Jesse Jackson is a Clown and Needs to Stop Already

[Archie Moses]

I don't ever recall opening a thread and saying, "Damn, this guy posts a lot, he must be a troll." Unless, that person is making new threads every other posts. I think it's easy to become annoyed with Hopper and his style, but I don't think he's a troll. In fact, if you read his posts, he's clearly super intelligent and makes for interesting debates. To me, that makes the board better.

 

[sirkickyass]

[

This is not the point of my post, but I will simply note that I have seen others complain about the same problem. The column width does vary, I agree. From my experience it is when a post starts out with a quote (as many do, from newspaper articles, for example), the width becomes extremely narrow. I have asked mods for ways to correct this in the past but have been given no help.

Give me a link to a thread that you feel is particularly problematic. I will give you a screenshot of what it looks like to me. I have a suspicion that the extreme variation you're describing is largely the product of your local settings.

My bad. I should have said you and at least two of your mod homeys, who you may or may not have some kinda influence over, I dunno.

I see. So it's a conspiracy.

I realize that, for you, the mere assertion that "you have been told not to do it" is a full and complete explanation. But not for me. I asked for some clarification about the perceived "evil" that you and your fellow mods felt compelled to address. Since you claim to have access to all relevant PM’s, then you should be no means be "surprised" when I remind you that no reply was ever given.

I have given you multiple replies in this very thread. In particular I've given you an excerpt of one of my posts from the mod forum applying the "bizarre formatting" and drawing a parallel between posting numerous times in a single thread and posting multiple threads in a short period of time. I've also provided you with a screenshot showing how your posting style defeats the ignore function of the board, and thus disrupts the board's usability. To the extent that you feel you have never received an explanation my gast is flabbered and we are at an impasse.

The notification was issued by Catratcho, not you. Looking at his profile reveals that his one, and only, “friend” on this board is Troutbum, aka “Raspberry Delight.” Catratco reveals his “location” as being “delighting the raspberry.” As you know, Raspberry Delight routinely announces his extreme hatred of me on this board and his sincere wish for my death.

The username Raspberry Delight and associated phrases are a reference to something other than Troutbum. This is simply an inside joke you're not privy to.

In the meantime you had moved the thread from the "general discussion" forum to this, the "general nba" forum for reasons entirely beyond my comprehension.

This is incorrect. This thread started in the general NBA forum. You started another thread in the General Discussion forum that, by your own admission (see https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php...-to-Stop-Already?p=26545&viewfull=1#post26545), was designed to duplicate a section of the discussion in this thread. I simply merged the two threads together.

Let me note that, in my experience, it is not the least bit uncommon for a poster to come to a thread he has not visited before and respond to posts in the order he encounters them. If no one else is posting at the time the (strictly temporary) result may be that the last 5-10 posts in that thread are all made by the same poster.

If you can find another example, on this board, of another poster making 5-10 posts in a row all in the same thread we'll discuss this. As of now, I am of the opinion that you are the only poster who does so. You have not been targeted for selective enforcement because you are the only poster that we have observed posting in this way. I believe you're also mischaracterizing how you post. If you'll look at the screenshot I provided you earlier you'll notice the timestamps indicate that you're posting over a 45 minute period. I also know that in that particular thread this was not a case of you responding to multiple posts but instead responding to yourself repeatedly. If you like, I'll be happy to provide you the link to that sequence so that you can see for yourself.

As to your questions:

1. It disrupts the usability and readability of the board. That harms the site and those who use it. That is the judgment of those who wrote the rules and those who are presently enforcing the rules (moe excluded). This ties in with #2.

2. I'm not going to set out a brightline for you. It's a judgment call and the consensus system operates to prevent the judgment from being totally arbitrary or done with individual malice. If you want to continue fighting it, go ahead and do so and we'll see what happens.

3. As stated above, no other posters are posting 5+ times consecutively in the same thread. So no other warnings have been given.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

Wake up white people!!! - Daniel Carver

Seemed appropriate.

 

[One Brow]

Well, Eric, after Vinny accused you of trollin, this thread kinda gotz sidetracked. But I trust you to be honest, at least, and you used to be a mod, so lemme ax ya your opinion, eh?

