" Apparently you didn't feel that question was worth answering, eh?

... doesn't much matter what the person who makes the post thinks, what matters is what the moderating staff thinks. that's just how it works - here and on just about every other message board that I know of.

Do you really means to say "thinks?" Or would "feels" be the more appropriate word?


As I have told you and others before, I shy away from using balloon quotes. If they happen to appear as the first post on a new page in a thread, I sometimes see them displayed in as little as one character per line (character, not word, i.e., a four letter word will be displayed in 4 lines). Others have told me they have the same sorts of problems, and some say they don't have any problem. I do think, however, that it has been explictly acknowledged by Jason or Colton that a software glich causes this.

So I try to cope with the imperfections of this board the best I can. But that's not good enough for petty dictators, who will tell you it doesn't matter how unreadable the board is to you. The only thing that matters is what they consider to be readable for THEM (and them alone). I really can't fathom even the most frustrated, pedantic, spinster school marm insisting that all quotes must be contained within cartoon balloons, but....

 

[Darkwing Duck]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark#Quotations_and_speech

I'm "helpful."

 

[sirkickyass]

Marcus's sig: "“the basketball gods were thinking about me” ~ Al Jefferson on his coming to Utah"

One Brow's statement: "Marcus, you should be carful with that signature. Word from on high is that the use of quotation marks, as opposed to quote balloons, makes these threads more difficult to read. I would hate for you to get a warning for that."

The implication is that Marcus is running a risk of getting a warning for the sig. That's completely false, and One Brow knows it. Or should know it. Therefore One Brow had his facts wrong.

FWIW, this is the response that I gave to One Brow privately when he gave me substantially the same quoted section cited by Hopper:

Well, as an intial matter I would say right off the bat that your "warning" to Marcus is not supported by the quote you were asked to interpret given that his small quote is neither large nor a block of text surrounded by other text.

As far as interpreting that statement, it should come as no surprise given that the paragraph starts with "In addition" that there was a significant block of text preceding that passage. In fact, that was the final paragraph. The rest of the PM was comprised of a description of his infraction, a handful of anecdotal examples of offending behavior in a single thread and then a discussion of the penalty structure for infractions on the board.

He was not given an infraction or warning for his non-use of the quote function. We determined that as long as we were writing him a message regarding readability concerns we would include all of those concerns that had been voiced to the moderating staff. On the reports we had received we hadn't voted to send him either a warning or an infraction for this particular posting behavior, but thought it might be a relevant item to mention with respect to the global concern. It was included at the end so as to structurally separate it from the "penalty" portion of the e-mail.

As far as whether or not a particular reading is unwarranted, I have long since learned that I can never predict how Hopper will read anything. I'm sure he's upset about it, but he's been given fair notice and ample opportunities. Griping about an advisory paragraph will probably only serve to enhance the perception that he's purposely "not getting it" that already exists.

Given how frequently One Brow takes Hopper specifically to task for his use of selective quotations and bending text to suit a limited purpose, he frankly should have known better. That he took a statement about large blocks quotes and applied it to a seven word passage that's clearly attributed and surrounded by nothing frankly makes him look foolish and that's the reason you've seen disdain from the moderating staff towards that post.

 

[Scat]

This is a freakin' message board, not a legal document. Y'all are taking this way too seriously. If you find Hopper's posts unreadable, don't read them!

 

[moevillini]

...you don't see a problem but others do. that's the bottom line.

Mo, my specific question was this: "Can you point out where I failed to indicate when I was quoting, and when I wasn't?" Apparently you didn't feel that question was worth answering, eh?

you're right, I didn't. actually, I didn't notice that question, but I don't feel it's necessary to justify it with an answer at any rate. Because in general, it does not really matter whether or not you agree with the rationale for these rules - - all that matters is that you follow them.

Quote tags are provided to make it easier to distinguish material quoted from another source from the poster's own words and thoughts. The expectation is that they will be used for that purpose.

... doesn't much matter what the person who makes the post thinks, what matters is what the moderating staff thinks. that's just how it works - here and on just about every other message board that I know of.

Do you really means to say "thinks?" Or would "feels" be the more appropriate word?

in my interpretation of this statement, I will not presume to understand the difference between what a poster "thinks" and what they "feel" when they make a post. You can interpret it however you choose.

As far as the moderating staff goes, I doubt my opinion really matters to you - you're just picking a fight and I don't FEEL like indulging you.

