I HEREBY STEP DOWN FOR NOW

[Marcus]

Marcus…this is when the gang starts jumping in, see chaps post above.

you mean more than one person disagrees with you? God forbid.

It’s only in your head that it’s a politically (or otherwise) oriented group ganging up on you personally. Try seeing it neutrally, as in multiple people disagreeing with the content of the comments you are making. No more, no less.

Did you get a chance to read the latest mod statement on trolling at the end of the Rules thread?

[canpakes]

Chap you need to focus…the conversation is about board behavior by individual behavior. Using folks by name individually, and their MO…is critical to the conversation and point. Folks here point out AM, Binger and others by name, I am simply countering with Trolls from the “other side” using the same exact types of arguments…lets say a social experiment. I said I would show Marcus how it works, and am doing so.

Markk, I’m still looking for an example of behavior that matches the threshold seen in the thread that I linked.

Consider (since you are giving examples by name) that Binger wasn’t banned for his behavior in that thread, which - by historical example - is both (1) the most extreme an example of trolling behavior as can be found on this site, and (2) was repeated thread after thread after thread after thread by him.

And yet … not banned for it, as he went on and on. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Likewise, there was nothing political about his behavior in that thread. There was no ideology in play. But - if you want to explore that notion - you should know that Binger claimed to have supported and voted for Bernie Sanders, which would make him a socialist in your book.

So, I’m having a bit of trouble understanding what your point is. As I asked before:
”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.”

[Chap]

Marcus…this is when the gang starts jumping in, see chaps post above.

you mean more than one person disagrees with you? God forbid.

It’s only in your head that it’s a politically (or otherwise) oriented group ganging up on you personally. Try seeing it neutrally, as in multiple people disagreeing with the content of the comments you are making. No more, no less.

Did you get a chance to read the latest mod statement on trolling at the end of the Rules thread?

It seems that for Markk, "trolling" = "expressing strong and possibly contemptuous disagreement with what he has said". Good to know, for future reference.

Over the last couple of weeks, "trolling" has however been used on this board in a more limited sense, as meaning "systematically attempting to fill the board with multiple posts, and even multiple threads, made up of abuse and distraction, with the sole or main object of disrupting the board's' function as a medium for the exchange of views". Atanticmike did that, and made it clear why he was doing it. He appears to be no longer with us. His views, in themselves, were certainly not the reason for his departure.

[Res Ipsa]

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.




‘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?

Mark, an important part of the problem as I see it is that too many people see everything these days through the lens of politics. When moderating, I don't give a rip about a person's politics or how well liked they are on the board. I focus on the behavior. And, at least in my time on the board, Mike and Binger are in a class all by themselves in terms of trolling behavior.

[huckelberry]

This is what proves my point, They are trolls…even by your definition, but because they are in your tribe you protect them. Jersey Girl is rude, obnoxious, and jumps into everybody’s business. I get she is a drama queen, and that’s oaky…but she is none the less a troll and drives my point.

Kevin a bit rash? LOL…he has a personality of a canker sore, is as dry as a pop corn fart, and has no tolerance for anyone one that is not liberal…he is the definition of a troll, but again he is liberal, drives your narrative… so you protect him.

Trump dead..60%…lol…your colors are showing, and proving my point. Go and read some of schmos posts? Do you want Trump dead?

LOL…a bit rash….that is a classic, he is a troll.

Markk, popcorn fart? that is amusing perhaps you could have limited your comment to that. You did not need to prove you do not know what a troll is . But that is not all that important. What startles me is your comment about Jersey Girl. I am wondering what brain disease would create such an opinion, Maggots?

[Kishkumen]

Where is Jersey Girl calling for derailment? LOL…she won’t because it is here tribe derailing, but if I posted this she would cry “derailment!” Marcus, this is how it works here.

It was my impression that the person who posts the OP is usually the one that calls out derailment. I probably only pay attention when that is the case.

But, I would say liberals are in a bubble and only follow talking points. I don’t see them having conversation about how our country is in a huge mess because of liberal policies. We have a president that is not leading…he is told what to say and is on a leash (lets debate that if you like and try to find out who is really calling the shots)…The VP is incompetent (please start a thread on that and defend her competence and who she is righting up the border and stoping the drugs that are killing 100k +- Americans every year…or how about homelessness, do you really want to go there, or supply and inflation. No like this last post all you want to do is talk about Trump…that gut is so far up your rear end that is all that comes out of your mouths in a debate.

My recollection is that Rush Limbaugh took the word liberal and made it a slur. He didn't really talk about liberals in terms of their political philosophy. He just attached his venom to anyone who would vote for things that he didn't like. And it really didn't go any deeper than that for him. Raise taxes? Liberal. Social safety net? Liberal.

Of course, this was all very strategic. The people whose cause he fought for did not want to pay taxes, and he did his best to make certain policies non-starters. Of course, things need to be paid for, and that does not happen by magic, so taxes must be paid. With Limbaugh, one can't even make the argument that there is a time for raising taxes.

