What's new
By:

Reputation Comments, positive and negative

moevillini said:
... if something has never come up, it's even more difficult to assess how it might be evaluated.
Click to expand...

I understand, I think, Mo. It just depends on how mods vote, that's all. Of course nothing ever "comes up" UNTIL it "comes up," so, fact is, no one really knows what the rules are until they are told, ex post facto, by means of an infraction.

I got an infraction (I guess) for sayin (well, not really but....) sumthin Colton said that HE didn't think would merit an infraction, for example. Of course he qualified his personal opinion by sayin it all depended on the vote.

Because there seemed to be substantial ambiguity about the matter I didn't actually say the word, I merely said it rhymed with "day." I guess even that was an infraction. Not sure, because there were references to other things, no one of which was indicated as constituing an infraction.
 
Last edited:
Hopper said:
Hey, Colton, I dont wanna git no mo infractions, so lemme ax ya: Is they some rule against me tryin to stir up trouble by signin sumbuddy else's name to my neg reps? This gunna be fun, if they aint. And if they is, how would ya even know it was me what done it, eh?
Click to expand...

I think there should be. I would support that rule. :)
 
Hopper said:
I understand, I think, Mo. It just depends on how mods vote, that's all. Of course nothing ever "comes up" UNTIL it "comes up," so, fact is, no one really knows what the rules are until they are told, ex post facto, by means of an infraction.
Click to expand...

Hopper, how many times do we have to go into this? In this case the rule is "no trolling". Clear enough. The question is whether this would constitute trolling. If you think we can or should list EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE WAY TO TROLL in the rules, then you are sadly mistaken. I don't even think it's possible, because there are probably an infinite number of ways to troll.

So, anytime someone trolls (or comes close to trolling) in a new way, it's necessarily a judgment call on the part of the moderators. No one has brought up this particular trolling method... until today. Someone officially complained to me about it, so I'm going to bring it up with the moderators and see what they think--if infractions should be issued for doing that or not.
 
OK, for what it's worth, I've decided to post this info publicly:

Sloanfield is the one that posted this rep comment to Stickler: "just because i feel like it -archie"

Marty McFly is the one that posted this rep comment to Hopper: "Delete your account, hack. -Archie"

As I just mentioned, I'm going to bring this up with the moderator staff to see if they think Sloanfield and Marty McFly should receive infractions for trolling. Anyone else who is thinking of signing someone else's name to a rep comment like those two did, be warned that it could result in an infraction!
 
colton said:
Hopper, how many times do we have to go into this? In this case the rule is "no trolling". Clear enough. The question is whether this would constitute trolling. If you think we can or should list EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE WAY TO TROLL in the rules, then you are sadly mistaken. I don't even think it's possible, because there are probably an infinite number of ways to troll.

So, anytime someone trolls (or comes close to trolling) in a new way, it's necessarily a judgment call on the part of the moderators. No one has brought up this particular trolling method... until today. Someone officially complained to me about it, so I'm going to bring it up with the moderators and see what they think--if infractions should be issued for doing that or not.
Click to expand...

I vote that they should get an infraction for it. I know I'm not a moderator but signing a name to a statement that is not them should be a cause for banning.
 
colton said:
In this case the rule is "no trolling". Clear enough. .
Click to expand...


Well, Colton, you say "clear enough," like it's a given. I too thought it was "clear enough," because the FAQ's specifically define "trolling:"

FAQ's said:
Trolling: Deliberate attempts to disrupt the usability of the boards will be considered trolling. These include (but are not limited to) comments made solely to provoke reactions, bizarre formatting of posts, extremely large images, many new threads started right after each other, etc.
Click to expand...


Come to find out it is far from limited to "deliberate attempts to disrupt the usability of the boards" and all that is said to include by the FAQ's. So I longer consider it "clear" at all. Is there a new definition of "trolling" that we haven't seen?
 
Stickler said:
What, Hopper, no apology?
Click to expand...


Stickler, I will readily concede that is wasn't you. I never said it was. I did say that if I had to guess, I would say it was you. I even set forth many of the suspcious circumstances that would make me think it could be you. If I hear a strange noise outside and think it might be a burgler, but find, upon investigation that it's only my drunk homey, I'm not gunna apologize to him for thinkin he might be a burgler. My suspicions were reasonable, under the circumstances.
 
Hopper said:
Come to find out it is far from limited to "deliberate attempts to disrupt the usability of the boards" and all that is said to include by the FAQ's. So I longer consider it "clear" at all. Is there a new definition of "trolling" that we haven't seen?
Click to expand...

I don't understand you. What isn't clear?
 
colton said:
I don't understand you. What isn't clear?
Click to expand...
I don't want to git another infraction, Colton. Are you seriously asking me for an answer? I mentioned the reason to you before, but you indicated that you didn't want to hear it or consider it.

Part, but only part, of the reason I don't think it's too clear has been discussed in this thread: https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php...threads-and-posts-are-intended-to-be-so-bland...

I will also mention this: I have received infractions for the very things which you (as I understood you) said would NOT be an infraction, based on the "trolling" definition.
 
Last edited:
Hopper said:
Stickler, I will readily concede that is wasn't you. I never said it was. I did say that if I had to guess, I would say it was you. I even set forth many of the suspcious circumstances that would make me think it could be you. If I hear a strange noise outside and think it might be a burgler, but find, upon investigation that it's only my drunk homey, I'm not gunna apologize to him for thinkin he might be a burgler. My suspicions were reasonable, under the circumstances.
Click to expand...

Your accusations were multiple. Your suspicions were ridiculous and stupid (go figger, eh?). When you smear somebody based on nothing but the fact that you've got a burr under your saddle about that person, and then it comes out that you were wrong, and your smears had no basis in fact, apologizing seems like the least thing. Not you, though. You wouldn't man up like that. No sir, eh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top