Assumin you've read this thread, with Kicky noting that I made "five posts in a row," and all, is that what the rules mean by "trollin" the way you read them?

"Deliberate attempts to disrupt the usability of the boards will be considered trolling."

Ya think makin 5 posts in a row, as such, constitutes a "deliberate attempt to disrupt the usuability of the boards?"

My personal opinion is that this is not trolling. I don't see how it affects readbility, even for people who have you on ignore. I think personal distaste for you is influencing the judgement of some people. I have often had five or six posts in a row on a topic, and no one ever complained. I just registered a complaint in a PM to Jason and colton on this interpretation of trolling.

However, as long as this is the interpretation, all of my responses in threads will not be multi-quotes of the material to which I wish to respond, no matter how long the individual post becomes. I do want to uphold standards, after all.

Again, I think it's because Jesse views himself as a champion for the perpetually trodden-on African American that he felt he needed to swoop in and save Lebron from Gilbert's comments.

chemdude1232, I think you have a good point here. Furthermore, I think a lifetime of looking for a particular kind of problem can lead a person to seeing that problem even in circumstances where is does not exist. I don't know if that particularly applies to Jackson, but when every problem starts to look like a nail, of course you bring out the hammer.

1) As a moderator on the old board I could view in every user's "user log" notes that any previous moderator had left regarding PMs that were sent and the text of any warning that was given to a user going back to (I think) 2006. Furthermore, all the moderator conversations were archived so I could go back and look at any moderator conversation from significantly before I became a moderator, similar to the way that users who register today can view threads that were started last month. When I first became a moderator, in an effort to fully understand some of the moderating precedents, I combed through a substantial percentage of those threads so I'm familiar with their contents. As a result, I did not need to rely on hearsay from Jason or colton, I've seen the texts of your warnings and the moderator discussions that led to them personally.

sirkickyass, you have always seems a bright and honorable person. However, if you really believe you can accurately remember the contents of a few years of warnings and PMs, then it seems to me you don't really understand how human memory works. Computers can store memory in a fashion that makes it possible to completely and accurately reproduce the original. Human memory stores impressions, generalizaitons, and the occasional key phrase. Your memory is not a trustworthy as you tink it is.

That said, I stand by my statement that you've been told about this on the old board through PM and the warning feature.

If that is true, I find that to be a double-standard. I never received a PM on the topic.

This appears to be a problem that is specific to you and your computer system/browser/whatever.

No, I have the same problem. I just tried to read the thread about Billy Hunter and the union being ready for a strike, it was unreadable to me. Personally, if the post is going to involve quotes, Hopper's "skipimproves readbility greatly.

Furthermore you appear to be the only poster that has chosen to "solve" this problem through alternative posting means.

So, if other posters were showing the same care and consideration Hopper was in making an post at the top of the thread readable, that would make it acceptable. However, since only Hopper has chosen to take such care and consideration, it is not acceptable. How very "pink monkey".

Any fair review of the moderating forum will show that you have not been unfairly targeted, were given a warning prior to receiving an infraction, and received an infraction for engaging in the very behavior you were warned not to engage in.

Two out of three, perhaps. Hopper was always unpopular enough to be unfairly targeted by a group of moderators. While I don't know that this happened here, the singling out of Hopper alone for this type of infraction is not conducive to a claim of fair treatment.

I've now read where Ain't hijacks this thread, and ... seriously??

Hopper may have responded to other people steering the thread in various directions, but not once in these five pages has he taken such initiative. With Jackson being one of his favorite targets, why would he?

I find it ironic that someone with over 12 hundred posts already on this new board and, someone who obv. does this a lot on the internet ... and he doesn't know how to use the multiquote function!!? I call b.s. ... y'all are just getting played. "I'm sorry officer... I didn't know I couldn't do that."

I didn't know how to do it, either. The old board didn't have a multiquote, at least not one I ever saw. As much time as Hopper spends here, whatmakes you think he has time to do this a lot anywhere else?