So when I see you ranting about "liberals" and so and so being incompetent, I have a difficult time taking you seriously. My guess is that you think Kamala Harris is incompetent because you consume a lot of rightwing media that spends time fuming about her with a nauseated look of hatred on their faces. Personally, I didn't like her or want her to be the nominee because I think she is a hyper-ambitious phony. There were other options I thought would be a lot better. It wasn't even clear to me why anyone would pick someone for California for VP because nothing is gained from it:

CA WILL VOTE BLUE ANYWAY.

That said, Trump didn't even rise to the level of trying to be competent. I'll take ambitious phony over feckless criminal any day of the week. I would take almost any Republican of the older school over Trump any day of the week. Tell me that in order to get rid of Trump forever I need to sign an agreement to vote two terms for Mitt Romney and I will eagerly start hunting for a pen. Sign me up!

You see, Trump was completely unfit for office, and most normal people who have not joined his cult, including normal Republicans, will admit it. Sure, some of them will only admit it in private, but they will admit it. It is, by and large, a groundswell of ignorance, ugliness, and resentment that has propelled Trump into the national limelight. His personal merits would make him an unpleasant and crooked used car salesman. His dad's fortune saddled us with him for way too long.

[honorentheos]

My recollection is that Rush Limbaugh took the word liberal and made it a slur. He didn't really talk about liberals in terms of their political philosophy. He just attached his venom to anyone who would vote for things that he didn't like. And it really didn't go any deeper than that for him. Raise taxes? Liberal. Social safety net? Liberal.

I would go back to the Reagan speech at the 1964 Goldwater convention. It's known popularly as, "A Time to choose".

During the 1964 Presidential campaign, Republican party officials in California, who knew Reagan's powerful message and delivery, asked him to film a speech on behalf of the Republican candidate, Barry Goldwater. The speech was aired on October 27, 1964 and it was electrifying. Donations to the Republican party and candidates increased dramatically.

The Republican Party took note and they targeted Reagan as a candidate from that point forward. He agreed in 1966 to run for Governor of California. He won two terms, and eventually won the Presidency.

Watch/listen here:
https://youtu.be/_VBtCMTPveA

Read here:
https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/reagans/r ... er-27-1964

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down - [up] man's old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the "Great Society," or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they've been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, "The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." Another voice says, "The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state." Or, "Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century." Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as "our moral teacher and our leader," and he says he is "hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document." He must "be freed," so that he "can do for us" what he knows "is best." And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government."

Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government"this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

[Markk]

Chap you need to focus…the conversation is about board behavior by individual behavior. Using folks by name individually, and their MO…is critical to the conversation and point. Folks here point out AM, Binger and others by name, I am simply countering with Trolls from the “other side” using the same exact types of arguments…lets say a social experiment. I said I would show Marcus how it works, and am doing so.

Markk, I’m still looking for an example of behavior that matches the threshold seen in the thread that I linked.

Consider (since you are giving examples by name) that Binger wasn’t banned for his behavior in that thread, which - by historical example - is both (1) the most extreme an example of trolling behavior as can be found on this site, and (2) was repeated thread after thread after thread after thread by him.

And yet … not banned for it, as he went on and on. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Likewise, there was nothing political about his behavior in that thread. There was no ideology in play. But - if you want to explore that notion - you should know that Binger claimed to have supported and voted for Bernie Sanders, which would make him a socialist in your book.

So, I’m having a bit of trouble understanding what your point is. As I asked before:
”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.”

What is the absolute benchmark and datum point for the demarcation of trolls and I might add nanny’s? Maybe we are are both confused and saying the same thing and talking over each other?

Take care

[canpakes]

So, I’m having a bit of trouble understanding what your point is. As I asked before:
”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.”

What is the absolute benchmark and datum point for the demarcation of trolls and I might add nanny’s? Maybe we are are both confused and saying the same thing and talking over each other?

There isn’t an ‘absolute benchmark and datum point for the demarcation of trolls’. Besides, that’s not the thing you’re looking for. As pointed out before, ‘trolling’ in and of itself isn’t prohibited. It’s how the behavior manifests that is the issue.

Imagine the parallel example of flirting. Striking up a clever conversation with the woman in 303 might be OK, whereas walking in, dropping your pants and waving your wang around in the air would be problematic.

Let me ask you this, in return - what ‘benchmark and datum point(s)’ would you like to see used to determine when someone should (1) have their comment be edited/moved, (2) be placed on queue, or (3) be banned?

[Chap]

And let's remember universal Rule 13:

"Moderators and administrators will follow the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. Try to see things from their point of view."

It is possible to ask for and get quite clear indications of the kind of trolling that may lead to sanctions - and as has been pointed out repeatedly, it is basically persistent behaviour that can reasonably be judged by the mods to be intended to disrupt the board's normal functioning as a place of discussion. Frankly, I think that is clear enough for any reasonable person, and if you had been around over the last year you would have seen glaring examples from Cultellus/Binger/Atlanticmike. Suspension and banning were resorted to with great reluctance (Shades even invited Cultellus to lunch), but in the end the choice was between seeing the board destroyed or suspension/banning.

But you will never get a litigable definition as if it was a statute. Sorry to spoil anybody's fun.