Jesse Jackson is a Clown and Needs to Stop Already

[Hopper]

You unequivocally had reason to know that posting multiple times in a row in the manner in which you spam individual threads was prohibited. If that's not explicit enough, nothing ever will be.

So you assert, Kicky, as your never-failing MO would lead one to expect. But, even though you are entirely unaware of it, the fact is that your personal assertions are not what makes things true, false, "unequivocal" or "explicit."

Your inclusion of the word "spam" carries it's own prejudicial and perjorative connotations, but, again, the choice of noun does not dictate the nature of the thing being described. At times the choice of words reveals nothing more or less than an attempt to vaguely state one subjective conclusions without any supporting rationale whatsover for the conclusion being given.

One thing you leave out is that there ARE NO "pages 14 and 15" in the thread referred to. This is one thing I pointed out in my request for clarification, which was totally and deliberately ignored. The mere phrase "including 6 in a row," especially when it is simply part of a much larger context, does NOT say that "responding to 5 posts in a row is trolling, regardless of the context or circumstances." If it did say that, it would be ridiculous in my opinon. The only thing which is "explicit" and "unequivocal" here, as far as I can see, is simply your own attempt to "justify" unjustfiable positions.

 

[Safetydan]

It was actually on page 11 and overlaps into 12.

This is endlessly fascinating.

 

[sirkickyass]

It was actually on page 11 and overlaps into 12.

This is endlessly fascinating.

This will actually depend on your local setting with respect to how many posts per page you allow. For example, this is on page 4 for me because I allow 40 posts per page. It could be on page 12 for someone else. This also responds to aint's characterization of the issue.

In any event, it should not be difficult to figure out where those strings of posts reside or to figure out what kind of behavior the PM discusses.

Aint: You have a recourse, take it up with Jason/colton. You're not relitigating it to your satisfaction here. You will not get your infraction rescinded simply by posting here interminably. Furthermore, you're probably not doing yourself any favors with respect to an event where the issue comes up again. This line of argumentation you're taking is probably simply serving to harden positions rather than soften them.

 

[Hopper]

This also responds to aint's characterization of the issue.

What mischaracterization? Just so you don't think this question I'm asking is simply rhetorical, let me make it clear that I am asking you directly: WHAT MISCHARACTERIZATION?

This is just another of your attempts to slander by assertion and innuedo, as I see it Kicky. Completely predictable, of course, but still not appreciated. To the extent your response addresses a question I posed, it actually reinforces, rather than undermines, my point. Now, by you own admission, a reference to page numbers specifies nothing. However, you did not deny, and you cannot plausibly deny, that I explicitly asked for clarification, due in part to this lack of specificity, and that my request for clarification was totally and deliberately ignored.

Yet at the same time, you want to insist that the contents of the notification were "explicit, unequivocal," and should have been fully understood to be such by me. If it were clear to me, I wouldn't have asked for clarification. Go figure, eh?

You're not relitigating it to your satisfaction here. You will not get your infraction rescinded simply by posting here interminably. This line of argumentation you're taking is probably simply serving to harden positions rather than soften them.

Well, to begin with, I simply asked Mo a question. You intervened with new, and equally dubious, assertions in an attempt to re-open the argument. I did not ask that the issue be "relitigated," and believe me, I NEVER had any expectation that you would even consider changing your position on this and "rescind the infraction" even if you sincerely came to believe that the infraction was unwarranted. Your fragile ego would never allow that.

 

[VINYLONE]

Oh, now, now, junebug. Time to move along, put some blues on and mebbe forget dis all happn'd.

 

[sirkickyass]

What mischaracterization? Just so you don't think this question I'm asking is simply rhetorical, let me make it clear that I am asking you directly: WHAT MISCHARACTERIZTION?

Considering I didn't use the word mischaracterization I'm not certain why you're throwing a fit.

Well, to begin with, I simply asked Mo a question.

No, you're trying to get a second opinion by shopping for a different set of moderators and you're asking her a question in her capacity as a moderator. It doesn't take genius to figure out why you want this. Your recourse is Jason or colton. Not me, not moe, not the moderator that you asked for clarification. To the extent you want to have a private conversation with moe where no one else can "intervene" I suggest you use the PM feature.