 

[sirkickyass]

However, if you really believe you can accurately remember the contents of a few years of warnings and PMs, then it seems to me you don't really understand how human memory works. Computers can store memory in a fashion that makes it possible to completely and accurately reproduce the original. Human memory stores impressions, generalizaitons, and the occasional key phrase. Your memory is not a trustworthy as you tink it is.

I can grant your argument in its entirety. It applies to both parties. That leaves us exactly where we are now, a dispute as to what was in previous PMs/warnings.

No, I have the same problem. I just tried to read the thread about Billy Hunter and the union being ready for a strike, it was unreadable to me. Personally, if the post is going to involve quotes, Hopper's "skipimproves readbility greatly.

I will repeat that I believe this is caused by your local settings rather than the board. Here is a screen shot of how that exact thread appears to me.

As you can see, while the margin is reduced somewhat it is hardly rendered "unreadable."

 

[One Brow]

I didn't doubt
you see it
fine. This is
what I see. A
little wider
than Hopper
describes, but
not by much.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

One Brow,

Kicky's bright yes, but honorable? That's about the last word that would come to mind. With all due respect of course.

 

[Hopper]

Give me a link to a thread that you feel is particularly problematic. I will give you a screenshot of what it looks like to me. I have a suspicion that the extreme variation you're describing is largely the product of your local settings.

Thanks for the kind offer. I may take you up on it, but I really don’t know what good it would do me. I know what it looks like to me, regardless of what it may look like to someone else. If you, or anyone else out there, ever discovers what causes this and what I can do to fix it, I would certainly welcome that knowledge.

The username Raspberry Delight and associated phrases are a reference to something other than Troutbum. This is simply an inside joke you're not privy to.

If there’s a joke involved here, you’re right, I don’t get it. That wasn’t the point to begin with, but since you brought it up I will make this comment: Given Trout’s continuous flaunting of his homosexual tendencies, and his obsessive references to homosexuality in general, it’s not hard to discern what he intends for his avatar to symbolize. Just exactly where Catracho’s “delighting the raspberry” comes into this may be the joke, I dunno.

If you can find another example, on this board, of another poster making 5-10 posts in a row all in the same thread we'll discuss this. As of now, I am of the opinion that you are the only poster who does so.

Anyone and everyone, mod or non-mod, can read the threads on this board just as well as I can. Everything that they “want” to see is there to see, just for the lookin. I have a strict policy against droppin dimes, and I aint gunna start now by pointing to any particular posts or posters.

As stated above, no other posters are posting 5+ times consecutively in the same thread. So no other warnings have been given.

Do you want to bet $100,000 on accuracy of this claim? Fair warning: You might want to read the “confession” in the post following yours (by one brow) before responding to this proposition. With all due respect, Kicky, this tendency you have to recklessly present your subjective prejudices and uninformed a priori conclusions as “known fact” serves to limit your effectiveness as both a poster and a moderator, in my opinion.

1. It disrupts the usability and readability of the board. That harms the site and those who use it. That is the judgment of those who wrote the rules and those who are presently enforcing the rules (moe excluded).

Yet again, your “explanation” merely boils down to raw assertion and the “because we say so” rationale. HOW does it disrupt the usability and readability of the board? If I would rather not read 50% of the posts made on this board, then the very publishing of those posts impedes the “usability and readability” of the board for *me,* but so what? Others may be extremely interested in reading those very same posts. Every post that I didn’t think was worth reading is “unnecessary clutter” from my prospective. Should that fact serve as a basis for depriving those posters of their freedom to post?

Beyond that, you, as a bigshot lawyerman, should know better than to rely on a subjective perception to determine if an offense which requires a particular state of mind in the alleged offender has been committed. The question is not “Do I find this post to be “disruptive.” As I read the rules, “trolling” does not occur unless the offender does what he does in a “deliberate attempt to disrupt” the board. No mod has ever even asked me what my “intent” is.

If you'll look at the screenshot I provided you earlier you'll notice the timestamps indicate that you're posting over a 45 minute period. I also know that in that particular thread this was not a case of you responding to multiple posts but instead responding to yourself repeatedly.

