I HEREBY STEP DOWN FOR NOW

[Marcus]

This forum has 13 rules.

In a way, most of the rules section can be captured within one maxim:

“Act as you would if you were at a casual dinner party.”

There isn’t much that can’t be discussed in such a venue, provided it’s done with generally common sense behavior, and some semblance of respect for others and the setting.

But, hopping upon the dining table, smearing jello salad all over oneself, and flinging Swedish meatballs and sriracha sauce onto the crowd while shouting obscenities will likely result in being escorted to the door.

Or consigned to the kid’s table, which I think Shades has brilliantly provided.

That way freedoms are preserved, as well as some space and relative calmness for cognizant thought.

[Res Ipsa]

Mark, I know that's the common wisdom, but by now every troll in the world understands that it's a tactic being used against them. The response is often escalation after escalation until the members of the online community simply decide that trying to meaningfully participate just isn't worth the effort. The studies I've looked at indicate that the most effect methods of handling a troll are banning or deleting all their posts. (One can do both by simply deleting those accounts.) Of course, that has to be balanced here with the values of free speech. If you're talking about the kind of trolling that most folks here and everywhere do from time to time, I absolutely agree: stick '''em on ignore and they'll stop. But, if someone is trolling for the purpose of disrupting the community itself, ignoring doesn't provide much deterrence.

LOL…well, we certainly have a fundamentally difference of “being” on this, if that is the right word. I guess I am not emotionally attached to the board, I have a life beyond it. I would think if people take this crap that seriously then go ahead, kick Shades to the curb, disrespect him and his vision, and ban AM for life.

The board and many here helped me put Mormonism in a safe place…and I appreciate that…but this forum (SP) is much different than that, at least too me.

When I say ignore I don’t mean put them on ignore, I mean don’t give a crap about them or read their crap. AM sent be a dumb PM when I got here showing me he was truly a troll…he thought I was a confederate I guess…I just dumped the message and moved on. Dr. Cam after he spent three years on the Russian hoax, and after it fell apart he pretty much refused to discuss anything and just tried to meme me to death with gold fish…so what…I just shined it on unless I felt like responding, which was then on me.

I think that’s a lot of territory between just ignore everything and kick Shades to the curb. And there’s nothing inconsistent about being attached to an online community and having a life.

[Markk]

I don’t remember that conversation , but I’ll take your word for it but I would have to see the context, I have a little deeper view than how you simplified it. I am confused what my profession has to do with it…elaborate please I am very curious?

It’s trapped in the archived section of the board, so it’ll take some clever searching. I may take a look around for it, though. Even if we didn’t see eye to eye, it was a fun conversation.

But, just so I understand, are you saying that Trolling should be allowed, as long as it does not…______________________(fill in the blank?)

‘Violate the rules.’

As has been mentioned by others, ‘trolling’ - in and of itself - isn’t necessarily disallowed. It just needs to conform to the rule set. Sexual harassment, or repeated derailment, or crazy-arse repitition of hundreds of obscenities spread over dozens of posts within a single day, are examples of trolling that aren’t permitted.

So then by this definition Kevin and Jersey Girl should be in the same category as AM? In Kevin’s first posts to me or about me he was down right lying about me, and Jersey Girl was being a nagging nanny (in my opinion the worst form of trollism) …how should that be treated? I would hate to see them punished but for arguments sake only.

My assertion is that you are bias based on Mikes politics, if he was a liberal doing it to folks like Ajax, Droopy, and other alike, including me you would defend him. Am I that far off here?

Take care by the way nobody congratulated me on my Rams winning the SB…blink blink Schmo?

[honorentheos]

My assertion is that you are bias based on Mikes politics, if he was a liberal doing it to folks like Ajax, Droopy, and other alike, including me you would defend him. Am I that far off here?

Markk, do you genuinely believe what Atlanticmike was posting represented a political view? I don't. Every attempt I made to engage him on the topic of politics went unrequited. He even acknowledged he wasn't really that interested in politics as a topic.

Here's an example of a thread where the very title was supposed to be about progressivism but it really amounted to nothing but random bitching about other posts on the board.

viewtopic.php?p=29836#p29836

I was curious what the thread was about and was surprised to see the OP didn't really include an example of a progressive being crazy so much as a poster on the board spitting fire about people who continue to support Donald Trump. Well, not that surprised. It was inevitable but I did honestly think the OP at least would have started off with something from the news. More like something Ajax would post I guess.

