Rules and Moderator information

[canpakes]

.
Binger, what is the "core problem", here?

Do you have any ‘facts’ to talk about?

Apparently, Binger, these are difficult questions for you.

Apparently, your incessant trolling and impatience is causing you to panic. And, your insult and suggestion that this is difficult is unwelcome, so [deleted] off you [deleted].

That's an entirely unimaginative way of admitting that you're full of hot air, and can't answer the questions. And these are questions specifically relating to 'answers' that you say you have.

As for your new dodge about 'panicking', it would seem to be that you're projecting again, given that you're now urgently trying to insult your way out of some honest questions that you are unable to answer.

I can quite calmly ask you these as often as is needed to let you demonstrate that you have no answers, if that's the result that you're intent on displaying.

This is you, from earlier:

And frankly, nobody disagrees more with Shades than me about what is the core problem here, obviously.

What is the "core problem", here? Is this your final answer, below?

In my opinion, the problem is that the conditions for participation require submission to a core ideology and extreme conditions, including your trolling and at least one bully. I have made it clear that these conditions make it unwelcome to participate without using equally extreme tactics or styles. Gad was talking about the so-called trolls being the problem and that their contribution led to additional moderating. I do not see that as the core. That is the symptom, at best.

The rules and culture of this forum encourage your trolling and insults like what was seen earlier in this conversation from Doc, again. Those behaviors are not just allowed, they are rewarded and excused. And that is fine. Shades has clarified that these conditions are within the boundaries he has established.

[Binger]

Apparently, your incessant trolling and impatience is causing you to panic. And, your insult and suggestion that this is difficult is unwelcome, so [deleted] off you [deleted].

That's an entirely unimaginative way of admitting that you're full of hot air, and can't answer the questions. And these are questions specifically relating to 'answers' that you say you have.

As for your new dodge about 'panicking', it would seem to be that you're projecting again, given that you're now urgently trying to insult your way out of some honest questions that you are unable to answer.

I can quite calmly ask you these as often as is needed to let you demonstrate that you have no answers, if that's the result that you're intent on displaying.

This is you, from earlier:

And frankly, nobody disagrees more with Shades than me about what is the core problem here, obviously.

What is the "core problem", here? Is this your final answer, below?

In my opinion, the problem is that the conditions for participation require submission to a core ideology and extreme conditions, including your trolling and at least one bully. I have made it clear that these conditions make it unwelcome to participate without using equally extreme tactics or styles. Gad was talking about the so-called trolls being the problem and that their contribution led to additional moderating. I do not see that as the core. That is the symptom, at best.

The rules and culture of this forum encourage your trolling and insults like what was seen earlier in this conversation from Doc, again. Those behaviors are not just allowed, they are rewarded and excused. And that is fine. Shades has clarified that these conditions are within the boundaries he has established.

Hey panny, try for once in your life not being a goddamn troll and a prick. Try it.

This is your pattern. "Answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question."

Answer comes

"That was not an answer."

Tell me, panny. You trolling [deleted]. Your buddy wants at least two posters banned. Tell me what is the problem around here. Why is he upset? Make a [deleted] point, panny. For once in your pathetic [deleted] life, make your own goddamn arguments without being a loser little nuisance trolling pest. Try it.

[canpakes]

Hey panny, try for once in your life not being a goddamn troll and a prick. Try it.

This is your pattern. "Answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question."

Answer comes

"That was not an answer."

Tell me, panny. You trolling prick. Your buddy wants at least two posters banned. Tell me what is the problem around here. Why is he upset? Make a [deleted] point, panny. For once in your pathetic [deleted] life, make your own goddamn arguments without being a loser little nuisance trolling pest. Try it.

Let's look at your response.

In my opinion, the problem is that the conditions for participation require submission to a core ideology and extreme conditions, ...

What is the claimed core ideology of the board?
How did you identify it?
What is the process for 'submission'? Can an example be given?
How do we 'fix' the core ideology so that this space is 'safer' for folks allegedly outside of the core ideology?