I really have no idea what your “screenshot” is supposed to be, what it is supposed to “prove,” or how it’s even relevant to the infraction I was given. I was given an infraction for responding to different posts made by different posters in THIS thread, wasn’t I?

2. I'm not going to set out a brightline for you…If you want to continue fighting it, go ahead and do so and we'll see what happens.

Thank you very much for your ongoing attempts to intimidate by threatening to punish me for doing *something,* which something you refuse to specify, clarify, or justify. It would have a great “chilling effect” on almost anyone who lets fear dictate what they are willing to say. The cautious and prudent ones might simply choose not to post at all, just to be sure, unless perhaps their post consisted of some obsequious attempt to "brown up" a mod, or sumthin. Is that what you want?

 

[carolinajazz]

"Hopper" is not a troller! He's a senior member of this board who's posting content and quality is of the highest degree.....practically Pulitzer prize worthy!

 

[sirkickyass]

Hopper, we're not applying criminal law standards here. Your "mens rea" argument is utterly pointless. It's a message board, not a fight for your life. Think of it as an administrative law panel.

Re: Your wager. We both know you couldn't pay. In any event, regarding One Brow's "confession" I did a quick search of his posts and found no points where he posted 5+ times in a row on his own, 16 of the last 24 posts (as we've observed with you in the past) or otherwise made a conversation screech to an absolute halt through his posting tactics. the closest I could find was 3, which was in this very thread and responded to a a different comment in every post. Compare, for example with your behavior here: https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php...e-death-penalty...?p=8258&viewfull=1#post8258 . Could you really make the argument that each post was a response to a different issue, or did you just spam the board? I could give you multiple more examples of your posting in strings that looks like that. In this instance you were specifically told via moderator PM to stop posting this way and immediately dropped another string of five, two of which are responses to the same post and another two respond to the same poster, the very next day. There are distinctions in the way you post and the way One Brow posts. Certainly no one has gone around reporting One Brow's posts for this. One cannot say the same for your posting behavior. Although, come on, we both know you're the same person anyway.

Re "justification": You've gotten one that satisfies me and is understandable to anyone who bothered to try and understand. One Brow, who disagrees with the interpretation, can figure out what the interpretation is based on. I am not under some continuing duty to endlessly reply to you until you declar yourself satisfied. We both know that day will never come because there will never be an explanation that is acceptable to you in which the outcome remains the same. This is the reason you started multiple threads in your first week back on the board that were designed to "poison the well" with regard to moderation of your posts by asking people to define what is offensive and other such nonsense. In the next post you would want to define usabilty and readability. I'm not venturing down the rabbit hole. We have a system that operates on moderator consensus. You agreed to abide by that system when you began posting here. That's the whole story.

Re: The screenshot. That represents one of MANY examples of this behavior by you. We're not idiots who forget every other post we have ever read. Context matters and repeated behavior counts for more than one-offs.

 

[Hopper]

personally, in most cases I would rather read several shorter posts rather than one humongously long post, because then I tend to forgot whose post it is I'm reading. Maybe I've got some form of adult-onset ADD or something, I dunno.

In my case, Mo, I figure it's because I'm just plumb senile, but, yeah, I got the same "problem." That's kinda what I meant when I said that I viewed making individual responses to individual posts akin to punctuation, like new paragraphs in posts, or periods at the end of sentences. To me, a 3,000 word post composed as one long-*** run-on sentence would be hard to read.

that being said, the rules to some degree are subjective

I agree, but for me, that's all the more reason NOT to try to make a particular formal structure the ONLY "legal" one, not vice versa. In other words, it's all the more reason why mere "personal preference" should not be the basis for punishing someone who doesn't share your admittedly subjective opinion. It's just wrong to make mere personal preference the very REASON why sumthin is deemed to be "intolerable" and to offer it as the justification for punishing non-conformity. The question to me would be more "how is this hurtin anyone?"

Of course if there's only one apple on a tree, and some guy picks it before I get there, it's all purty simple: What that guy done hurt ME! He should be punished. Cause, like, ya know, he don't have no rights, but I do. This is alla bout ME, as it should be.

 

[VINYLONE]

Hoppy, mebbe you need to re'lize, this ain't gonna be a win.

