Enjoy the trolls, folks

[_Res Ipsa]

OK Lemmie, after how many months of MG’s harassment did Grindael report MG?

Res ipsa, you made the assertion that "during the three years, [grindael] could have reported MG. But he didn’t." It's yours to prove not mine to disprove.

Do you know the answer to the question?

[_DoubtingThomas]

Just curious, are MG and Zeranus the same person?

[_Res Ipsa]

Just curious, are MG and Zeranus the same person?

One never knows, but I strongly doubt it. I suspect Z would consider MG a heretic on many issues.

[_Lemmie]

OK Lemmie, after how many months of MG’s harassment did Grindael report MG?

Res ipsa, you made the assertion that "during the three years, [grindael] could have reported MG. But he didn’t." It's yours to prove not mine to disprove.

Do you know the answer to the question?

Res Ipsa, why are you continuing to ask me if I have answers regarding YOUR assertion? You made an assertion, can you back it up or not?

Here are YOUR words:

If [Grindael] felt MG had been harassing him outside the rules during the three years, he could have reported MG. But he didn’t.

That is absolutely incorrect.

Not until the cf at the end.

I see you have now backed off your original assertion to change your statement. You now assert that grindael did not report MG "until the cf at the end."

Can you factually support your adjusted assertion or not? It's hard to imagine why you would you ask me "after how many months...", unless you really don't know the situation and are just giving your gut reaction--which you can't support factually.

I am especially not understanding the point behind your pushing me to document your assertions for you, given your post when you first started talking about this:

I don't have a handle on exactly what the extent of MG's shadowing and harassment was. Understandably, no one's had the time or inclination to review old threads and determine how pervasive a pattern of shadowing and harassment there really was. I've seen Lemmie's example from 2014, but that doesn't mean there has been a continuous pattern of conduct since that time. I started going forward from there to find some kind of pattern, but really didn't see it in what I've reviewed so far. The interaction in November 2016 was definitely an example, but I haven't looked at the interactions between then and last week's blow up. I'm aware of people's subjective impressions, but I'm kind of a stickler for data. Occupational hazard I guess.

I understand, it's an occupational hazard with me as well. That's why I am having difficulty understanding how you would know, just from reading old threads after the fact, what pattern of reporting Grindael may or may not have engaged in, over a three year period. Unless you have inside knowledge from the moderation team, it doesn't seem reasonable that you would be able to factually support the definitive assertions you have made.

[_I have a question]

But at the end of the day, my conscience restrains me due to three factors:

1. Bowing down to threats of withdrawal will create a group of "elites" who get to dictate which posters can stay and which must go.
2. If A expresses disagreement with B, then all B needs to do is call A a "troll" and A will have to be expelled, according to precedent.
3. I made up my mind long ago that I would never play Pontius Pilate.

In my opinion your conscience has overridden the Universal and specific Terrestrial board rules in favouritism of mentalgymnast.
You have already created an elite, and he is a troll.

Let me be specific, in my opinion you have failed to uphold the following specific board rules (rules you set) in relation to repeated breaches by mentalgymnast.

Do not "derail" threads or otherwise insert commentary that has nothing to do with a thread's opening post.

No blatant or otherwise obvious personal attacks allowed.

In my opinion, your treatment of mentalgymnast also seems in stark contrast to your treatment of Ludwigm.

People are correct in pointing out that there is an ignore feature on this board, but that feature is ineffective against rampant trolling unless everybody ignores the troll and clearly that would be tantamount to board bullying. All it would have taken would be for the moderators, Shades, to uphold the board rules consistently.

I don't think that's happened.
I think the lack of moderation and enforcement for one specific troll (I cannot call it a poster) has facilitated grindael being bullied off the board.
I don't want to be part of an environment that tolerates that.

[_Res Ipsa]

Lemmie, you and I both made claims. Mine was about Grindael and reporting. Yours was that my statement was false. Each of us has the burden of proof on our claims. I’m asking you to prove your claim, not mine. If you don’t have any evidence that Grindael reported MG’s harassment to the mods during the three year period, then you have no basis to claim that my claim was wrong.

It would be perfectly reasonable for you to ask me how I know what I said is true. Had you said “You don’t have sufficient information to make that claim” I would have said something like “You’re right. I should have said that I don’t recall seeing any evidence that Grindael reported...”

But what you said was that I was wrong. And I’ve been asking for the correct Information so that I can correct whatever is incorrect in my statement. And I find it weird that you continue to withhold that information from me. Why in the world would you do that?

[_Lemmie]

Lemmie, you and I both made claims. Mine was about Grindael and reporting. Yours was that my statement was false. Each of us has the burden of proof on our claims.

No. You made a claim, I disagreed with your claim.

I’m asking you to prove your claim, not mine.

OK. When I make a claim, you can ask me to prove it.

If you don’t have any evidence that Grindael reported MG’s harassment to the mods during the three year period, then you have no basis to claim that my claim was wrong

I have made a number of statements about what happened, what I know, what I observed, and what I know about what grindael has done, and I have supported them as completely as I possibly could. Feel free to read any of my past posts, and I'll be happy to further discuss with you, at that point, any claim I have made. In the meantime, prove your own claim.

