We need some general rules for posters who routinely engage in “bad faith” discussion tactics.


FAILED STATE

Well-Known Member
This is August 30th. I have never said a negative word about @NAOS before this. I didn't even know who the guy was. I find your victim playing extremely hypocritical and you even start a "nark tattle" thread when it's YOU who is guilty of everything you victimly blame others of. You're just mad that I don't take your bullying. The best way to handle a bully is to give them a taste of their own medicine. They really lose their toughness and do things like run home to Mom and Dad, in @NAOS case the mods. It's weakness.

Anyway heres @NAOS attacking me for no reason.


I handled it myself. Now look at @NAOS not able to do the same. It says a lot imo.
The ignore feature is a wonderful thing. If you need mods to silence somebody because you are incapable of handling a situation yourself I think you may need some sort on counseling. I'm not saying that to be a jerk but letting someone get to you this much is an obvious weakness that is a you problem not a mod problem. Remember as you chill in your world of playing victim. You are the one calling me "soft boi". I'm not calling you any names. Hell i never even knew you existed until you started hating on me for no reason. You dish it but cannot take it.

@NAOS
@ing people is a problem gais.
 

Joe Bagadonuts

Well-Known Member
Lololol. You get further out of orbit with each passing year. Ol’ Joe Bag.
You still think slinging insults is the key to winning arguments. Some things never change.

Back on subject, I don't spend much time on this site anymore so there are undoubtedly a lot of conversations I know nothing about. What I do know is that I recently read an endless squabble between you and Jazzy which seems to relate directly to the complaints in your OP. I think it was in the Impeach Trump thread, and it was very recent. Are there really people (other than naos) who believe a reasonable argument can be made that he wasn't thinking about Jazzy when he created this thread?
 

FAILED STATE

Well-Known Member
Creates a thread, feigns ignorance, claims a high road, doubles down. Copy that.
So I guess the elephant in the room is your admission of ignorance. What do we want to do about that in this case? I can’t see a way forward here (or a way to validate your claim that I’m feigning ignorance) unless we deal with that.

So, you choose. What’s next?
 

Joe Bagadonuts

Well-Known Member
So I guess the elephant in the room is your admission of ignorance. What do we want to do about that in this case? I can’t see a way forward here (or a way to validate your claim that I’m feigning ignorance) unless we deal with that.

So, you choose. What’s next?
This can be solved very easily. Provide links to the posts that motivated you to create this thread. It's hard to believe you missed this obvious solution.
 

FAILED STATE

Well-Known Member
This can be solved very easily. Provide links to the posts that motivated you to create this thread. It's hard to believe you missed this obvious solution.
I’m aware of the fact that you think you know exactly what was in my thoughts. And I’m aware that you are confident of your read on the situation—despite your many deficits in knowledge and experience on this matter. But now you want me to pretend that you didn’t start out with a ridiculous premise (What is NAOS thinking?), AND you want me to do your research for you, too?

I think I’ve seen this tactic before. Pretty ****ing insulting, if you ask me. Grats.
 
Last edited:

Joe Bagadonuts

Well-Known Member
I’m aware of the fact that you think you know exactly what was in my thoughts. And I’m aware that you are confident of your read on the situation—despite your many deficits in knowledge and experience on this matter. But now you want me to pretend that you didn’t start out with a ridiculous premise (What is NAOS thinking?), AND you want me to do your research for you, too?

I think I’ve seen this tactic before. Pretty ****ing insulting, if you ask me. Grats.
Or, to put it more succinctly, I was right. And congrats on picking a perfect new name for yourself, BTW.
 

FAILED STATE

Well-Known Member
Or, to put it more succinctly, I was right. And congrats on picking a perfect new name for yourself, BTW.
If you came here to make a point about perpetuating insulting behavior in the internet, then you did a good job.

I guess you know exactly what this new name refers to... which explains why you like it. Glad it be so.
 

Joe Bagadonuts

Well-Known Member
If you came here to make a point about perpetuating insulting behavior in the internet, then you did a good job.

I guess you know exactly what this new name refers to... which explains why you like it. Glad it be so.
I congratulated you on your choice of names. Sheesh. Some people can't take a compliment.

I guess you are going to ignore the part about providing evidence that I was incorrect about your obsession with Jazzy, right? You apparently didn't like that I provided such a simple solution to the paradox you claimed we are embroiled in.
 

FAILED STATE

Well-Known Member
I congratulated you on your choice of names. Sheesh. Some people can't take a compliment.
I guess we need to go back to my previous post? With respect to your comment about my new name, I said , “I guess you know exactly what this new name refers to... which explains why you like it. Glad it be so.” Not sure where you see my anguish or whatever. And besides, you’ve already alleged to know exactly what I’m thinking when I write, so how could I hide anything from you? You must understand my name completely.