 

[Hopper]

...regarding One Brow's "confession" I did a quick search of his posts and found no points where he..made a conversation screech to an absolute halt through his posting tactics.

I aint gunna go back and try to analyze all them posts in that long-*** "firin squad" thread, Kicky, and aint no one else gunna, neither. I do note that the "absolute halt" of the conversation you allege occurred on page 6 of a thread that ended up being 12-16 pages long. Some of the comments I made at a time when other posters interested in the thread were at work, or doin sumthin else, were no doubt considered by interested posters later in the thread, whether or not they responded to them. On what possible basis can you conclude that my posts "absolutely halted" conversation?

The link you gave does go to a page which helps illustrate another problem that I have brought up, though. Mo made a post, and I responded with a question. Rather than respond to my question/request AFTER my post, she went back and, unbeknownst to me, responded by "editing" her original post. I therefore was unaware of her response.

As I have said, it's not at all clear to me just what behavior the mods are demanding, but it could well include the demand that you MUST edit any prior post where you "could have" said more than you did and are prohibited from sayin anything more in a new post. This could be what the mods demand, even if there have been intervening posts in the interim and even if those following the thread would have no reason to go back and re-read prior posts. The ultimate result would be that if you're on page 10 of a 10-page thread, you must go back and re-read every post if you are looking for a response, and must find some prior post of your own to "add to," via editing, if there's anything else you want to say on the topic.

Makes no rational sense to me, but who can say for sure if that's the demand from the mods to begin with? And who said they had to be rational or reasonable to begin with? I don't see where the rules require that the mods be either rational or reasonable, do you?

... you would want to define usabilty and readability. I'm not venturing down the rabbit hole. We have a system that operates on moderator consensus. You agreed to abide by that system when you began posting here. That's the whole story.

I don't need to define "trolling," the rules already do..."a deliberate attempt to disrupt the readability and usability of the board," or sumthin like that. I understand that you and your mod homeys have re-defined that to say trollin is "whatever we say it is." Makes it purty simple for mods to know what trollin is, even if no one else does, I spoze.

 

[TroutBum]

Hahaha at Taint not knowing our "Inside Joke" -- what a butt hugger.

 

[Hopper]

Mo, in another thread I remember you getting a little irked at me because I didn't agree with your claim that "everyone knew" what behavior was expected of them on this board. You're a mod, you have access to the records, and I know you voted on my first "warning," so let me ask you:

Do you honestly think that the warning I got gave me any reason to believe that I would, or should, be given an infraction for the "five posts in a row" I made in this thread?

 

[moevillini]

Mo, in another thread I remember you getting a little irked at me because I didn't agree with your claim that "everyone knew" what behavior was expected of them on this board. You're a mod, you have access to the records, and I know you voted on my first "warning," so let me ask you:

Do you honestly think that the warning I got gave me any reason to believe that I would, or should, be given an infraction for the "five posts in a row" I made in this thread?

(LOL, I hope this isn't gonna be the first post on a new page, I don't think so, from the post number, but who knows?)

with regard to your first statement, off the top of my head, if I'm thinking of the right thread, I'm not sure I was "irked" for the reason you state. If I'm recalling correctly, what I meant there was that after reading the board for a while, and paying attention to things that might get a warning/infraction, most folks develop some degree of understanding of what's acceptable on Jazzfanz, and most manage to avoid making the same mistakes to the point they risk a permanent ban. It may take an occasional warning/reminder every so often, but most people manage to figure it out - and figure out a way to post and follow the rules enough not to warrant repeated warnings/infractions.

As far as your second question, I'd have to review the threads, and review the actual warnings that you were sent and that's not real easy to do. Plus, you're sort of asking me to "read your mind" and try to figure out how you interpret the warning you received. At any rate, I don't have time now to go back and try to track all that stuff to see exactly what was posted.

Another thing to mention here is that I think to some degree, each of the mods have particular issues that annoy them more than others, and so the "penalty" that may be issued (just a PM reminder, an official "warning" or a full "infaction") may depend in part on what mods are on the board at what times, and who checks in and has a chance to review the reported posts. Also "reports" may be acted upon quickly because the first three mods who review it all vote the same - other "reports" sit for days with 2 votes to "ignore" - 2 votes for a "warning" and 1 vote for "infraction" (for example) - - so until the last mod or two checks in to break the deadlock, or one of the other mods changes their vote, the report is still "pending" and no action is taken.