...including your trolling and at least one bully.

How did my alleged trolling demonstrate any of the conditions above?
How did my alleged trolling - presumably during my role as a moderator - drive or force your disruption of the board for the 90 days prior to me becoming a moderator?
Who are the other bullies? Can you give an example of some posts that prompted your determination of bullying? (links are helpful).

I have made it clear that these conditions make it unwelcome to participate without using equally extreme tactics or styles.

Please compare the volume of your 'tactics or styles' response to the alleged bullying you perceived, to the actual bullying that you claim forced you to respond. What, if anything, was different?

Gad was talking about the so-called trolls being the problem and that their contribution led to additional moderating. I do not see that as the core. That is the symptom, at best.

Do you believe that your own contributions constituted no harassment or board disruption, and that no moderators have been required to address it per board rules?

The rules and culture of this forum encourage your trolling and insults like what was seen earlier in this conversation from Doc, again.

Please quote the rules that encourage (1) my alleged trolling, or (2) anyone else's, including your own alleged trolling. Let's be solutions-oriented.

Those behaviors are not just allowed, they are rewarded and excused.

Please define the awards. Please link to examples.

And that is fine. Shades has clarified that these conditions are within the boundaries he has established.

What is 'fine'? The behavior that you are allegedly fighting against?

[Binger]

Hey panny, try for once in your life not being a goddamn troll and a prick. Try it.

This is your pattern. "Answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question, answer the question."

Answer comes

"That was not an answer."

Tell me, panny. You trolling prick. Your buddy wants at least two posters banned. Tell me what is the problem around here. Why is he upset? Make a [deleted] point, panny. For once in your pathetic [deleted] life, make your own goddamn arguments without being a loser little nuisance trolling pest. Try it.

Let's look at your response.

In my opinion, the problem is that the conditions for participation require submission to a core ideology and extreme conditions, ...

What is the claimed core ideology of the board?
How did you identify it?
What is the process for 'submission'? Can an example be given?
How do we 'fix' the core ideology so that this space is 'safer' for folks allegedly outside of the core ideology?

...including your trolling and at least one bully.

How did my alleged trolling demonstrate any of the conditions above?
How did my alleged trolling - presumably during my role as a moderator - drive or force your disruption of the board for the 90 days prior to me becoming a moderator?
Who are the other bullies? Can you give an example of some posts that prompted your determination of bullying? (links are helpful).

I have made it clear that these conditions make it unwelcome to participate without using equally extreme tactics or styles.

Please compare the volume of your 'tactics or styles' response to the alleged bullying you perceived, to the actual bullying that you claim forced you to respond. What, if anything, was different?

Gad was talking about the so-called trolls being the problem and that their contribution led to additional moderating. I do not see that as the core. That is the symptom, at best.

Do you believe that your own contributions constituted no harassment or board disruption, and that no moderators have been required to address it per board rules?

The rules and culture of this forum encourage your trolling and insults like what was seen earlier in this conversation from Doc, again.

Please quote the rules that encourage (1) my alleged trolling, or (2) anyone else's, including your own alleged trolling. Let's be solutions-oriented.

Those behaviors are not just allowed, they are rewarded and excused.

Please define the awards. Please link to examples.

And that is fine. Shades has clarified that these conditions are within the boundaries he has established.

What is 'fine'? The behavior that you are allegedly fighting against?

Excellent. So no problem that you can see. No reason for Gaddy or anyone else to ask for a ban. Got it.

[canpakes]

Excellent. So no problem that you can see. No reason for Gaddy or anyone else to ask for a ban. Got it.

Quite the contrary. I can still see reason to ban a poster for UR 8 or disruptive ‘contrariness without cause’, regardless of any claims of whatever 'trolling' means.

Are you suggesting that there is no need to discuss or address what you just claimed, a few moments ago, were your issues?