I guess you are going to ignore the part about providing evidence that I was incorrect about your obsession with Jazzy, right? You apparently didn't like that I provided such a simple solution to the paradox you claimed we are embroiled in.
Yeah, it’s pretty easy to dislike when someone parachutes into a conversation, makes a claim that says I know exactly what you were thinking when you wrote___________, and then has the bald-faced idiocy to think the burden is on the accused to prove him wrong. It’s even more irritating when, in the middle of making accusations, this person also admits to ignorance in the matter.

There’s no paradox here. That’s a word for people who don’t have an adequate explanation of events. It’s precisely because we lack a paradox that I can say, confidently: you’re wrong + an *******.

I forget, did you ever address the elephant in the room? I said there was no way forward for us until you had some response to that. I guess you can just keep looking for a place to impress me with your rhetorical flares. I know you think you bring the bar up around here just by showing up. Can’t wait to see what comes next!!1!
 
Last edited:

Joe Bagadonuts

Well-Known Member
I guess we need to go back to my previous post? With respect to your comment about my new name, I said , “I guess you know exactly what this new name refers to... which explains why you like it. Glad it be so.” Not sure where you see my anguish or whatever. And besides, you’ve already alleged to know exactly what I’m thinking when I write, so how could I hide anything from you? You must understand my name completely.



Yeah, it’s pretty easy to dislike when someone parachutes into a conversation, makes a claim that says I know exactly what you were thinking when you wrote___________, and then has the bald-faced idiocy to think the burden is on the accused to prove him wrong. It’s even more irritating when, in the middle of making accusations, this person also admits to ignorance in the matter.

There’s no paradox here. That’s a word for people who don’t have an adequate explanation of events. It’s precisely because we lack a paradox that I can say, confidently: you’re wrong + an *******.

I forget, did you ever address the elephant in the room? I said there was no way forward for us until you had some response to that. I guess you can just keep looking for a place to impress me with your rhetorical flares. I know you think you bring the bar up around here just by showing up. Can’t wait to see what comes next!!1!
Anybody who has read the Impeach Trump thread and then saw you create this thread would come to the same conclusion I did. You told everyone that you were ignoring Jazzy and then you went around trying to get everyone else to ignore him too. Why you can't admit you were thinking about him when you created this thread is a mystery to me. It's obvious that he owns some significant real estate between your ears.

And the elephant that you are seeing is only visible to you, If you think that people who see things differently than you are lacking the facts then simply provide them with the facts. Where are the posts that motivated you to plead with the mods to create new rules? It seems pretty obvious that you ought to point them out. The fact that you won't seems like it proves my point. I'm tired of your whining though, so I'm putting you on ignore.
 

FAILED STATE

Well-Known Member
Anybody who has read the Impeach Trump thread and then saw you create this thread would come to the same conclusion I did. You told everyone that you were ignoring Jazzy and then you went around trying to get everyone else to ignore him too. Why you can't admit you were thinking about him when you created this thread is a mystery to me. It's obvious that he owns some significant real estate between your ears.

And the elephant that you are seeing is only visible to you, If you think that people who see things differently than you are lacking the facts then simply provide them with the facts. Where are the posts that motivated you to plead with the mods to create new rules? It seems pretty obvious that you ought to point them out. The fact that you won't seems like it proves my point. I'm tired of your whining though, so I'm putting you on ignore.
It was never clear to me that Political Jazz Fan was a human being. It seemed probable—even likely—that it was a spam bot. It would respond to comment after comment with a wave of retweets and copy and pastes to support it’s supposed stance. ‘Stance’ is probably a generous term—everyone was trying to figure out exactly what its stance was—but it was probably just distraction. No language of its own. This seemed to set a new precedent for the board and wasn’t exactly the kind of thing that the board’s rules wasn’t set to handle. It’s a new common problem in these spaces.

I’ve had a years-long discussion with mods on the rules with regard to the “readability of the board,” and this was clearly just the next iteration of that discussion.

Thanks for your contributions to this thread, though.
 
Last edited:

FAILED STATE

Well-Known Member
Anybody who has read the Impeach Trump thread and then saw you create this thread would come to the same conclusion I did. You told everyone that you were ignoring Jazzy and then you went around trying to get everyone else to ignore him too. Why you can't admit you were thinking about him when you created this thread is a mystery to me. It's obvious that he owns some significant real estate between your ears.

And the elephant that you are seeing is only visible to you, If you think that people who see things differently than you are lacking the facts then simply provide them with the facts. Where are the posts that motivated you to plead with the mods to create new rules? It seems pretty obvious that you ought to point them out. The fact that you won't seems like it proves my point. I'm tired of your whining though, so I'm putting you on ignore.
Just had a minute to cycle back and lol at this. You live in a quasi-drunk reality.
 

Scat

Well-Known Member
It appears that bad faith discussion practices, as long as they refrain from breaking the most basic rules like circumventing the profanity filter, are totally fine at JFC. The mods appear unwilling to pursue bad faith behavior on the grounds that it makes the board less readable (by intentionally exploding conversation). There would be some precedent for taking this route.

The mods currently have an opportunity to revise their thinking on this problem.
You could always delete yourself.
 
Top