I know that doesn't do anything to answer your question, but I'm not sure I really can. It's not a black and white issue, either - as I'm sure you're well aware.

At any rate, as far as the issue with the way the first post on a page displays, and the particular display issues that you have that seem to be rather extreme from how they display for most other posters, I might suggest trying a different browser. I usually use Firefox (the computer I'm using now is running v. 3.5.5 which is an older version) and I know things are displayed different if I use Safari. I seldom have a chance to view the board when I'm at work, but there I'm usually using some version on Internet Explorer (the computer runs some networked version of Windows XP) and the board displays much differently then. I'm not sure how much of the difference is due to the OS, the browser and/or the monitor itself, all I know is that there's definitely a major difference. Maybe try a different computer, or a different browser, and see if that helps with some of the display issues you have.

 

[Hopper]

I know that doesn't do anything to answer your question, but I'm not sure I really can.

Thanks for the reply, Mo. I certainly don't expect for you to go to any extraordinary efforts to answer my question, but there may be some confusion about what I'm even asking. It also occurred to me that you might feel somewhat loyalty-bound to support, or at least refrain from disagreeing with, your fellow mods, so I don't know if that is the complete reason that you "duck" the question Just to be clear, I am NOT asking you to "read my mind." I merely asked you about what I would "have reason" to believe or expect, in your opinion, not to tell me what I actually expected. I can tell you that a lot easier than you can tell me, so that wasn't my question.

In an attempt to make it easier on you, I'll repost this "summary" that I made in a prior post:

"I started a thread in the “general discussion” forum yesterday and a response or two was made there. I was gone from the thread for a couple of hours (from 9:10 to 11:04). In the meantime you had moved the thread from the "general discussion" forum to this, the "general nba" forum for reasons entirely beyond my comprehension. While I was gone, 6 new posts were made: One by you, two by Onebrow, and 3 by Vinny. When I returned, I responded to these new posts, in the order I encountered them, over a 16 minute period. Then you (Kicky) stepped in and said: "I'll note that he's once again decided to go the "five posts in a row" route in this very thread."

Mo, please assume that summary is accurate. That should save you the trouble of "reviewing the threads." It's understood that, if it isn't accurate, then of course any answer you give based upon it might change.

It's not a black and white issue, either - as I'm sure you're well aware.

Yeah, we've already agreed that such preferences as "short vs long" posts, and subjective conclusions about what one finds "disturbing," are kinda personal ones. But I'm really not asking you to give some absolute answer to such questions. My question is basically this: When YOU voted to give me a warning, did YOU think that I was being warned not to make "five posts in a row" in the circumstances which led to the issuance of this particular infraction?

 

[TroutBum]

So, Hopper, how does it feel to be the most hated pig in the pen? I would love to hurl pooh at you.

 

[VINYLONE]

If I'm recalling correctly, what I meant there was that after reading the board for a while, and paying attention to things that might get a warning/infraction, most folks develop some degree of understanding of what's acceptable on Jazzfanz, and most manage to avoid making the same mistakes to the point they risk a permanent ban.

Well, eh, dis is the issue right here...isn't it? Mebbe, I've said it before, mebbe I haven't, but dat guy right there, Hoppy, he just don't get it. N prolly never will. If brains were leather, he wouldn't have enough to saddle a junebug.

 

[sirkickyass]

Hopper, I have reviewed the text of the PM that was sent to you. You unequivocally had reason to know that posting multiple times in a row in the manner in which you spam individual threads was prohibited.

In part:

For an example, please refer to the Mormon Hypothetical thread. On pages 14 and 15 alone, you have 16 of the current 23 posts, including one group of 6 in a row and another of 5 in a row. This is not an isolated incident. Posting repeatedly like this is viewed as trolling. In the future, please edit posts to add to them, rather than making new ones.

If that's not explicit enough, nothing ever will be.