As I have told you and others before, I shy away from using balloon quotes. If they happen to appear as the first post on a new page in a thread, I sometimes see them displayed in as little as one character per line (character, not word, i.e., a four letter word will be displayed in 4 lines). Others have told me they have the same sorts of problems, and some say they don't have any problem. I do think, however, that it has been explictly acknowledged by Jason or Colton that a software glich causes this.

So I try to cope with the imperfections of this board the best I can. But that's not good enough for petty dictators, who will tell you it doesn't matter how unreadable the board is to you. The only thing that matters is what they consider to be readable for THEM (and them alone). I really can't fathom even the most frustrated, pedantic, spinster school marm insisting that all quotes must be contained within cartoon balloons, but....

I don't know any frustrated, pedantic, spinster school marms - do you? And why does this even matter?


But - - - whatever the issues are that you have with board readability, and whatever it is that causes it, you are the only one actively complaining and actively trying to challenge the moderators' interpretation of the rules to suit your own personal taste.

 

[colton]

This is a test:

This paragraph is indented, as I compose it.

This one aint.

That's what I thought I recalled. Colton, maybe you should develop software which allows you to indent before complaining to and about the posters in your domain because their paragraphs are not "indented," know what I'm sayin?

I think I'm being trolled again, but if you are really this confused: the indentations I was referring to were via use of the "quote" tag. As in:

This paragraph is indented.

This one isn't.

 

[moevillini]

This is a freakin' message board, not a legal document. Y'all are taking this way too seriously. If you find Hopper's posts unreadable, don't read them!

the way I see it, Hopper is the one who is taking things way too seriously. he's the one writing post after post complaining and pointing out every little discrepancy he can find.

and why should the rules be changed to suit his style of posting when it seems most other posters are able to follow the standard format when they make a post.

does anybody else wonder why hopper even continues to post on jazzfanz at all if he finds this site so inhospitable?

 

[TroutBum]

<---- still waiting for a response.

 

[Hopper]

the way I see it, Hopper is the one who is taking things way too seriously. he's the one writing post after post complaining and pointing out every little discrepancy he can find.

I'm the one who will, probably within a matter of days, be permanently banned. Of course those consequences are of a little more import to me than to than to someone who is doing the banning by imposing school marm rules so that they can stay here and rid the board of someone who disagrees with them on gay marriage, etc.

and why should the rules be changed to suit his style of posting when it seems most other posters are able to follow the standard format when they make a post.

Who's "changing the rules" here, exactly, eh, Mo? I read, and agreed to comply with, the site rules when I signed up. I have not violated those rules, to my knowledge. It's the mods who are "changing the rules," willy-nilly, on an ad hoc basis, as they go, for the purpose of dictating style, not substance, so they can threaten banishment for using quotation marks or some other petty matter of form (like not addressing separate issues in separate posts).

I didn't see anything in the rules about a "standard format" when I signed up. What exactly IS the STANDARD FORMAT and where are the rules for compying with it spelled out? I don't see an example of the STANDARD FORMAT in the faqs, for some strange reason. Yet everyone knows just what it is, I spoze. Except me, of course, because I just don't get it.

does anybody else wonder why hopper even continues to post on jazzfanz at all if he finds this site so inhospitable?

Let me see if I can clear up this huge mystery for you, eh, Mo? If, as he sometimes seems to think, Kicky were the sole member of this board, I would not be here for one second. I don't come here to converse with Kicky, although I'm forced to when he issues me infractions, etc.

There are some people here who I like and enjoy conversing with. I do not come here to interact with the mods, per se, although they seem anxious to "interact" with me by dictating matters of form, etc. I would simply welcome a cessation of the unwarranted interference with my posting by mods with an ax to grind. I know, good luck with that, eh?

Mo, my specific question was this: "Can you point out where I failed to indicate when I was quoting, and when I wasn't?" Apparently you didn't feel that question was worth answering, eh?

you're right, I didn't. actually, I didn't notice that question, but I don't feel it's necessary to justify it with an answer at any rate. Because in general, it does not really matter whether or not you agree with the rationale for these rules - - all that matters is that you follow them.