[Binger]

Excellent. So no problem that you can see. No reason for Gaddy or anyone else to ask for a ban. Got it.

Quite the contrary. I can still see reason to ban a poster for UR 8 or disruptive ‘contrariness without cause’, regardless of any claims of whatever 'trolling' means.

Are you suggesting that there is no need to discuss or address what you just claimed, a few moments ago, were your issues?

Finally, I agree with you. Follow UR 8 which does not mention contrariness. There is no basis or argument made, with support, for any bans or queues. Nobody has provided any support for such an argument. I am totally with you on that. Lots of feelings, no support. In fact, maybe we should ban Gad and Jersey for making frivolous complaints about Atlanticmike, who is a harmless Mormon. That is a standard.

ETA: I am still up for a trolling contest. I think you would win that language deleted, no doubt.

[canpakes]

Quite the contrary. I can still see reason to ban a poster for UR 8 or disruptive contrariness without cause, regardless of any claims of whatever 'trolling' means.

Are you suggesting that there is no need to discuss or address what you just claimed, a few moments ago, were your issues?

Finally, I agree with you. Follow UR 8 which does not mention contrariness.

It doesn't need to. UR 8 is sort of like this board's Commerce Clause. It doesn't aim to be tediously specific on every instance that can be interpreted to 'disrupt the smooth operation of this message board'. In fact, past history of this board already has one example (from my own memory) of a participant being queued for being disruptive in a way not specifically defined by UR 8, or any other rule.

If the intent is to deploy rule lawyering, please note that the defense you've given above will not necessarily protect you, or AtlanticMike, or anyone else.

There is no basis or argument made, with support, for any bans or queues. Nobody has provided any support for such an argument. I am totally with you on that.

No one needs to provide any support at all. The response would be based on the actions of the ones being queued or banned, temporarily or otherwise.

Lots of feelings, no support. In fact, maybe we should ban Gad and Jersey for making frivolous complaints about Atlanticmike, who is a harmless Mormon. That is a standard.

Reports are always preferred over catfights. Neither Gad nor Jersey has ever reported Atlanticmike over his harmless Mormonism. Mike's issue rests with his own actions, and a precedent exists for a response to those actions.

ETA: I am still up for a trolling contest. I think you would win that idiot, no doubt.

Atlanticmike called and conceded. The Trolling Smackdown is canceled.

[Res Ipsa]

Binger,

Let me see if I follow. You see a post in which you think a person or group is being treated unfairly. At that point, you can choose how to respond and the magnitude of that response. You chose to troll, which is an aggressive response. Why not assertive?

Canpakes see your aggression towards another board member and responds in kind with aggression, but aggression that stays within the limits of the board rules. Again, you can choose how to respond. You choose aggression over assertion, breaking the rules by personally attacking Canpakes and choosing to use language that you know violates the rules. Then Xeno and I are left to clean up your mess.

You present the two choices you are presented with as aggression or submission. But you know that’s not true. The model you and I have discussed presents you with eight. The two most important ones are assertive and surrender. Those are the balanced responses. You are choosing the extreme responses. You are choosing to be a dick.

I can’t speak for Zeno, but I am tired of cleaning up your messes. You’ve been here long enough to know the rules. You know how to troll within the rules. You know how to have a polite and civil conversation.

Why not just surrender to the fact that this forum has rules and choose to stay within them? Why not respond with balanced responses instead of the extreme responses you’ve been choosing? Why not stop being dickish?

[Binger]

Binger,

Let me see if I follow. You see a post in which you think a person or group is being treated unfairly. At that point, you can choose how to respond and the magnitude of that response. You chose to troll, which is an aggressive response. Why not assertive?

Canpakes see your aggression towards another board member and responds in kind with aggression, but aggression that stays within the limits of the board rules. Again, you can choose how to respond. You choose aggression over assertion, breaking the rules by personally attacking Canpakes and choosing to use language that you know violates the rules. Then Xeno and I are left to clean up your mess.