 

[Hopper]

Considering I didn't use the word mischaracterization I'm not certain why you're throwing a fit.

My mistake, and I apologize for my lack of clarity. A "mischaracterization" is implied when you suggest that my "characterization" was erroneous, but I fully admit that is not the word you used and that I simply inferred it. I still can't see where anything that I "characterized" was wrong, or that the facts I asserted are disputed, though.

To the extent you want to have a private conversation with moe where no one else can "intervene" I suggest you use the PM feature.

Thanks for this, and your other suggestions about how I "should" do things, eh, Kicky? For your information, I previously contacted Mo by PM and asked her if she was willing to discuss this issue with me. Her response was that, yes, she would be willing, but would prefer to discuss it in the forum, rather than in PM's.

Before you impulsively call me a liar, or sumthin, you might want to confirm that with her.

 

[sirkickyass]

I previously contacted Mo by PM and asked her if she was willing to discuss this issue with me. Her response was that, yes, she would be willing, but would prefer to discuss it in the forum, rather than in PM's.

Sounds to me like a preference for a forum where others can chime in. Guess you'll have to take that particular complaint up with her.

 

[Hopper]

Sounds to me like a preference for a forum where others can chime in. Guess you'll have to take that particular complaint up with her.

Why should I? I'm not the one complaining about it, you are.

 

[Safetydan]

Why should I? I'm not the one complaining, you are.

hahahaha

 

[TroutBum]

Death can not come soon enough.

 

[Hopper]

...you're probably not doing yourself any favors with respect to an event where the issue comes up again. This line of argumentation you're taking is probably simply serving to harden positions rather than soften them.

So, because I don't agree with you, it will be worse when "the issue comes up again," eh, Kicky?

Notwithstanding your smug, solipsistic, and self-righteous self-assurance that your assertions are indisputably and obviously correct, and notwithstanding the troupe of brown-nosing cheerleaders who have come in to high-five you in this thread, one fact remains: You have failed to present any rational justification for this infraction. You have succeeded in one thing, to wit: Using every possible method you can think of to give the appearance that I am a liar, etc.

Then, under threat of further punishment, you tell me to sit and watch you slander me and distort the true situation with half-truths, utter falsehoods, etc. If I don't just "sit and take" your abuse, it's gunna git worse, eh? Not the least bit surprised to see you take that position, of course, but I still aint intimidated by your "power," sorry.

 

[TroutBum]

So, because I don't agree with you, it will be worse when "the issue comes up again," eh, Kicky?

Notwithstanding your smug, solipsistic, and self-righteous self-assurance that your assertions are indisputably and obviously correct, and notwithstanding the troupe of brown-nosing cheerleaders who have come in to high-five you in this thread, one fact remains: You have failed to present any rational justification for this infraction. You have succeeded in one thing, to wit: Using every possible method you can think of to give the appearance that I am a liar, etc.

Then, under threat of further punishment, you tell me to sit and watch you slander me and distort the true situation with half-truths, utter falsehoods, etc. If I don't just "sit and take" your abuse, it's gunna git worse, eh? Not the least bit surprised to see you take that position, of course, but I still aint intimidated by your "power," sorry.

This sure looks like backseat moderating to me. I vote for a ban.


*high fives Tink*

 

[sirkickyass]

This sure looks like backseat moderating to me. I vote for a ban.


*high fives Tink*

Your better bet would be this:

Arguing with Moderators: Vehement arguing or abusive comments directed at moderators after having received an infraction may lead to an immediate additional infraction.

But I'm not going there. I'd have to define arguing, what constitutes a moderator, what constitutes abusive, whether or not it was directed at me, whether or not aint thinks he's being vehement, whether aint's subjective state of mind when making the comments matters, whether he's received an infraction "immediately prior" to those statements etc etc.

It's just not worth the headache.