It would be perfectly reasonable for you to ask me how I know what I said is true. Had you said “You don’t have sufficient information to make that claim” I would have said something like “You’re right. I should have said that I don’t recall seeing any evidence that Grindael reported...”

But what you said was that I was wrong.

Yes I did. And now you are admitting you WERE wrong in making that claim. I appreciate the reformulation, that makes a lot more sense. It seems my stating you were wrong felt too confrontational for you, if that is the case, I apologize for that, I am pretty blunt.

What's hard for me to understand is why you object to me saying you were wrong when you are now admitting that if I had phrased it nicer you would have immediately admitted you were wrong!!

And I’ve been asking for the correct Information so that I can correct whatever is incorrect in my statement. And I find it weird that you continue to withhold that information from me. Why in the world would you do that?

Sorry, I didn't quite pick up on your message that by making a claim you couldn't prove and then telling me I was obligated to disprove your claim for you, you were actually just asking me for information! Tone is so hard to assess through the written word, isn't it?

Also, may I point out that we are both adults. If you want something from me, you can ask appropriately and specifically, without demanding it. And if I choose not to give you what you want, please note that that is not 'weird', I am not 'withholding,' and it is, frankly, none of your damn business 'why in the world' I would not just give you whatever you want.

If you'd like to have a conversation with me as an equal, please feel free to start over.

[_Res Ipsa]

Lemmie,

I'm going to treat you as an equal, which means I'll talk to you straight up, Jersey style and as you put it, bluntly. If I didn't consider you an equal, I'd pretty it up a bit.

Your refusal to answer straightforward questions about why you claimed my original statement was "wrong" is rude and disrespectful. I can't imagine you asking me for an explanation or information after I've claimed something you said was wrong and me refusing to answer in post after post. Us lawyers horse each other around for a living, so I know when I'm being horsed around. Instead of simply explaining a position you took, you've tried to make this about my tone, my not treating you as an equal, burdens of proof. It's the kind of derail that would make MG blush.

So, I'm not going to continue the derail. If you want to discuss my tone, my treatment of you, or the intricacies of burden of proof, I'd be happy to. Just start a new thread. Instead, I'm going back to the point I was making: that Grindael had choices he could have made to avoid the escalation into absurdity that happened last month. I believe there is good reason, based on the information I've seen so far, to conclude that Grindael did not report MG to the moderators until the cf last month. Grindael posted quite a bit about how he was addressing the situation with MG and why. For example, when he went to war by "translating" MG's posts everywhere he made them, he explained why and he owned that decision. I've read lots of the relevant posts, and I never saw Grindael referring to any reports to the moderators. In October, he did ask for help from the moderators in the form of removing derails from several threads and moving them to telestial, which was done. Even then, he didn't post any request to the moderators to take action to restrict MG's posting privileges. In short, I think it is reasonable to expect that, if Grindael had reported MG to the mods, there would be some evidence of it in his posts. I've found evidence of one such occasion so far, at the time of the cf. Otherwise, the Grindael's posts show a pattern of using self-help in response to MG, as opposed to seeking help from the mods. While I disagree with some of the choices he made, I respect him for owning his decisions. He hasn't tried to paint himself as a poor victim bullied off the boards. That's other folks.

[_CameronMO]

I have MGthetroll on ignore. It works for me.

MG is just like that incontinent rat that dribbles their urine. MG dribbles his troll filth where ever he goes.

I agree. I have one user right now in my "foe" list. I've had others before, but have taken them off the list. The list works like a charm.

[_Xenophon]

I have to agree with Shulem, RI, Shades and others on this thread. Lemmie although I disagree with some of your rebuttal to Shades 3 points your first one really seemed off to me:

1. Where did Maksutov, ihaq, or grindael threaten you? In fact, ALL THREE subsequently made posts in support of (not necessarily agreement with) your decision in this matter. All three then made personal decisions that, to the best of my reading, never included a threat to you that made their leaving or not leaving contingent upon getting something from you.

In the thread that seems to have set Mak off, he says this:

I see a post from MG. Stay off my thread. You want to engage, apologize to Grindael. Otherwise, get lost. I will report you.

There is an implication in here that Mak expects some kind of action from the Moderation team. Shades is right to point out that nothing in MG's post is trollish or a derail in nature. MG's comment also spured Kishkumen to write on of the best posts I've ever read on this site. When Mak is informed that he will not receive the support of the mod team removing any post by MG, he quits.

[MODERATOR NOTE: Any participant is allowed to post within any thread. If he or she isn't breaking any rules, the moderators can't / won't do anything about it.]

Good bye, Dr. Shades. Enjoy your trolls.

How can Shades take that as anything but a threat? "If I don't get to dictate the rules of the thread, I'm leaving" is all Mak just said.

I'm very torn on this, because I enjoyed a lot of what IHAQ, Grindael and Make post but I view their response to this whole thing to be, quite frankly, exceptionally childish. How many here report Shulem's derails over facsimiles? Or Porter's constant Iced Tea attacks on MG? So many posters here exhibit the exact same behavior as MG (even if sometimes to a lesser degree) and have for years but we tolerate them. But since most here enjoy the other content of those posters we ignore it and look for the gems.

Edited for clarity