Mo, I appreciate your frank candor in declaring that compliance, irrespective of rationale, is the requirement here. Just ban me, right now, Mo. That's what you want to do. That's what you will do. Why make a pretense about "rules?' That's not the issue here, and you know it. Rules don't matter. Reason doesn't matter. What mods want is all that matters. You want me banned, so just do it, now, summarily. No need to explain or apologize to anyone who doesn't like it or who doesn't agree (there are people here who welcome and enjoy my contributions, believe it or not). They don't count. They're not mods, with "power," like you, so just ban me now and be done with it. If anyone complains, immediately ban them too. Enough banning, and the board will suit your personal prefences just fine, I'm sure.

 

[Archie Moses]

This is a freakin' message board, not a legal document. Y'all are taking this way too seriously. If you find Hopper's posts unreadable, don't read them!

Exactly, if you don't like him, don't read his posts. If he posts to much, don't have a "open" and "public" discussion forum.

 

[C l u t c H 385]

you don't see a problem but others do.

.

Not all others do.

 

[Hopper]

Exactly, if you don't like him, don't read his posts. If he posts to much, don't have a "open" and "public" discussion forum.

Many of my posts that the mods find intolerable are one's imported from other places on the web, such as newspaper articles, etc., eh, Archie? I do this to stimulate discussion, present authoritative positions on a topic, and otherwise go beyond just saying what "I" think. Often such posts are made be me in response to claims of fact made by other posters. Many posters do NOT like that; that is posting "too often," see? They must read my posts, to see what the don't like about them, so they can complain and dream up new rules to prohibit such discussion in the future.

 

[moevillini]

Aint - I have made it abundantly clear over the years, both to other moderators and to the general audience, that I OPPOSE the IDEA OF PERMANENT BANS. Period.

Please do NOT presume to tell me what I "WANT"

As far as you're concerned, I WANT you to follow the standard procedure for QUOTING TEXT. That is by using the QUOTE TAGS that are provided for that purpose. Those are the tags that look like this - [ ] and [/ ] with the word QUOTE in the middle. I believe you know what they are and I believe you know how to use them, you just choose not to.

AGAIN, I ASK YOU - WHY ARE YOU HERE IF YOU FIND THIS BOARD AND THE MODS TO BE SO INTOLERABLE? WHY?

Why don't you follow through on your voluntary offer to resign from the board? I can't imagine you'd actually be waiting for permission to do so.

and Clutch, it's not a matter of unanimity with any of these decisions (either by the mods or the message board community)

Not all others do.

so what's your point? nobody is saying that anything is ever going to be unanimous.

 

[C l u t c H 385]

_

Just pointing out there is another side. Some posters enjoy his posting. Everything about it. Those that have been given an ignore function.

Think about it as a gay marriage supporter. Just cuz aint is legal doesn't mean you personally have to read his posts. If you ignore them, they don't effect you at all.

 

[Hopper]

I assume the "rule" is not that literal, but that's the problem. Nobody knows what it really is. This is the SECOND time, in this thread alone, where I ask a moderator a question, and don't see a response to it because they go back and answer the question in a prior post which I have no reason to re-read.

Sorry. I am totally stumped. I have no idea what is being referred to here. What "requirement" are you talking about? What "rule"?

You're stumped too, eh, Mo? Go figure, eh? Me too. This is the "rule" I have been told I must comply with on pain of banishment for disobedience. 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.

 

[TroutBum]

You're stumped too, eh, Mo? Go figure, eh? Me too. This is the "rule" I have been told I must comply with on pain of banishment for disobedience. 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.

Do you how annoying it is to open up a thread and see 14 out of 18 posts by you? Almost as bad as when you're on ignore and you have to filter through 14 blocks of, "Hopper is currently on your ignore list." How do you not see that?

Anyhow, I am here to give you my full support of banning yourself. And I thought TaterBoob was pathetic. Just end it dude, we all hate you. (except Clutch)

 

[GVC]

Does hopper really think he's not the worst thread hijacker in jazzfanz history?

 

[Archie Moses]

Does hopper really think he's not the worst thread hijacker in jazzfanz history?

Don't let him steal my thunder, bro.

 

[C l u t c H 385]

_

Do you how annoying it is to open up a thread and see 14 out of 18 posts by you?

not at all?

Almost as bad as when you're on ignore and you have to filter through 14 blocks of, "Hopper is currently on your ignore list." How do you not see that?

Wahhhh! Wahhhh! Reading is harrrd!

Anyhow, I am here to give you my full support of banning yourself. And I thought TaterBoob was pathetic. Just end it dude, we all hate you. (except Clutch)

Ya know who else liked to speak for others and claim they hate people...Hitler.