You present the two choices you are presented with as aggression or submission. But you know that’s not true. The model you and I have discussed presents you with eight. The two most important ones are assertive and surrender. Those are the balanced responses. You are choosing the extreme responses. You are choosing to be a dick.

I can’t speak for Zeno, but I am tired of cleaning up your messes. You’ve been here long enough to know the rules. You know how to troll within the rules. You know how to have a polite and civil conversation.

Why not just surrender to the fact that this forum has rules and choose to stay within them? Why not respond with balanced responses instead of the extreme responses you’ve been choosing? Why not stop being dickish?

There are more choices. But let's clear up a few things.

I did not choose to troll in every case. I may have chosen to just address the content or issue with an aggressive response.
I do not see panny's responses as aggressive. [edited here for clarity. I do not see panny as an aggressive asshole, generally. I see him as incessant and insatiable needling troll who uses insults without using naughty words]
I choose the language I choose because it is extreme. [ETA: language is not just the words. All my responses are not extreme, some are]
I do not say that I only have two choices. In fact, I make the point that Atlanticmike may react differently, which is to say that there are many ways to respond or react.
No comparable option in that model is more important than any other.
I am choosing to be an asshole, but, in fairness it could also be accurately described as a due North orientation.
I do know how to have polite conversations. Yes. And I can. And I will.

Your response, and it is a good response, seems apologetic to me. Am I getting the wrong vibe?

Why not just surrender to the fact that this forum has rules and choose to stay within them? Why not respond with balanced responses instead of the extreme responses you’ve been choosing? Why not stop being dickish?

I will write about this more if it was a sincere question. I can't tell from your post if it is.

[Res Ipsa]

Binger,

Let me see if I follow. You see a post in which you think a person or group is being treated unfairly. At that point, you can choose how to respond and the magnitude of that response. You chose to troll, which is an aggressive response. Why not assertive?

Canpakes see your aggression towards another board member and responds in kind with aggression, but aggression that stays within the limits of the board rules. Again, you can choose how to respond. You choose aggression over assertion, breaking the rules by personally attacking Canpakes and choosing to use language that you know violates the rules. Then Xeno and I are left to clean up your mess.

You present the two choices you are presented with as aggression or submission. But you know that’s not true. The model you and I have discussed presents you with eight. The two most important ones are assertive and surrender. Those are the balanced responses. You are choosing the extreme responses. You are choosing to be a dick.

I can’t speak for Zeno, but I am tired of cleaning up your messes. You’ve been here long enough to know the rules. You know how to troll within the rules. You know how to have a polite and civil conversation.

Why not just surrender to the fact that this forum has rules and choose to stay within them? Why not respond with balanced responses instead of the extreme responses you’ve been choosing? Why not stop being dickish?

There are more choices. But let's clear up a few things.

I did not choose to troll in every case. I may have chosen to just address the content or issue with an aggressive response.
I do not see panny's responses as aggressive. [edited here for clarity. I do not see panny as an aggressive asshole, generally. I see him as incessant and insatiable needling troll who uses insults without using naughty words]
I choose the language I choose because it is extreme. [ETA: language is not just the words. All my responses are not extreme, some are]
I do not say that I only have two choices. In fact, I make the point that Atlanticmike may react differently, which is to say that there are many ways to respond or react.
No comparable option in that model is more important than any other.
I am choosing to be an asshole, but, in fairness it could also be accurately described as a due North orientation.
I do know how to have polite conversations. Yes. And I can. And I will.

Your response, and it is a good response, seems apologetic to me. Am I getting the wrong vibe?

Why not just surrender to the fact that this forum has rules and choose to stay within them? Why not respond with balanced responses instead of the extreme responses you’ve been choosing? Why not stop being dickish?

I will write about this more if it was a sincere question. I can't tell from your post if it is.

Yes, you are getting the wrong vibe.

Yes, it was a sincere question.