To define what being progressive means in relation to American politics is broken as can be seen in the thread so far. Largely, it's used as a war banner declaring whose house one fights under or why one chooses to attack another flying a different banner.

To have a better discussion about the topic would, I believe, require pausing the battle to revisit what the core concepts of conservative and progressive political thinking entails minus the high school antics.

[canpakes]

‘Violate the rules.’

As has been mentioned by others, ‘trolling’ - in and of itself - isn’t necessarily disallowed. It just needs to conform to the rule set. Sexual harassment, or repeated derailment, or crazy-arse repitition of hundreds of obscenities spread over dozens of posts within a single day, are examples of trolling that aren’t permitted.

So then by this definition Kevin and Jersey Girl should be in the same category as AM? In Kevin’s first posts to me or about me he was down right lying about me, and Jersey Girl was being a nagging nanny (in my opinion the worst form of trollism) …how should that be treated? I would hate to see them punished but for arguments sake only.

Context, content and quantity matter. I could be wrong, but my take on things is that Shades never intended to babysit discussions and to toss folks into virtual prison after singular offenses unless the three considerations warranted it. Those rules have been in place with little change from the earliest days of the board, and - as far as I can tell from looking back at threads before 2010 - when the political composition of the board seemed much more conservative. I suspect that we’ve lost many of those conservative voices over time based more on their commitment to Mormonism than any commitment to particular political beliefs outside of it.

Also, consider that action against AM and Binger occurred after several thousand posts that were largely oriented solely towards rule-breaking behavior. If restrictions against posting privileges in Shades’s realm took more than half-a-year and several thousand posts, then it’s fair to assume that there will be very few instances where folks will be booted for a post or two regarding what you’ve mentioned above.

My assertion is that you are bias based on Mikes politics, if he was a liberal doing it to folks like Ajax, Droopy, and other alike, including me you would defend him. Am I that far off here?

I’d say that you’re ‘that far off’. I’ve personally defended ajax and edited/moved posts aimed at attacking him.

And I don’t think you’ve got much to worry about from me. I’m pretty easygoing even when subjected to repeated attempts at verbal abuse. Feel free to take out your frustrations on me as needed. : D Check out the thread linked below:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=154586

Now, imagine that all over the board, every day. And, while you’re reading through it, try to suss out a ‘political ideology’ from any of it. I don’t see that as the issue.

[Marcus]

So then by this definition Kevin and Jersey Girl should be in the same category as AM? In Kevin’s first posts to me or about me he was down right lying about me, and Jersey Girl was being a nagging nanny (in my opinion the worst form of trollism) …how should that be treated? I would hate to see them punished but for arguments sake only.

Context, content and quantity matter. I could be wrong, but my take on things is that Shades never intended to babysit discussions and to toss folks into virtual prison after singular offenses unless the three considerations warranted it. Those rules have been in place with little change from the earliest days of the board, and - as far as I can tell from looking back at threads before 2010 - when the political composition of the board seemed much more conservative. I suspect that we’ve lost many of those conservative voices over time based more on their commitment to Mormonism than any commitment to particular political beliefs outside of it.

Also, consider that action against AM and Binger occurred after several thousand posts that were largely oriented solely towards rule-breaking behavior. If restrictions against posting privileges in Shades’s realm took more than half-a-year and several thousand posts, then it’s fair to assume that there will be very few instances where folks will be booted for a post or two regarding what you’ve mentioned above.

My assertion is that you are bias based on Mikes politics, if he was a liberal doing it to folks like Ajax, Droopy, and other alike, including me you would defend him. Am I that far off here?

I’d say that you’re ‘that far off’. I’ve personally defended ajax and edited/moved posts aimed at attacking him.

And I don’t think you’ve got much to worry about from me. I’m pretty easygoing even when subjected to repeated attempts at verbal abuse. Feel free to take out your frustrations on me as needed. : D Check out the thread linked below:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=154586

Now, imagine that all over the board, every day. And, while you’re reading through it, try to suss out a ‘political ideology’ from any of it. I don’t see that as the issue.