It's just impossible to figure out what any rule means you know. Certainly if you're told not to do something or you might get an infraction, it's totally unpredictable continuing to do it would lead to an infraction.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

Sounds like Hopper's gotten the better of SirSissy.

 

[VINYLONE]

Why should I? I'm not the one complaining about it, you are.

Brilliant. Either Hopper is troll'n or he's just plain dumb as a pitchfork. Which is it, eh?

 

[Hopper]

Brilliant. Either Hopper is troll'n or he's just plain dumb as a pitchfork. Which is it, eh?

Just for you, just this once, Imma explain it for ya, eh, Vinny?

1. I ax Mo a question
2. Kicky comes bustin in, tryin to answer for her
3. He makes some dubious assertions and pronounces some unsupportable conclusions
4. He then "complains" and ends up tellin me I shouldn't be "arguin" when he done started the argument with 2. & 3.
5. When I point out that he's the one who started it, he tells me I shouldn't be talkin to Mo to begin with, but says I should discuss it wit Mo in private messages, if I don't want him buttin in (a complete non sequitur).

In effect, he's complainin that I talked to Mo at all. But, barrin that, he wants to keep it all hid and complains because I didn't talk to Mo privately. Not that such a complaint makes any real sense, but, still....

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

I love how Hopper calls Vinyl Vinny.

 

[moevillini]

Note: I moved this to the Site Issues forum because that seems to be what the discussion is about. I left a redirect in the original forum so those who want to find it are able to. If the other mods feel it should be moved back, feel free to do so.

Just for you, just this once, Imma explain it for ya, eh, Vinny?

1. I ax Mo a question
2. Kicky comes bustin in, tryin to answer for her
3. He makes some dubious assertions and pronounces some unsupportable conclusions
4. He then "complains" and ends up tellin me I shouldn't be "arguin" when he done started the argument with 2. & 3.
5. When I point out that he's the one who started it, he tells me I shouldn't be talkin to Mo to begin with, but says I should discuss it wit Mo in private messages, if I don't want him buttin in (a complete non sequitur).

In effect, he's complainin that I talked to Mo at all. But, barrin that, he wants to keep it all hid and complains because I didn't talk to Mo privately. Not that such a complaint makes any real sense, but, still....

First of all, I don't think Kicky is/was complaining that you talked to me. And I certainly don't think he was trying to answer for me. He was offering his own opinion, period. I intentionally felt this discussion should be public, and not limited to PM's, because I wanted other mods to feel free to comment and add their input. It's not a unilateral task as you know.

And because the "definition" of trolling is subjective, I thought it might be helpful to have a more open discussion so other posters could also hopefully have a better understanding of how the mods look at things. The more everyone understands the rules, the better the experience is for all of us.

If you want some sort of explanation of why repeated posts interfere with the readability of the board, I'll offer one:
Posters have the option of putting other posters on ignore when they find his/her posts to be objectionable and they don't want to see them. OK, fine, so far so good. But when a poster who is on my ignore list, makes repeated consecutive posts, it makes it really difficult for me to follow what others have posted in the thread. In other words, even though the poster is on ignore, his/her manner of posting is still making the board difficult to read. OR, even if a poster is not on my official "ignore" list, but I generally try and skip over his/her posts because they annoy me, it makes it much more difficult to follow the thread if there are numerous consecutive posts by that person, and I'm trying to skip over them.


Finally, I think there are any number of comments by other posters that are highly inappropriate and violate any number of the rules of the forum.

 

[Hopper]

But when a poster who is on my ignore list, makes repeated consecutive posts, it makes it really difficult for me to follow what others have posted in the thread. In other words, even though the poster is on ignore, his/her manner of posting is still making the board difficult to read.

1. How does it make it "really difficult" to follow anything, Mo? I just can't understand that, neither can Eric, for another that I know of.

2. Is this just "some sort of explanation" that you are "offering," or is it one that you, personally, sincerely think identifies a clear "evil" and justifies the prohibition of that "evil," on pain of eventual banishment?

Finally, I think there are any number of comments by other posters that are highly inappropriate and violate any number of the rules of the forum.

Is this just an aside, or does it have something to do with the explanation you offered above?