Oh my god. That thread should be required reading. Seriously, Markk. I participated in that thread the first time around and I’m still blushing. I forgot how truly vile Binger/Cultellus and AtlanticMike could be. Markk, you really cannot argue anyone else on the board communicates like those two, especially Binger, whose bizarre mental incapacity is on full and unfettered display in that thread. Seriously. Omg.

[Markk]

Context, content and quantity matter. I could be wrong, but my take on things is that Shades never intended to babysit discussions and to toss folks into virtual prison after singular offenses unless the three considerations warranted it. Those rules have been in place with little change from the earliest days of the board, and - as far as I can tell from looking back at threads before 2010 - when the political composition of the board seemed much more conservative. I suspect that we’ve lost many of those conservative voices over time based more on their commitment to Mormonism than any commitment to particular political beliefs outside of it.

Also, consider that action against AM and Binger occurred after several thousand posts that were largely oriented solely towards rule-breaking behavior. If restrictions against posting privileges in Shades’s realm took more than half-a-year and several thousand posts, then it’s fair to assume that there will be very few instances where folks will be booted for a post or two regarding what you’ve mentioned above.

Paul O talked about sodomizing God and the prophet Joseph Smith…are you kidding me? But to your point what is the bench mark for excommunication? Shade was patient with Paul and and he has graduated from what I have seen…let Shades do hi thing, he deserves it…he owes you nothing.

[Markk]

So then by this definition Kevin and Jersey Girl should be in the same category as AM? In Kevin’s first posts to me or about me he was down right lying about me, and Jersey Girl was being a nagging nanny (in my opinion the worst form of trollism) …how should that be treated? I would hate to see them punished but for arguments sake only.

Context, content and quantity matter. I could be wrong, but my take on things is that Shades never intended to babysit discussions and to toss folks into virtual prison after singular offenses unless the three considerations warranted it. Those rules have been in place with little change from the earliest days of the board, and - as far as I can tell from looking back at threads before 2010 - when the political composition of the board seemed much more conservative. I suspect that we’ve lost many of those conservative voices over time based more on their commitment to Mormonism than any commitment to particular political beliefs outside of it.

Also, consider that action against AM and Binger occurred after several thousand posts that were largely oriented solely towards rule-breaking behavior. If restrictions against posting privileges in Shades’s realm took more than half-a-year and several thousand posts, then it’s fair to assume that there will be very few instances where folks will be booted for a post or two regarding what you’ve mentioned above.

My assertion is that you are bias based on Mikes politics, if he was a liberal doing it to folks like Ajax, Droopy, and other alike, including me you would defend him. Am I that far off here?

I’d say that you’re ‘that far off’. I’ve personally defended ajax and edited/moved posts aimed at attacking him.

And I don’t think you’ve got much to worry about from me. I’m pretty easygoing even when subjected to repeated attempts at verbal abuse. Feel free to take out your frustrations on me as needed. : D Check out the thread linked below:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=154586

Now, imagine that all over the board, every day. And, while you’re reading through it, try to suss out a ‘political ideology’ from any of it. I don’t see that as the issue.

Are you a mod?

[Markk]

I will read through the last responses, maybe I missed something…but no one appears to be addressing Kevin, Jersey Girl, Schmo and other trolls, which is critical to my point, you only want to focus on a selected few? Kevin calls everyone a racist that disagrees with him. Jersey Girl thinks she owns the board, and schmo said he wanted Trump dead and alike , and meant it.

[canpakes]

.
Some formatting issue has mangled your reply, Markk, but it looks like this is what you were trying to post:

Paul O talked about sodomizing God and the prophet Joseph Smith…are you kidding me? But to your point what is the bench mark for excommunication? Shade was patient with Paul and and he has graduated from what I have seen…let Shades do hi thing, he deserves it…he owes you nothing.

No one has been ‘excommunicated’ from the board.

Shades was ‘patient with Paul’, but Shades also took action at a point when he thought it necessary to do so. That’s no different than what happened with Atlanticmike, or Binger.

I agree that Shades owes me nothing. I’m not asking for anything. Why would I, and for what? Rather, I owe Shades an effort to moderate according to the rules he put in place years ago.

In any event, I can’t quite make out what level of moderation you want to settle on … that folks should just be ignored regardless of what they do and however long they do it, or that Shades should throw the book at them for singular offenses like the one of Paul’s that you mentioned. You’re arguing both sides, at this point.