Jesse Jackson is a Clown and Needs to Stop Already

[chemdude1232]

A crude analogy to make, Hopper, is the role of a parent/child:

The parent enforces a bedtime for the kid. The kid complains, asking "Why, I'm not even tired?" The parent can resort to any number of answers, "Because I told you so," or "Because you'll be tired tomorrow," etc.

(Let me add at this point that I am NOT calling you a child, Hopper; nor am I calling mods "parents.")

Now to the child, none of those answers matter. They just don't care. The parent cares because, ideally, they know "what's best" for the kid. Maybe when the kid is older (i.e., a parent themselves), they will understand and even appreciate what the parent did to them all those years ago.

In a way, I see parallels here. Personally, I don't have a problem with your posts. Frankly, I really don't have a problem with most posts (aside from the ones that viciously insult someone else for no reason other than a differing opinion). The mods/"parents" do though, and no matter what you ask/how they answer, there will most likely be a perpetual discord between both sets of people.

 

[Hopper]

What is annoying? If a moderator has to tell you that something is annoying, there are probably multiple people that feel that way.

And, of course, there could be "multiple people" who DON'T feel that way. If you get an infraction, you know that at least 3 people feel that way. Do they represent the entire "Jazz community" as you refer to it? Well, yes, and no, I guess. It's still only 3 people, but those 3 people have been entrusted with the "power" to speak for all.

I guess I'm pollyannish enough to hope, and even expect, that they will exercise that power fairly and will not abuse the power which has been entrusted to them. Kicky, for one, has long considered me to be the "most annoying" person on the board. He has his reasons for feeling this way, no doubt. I have my reasons why he "annoys" me too, but he's a mod, I aint.

Since what is "annoying" is an extremely personal and subjective thing, and since pre-existing personal animosity can influence just what people "annoy" another person, I'm not quick to conclude that because one (or three) people are "annoyed," that means the thing that triggered their loss of composure is a per se "annoyance." I would prefer some objective standards to subjective whim. To the extent "rules" have been written, such standards exist. But as soon as the clear meaning of those standards is disregarded, there are no "rules."

 

[Hopper]

In a way, I see parallels here. Personally, I don't have a problem with your posts. Frankly, I really don't have a problem with most posts (aside from the ones that viciously insult someone else for no reason other than a differing opinion). The mods/"parents" do though, and no matter what you ask/how they answer, there will most likely be a perpetual discord between both sets of people.

Like you, chemdude, I don't have a "problem" with most posts, whether I agree or not, and, like you, it seems to me that vicious insults are much more worthy of monitoring and controlling that petty matters of form. Even if I think I have reason to dislike a poster "as a person," I would never use that dislike as a basis for either (1) arguing that he should be banned, or (2) finding some devious, indirect method of asserting my dislike in such a manner as to get him banned. Those who ask (or, in some cases, "demand') that another poster be banned always strike me as exceedingly weak.

I think I was kinda drawing the same parent/child analogy as you are when I suggested that the onliest thang that needed to be said was: "I'm white, you're black." I don't mean it's a racial thing. It could just as well be "I'm Aryan, you're jewish" in another culture, another time. It all boils down to the same thing: "I'm a "first-class citizen, you're second class." One the power structure has been firmly established, entrenched, and empowered, that's ALL that need be said. Everyone immediately understands, on both sides. Questions of fairness, reasonableness, and equality of consideration are immediately understood to be completely irrelevant. The futility of resistance is obvious. Ya best just shut the hell UP. You can't win. Even if you're "right," you're wrong.

 

[G-O-A-T]

I guess I'm pollyannish enough to hope, and even expect, that they will exercise that power fairly and will not abuse the power which has been entrusted to them. Kicky, for one, has long considered me to be the "most annoying" person on the board. He has his reasons for feeling this way, no doubt. I have my reasons why he "annoys" me too, but he's a mod, I aint.

I would hope that all the mods would treat everyone fairly too. If they aren't then that's a whole other subject... But how would you define fair?

I would prefer some objective standards to subjective whim. To the extent "rules" have been written, such standards exist to some extent.

Interesting theory. May I suggest that you stop by your local law library / courthouse and take a peek through your states statutes. You will probably notice multiple shelves full of thick books with small print. You might even walk away thinking every law in the world is written in those books. But you know what, the written objective standards in those books are just the tip of the iceberg in the grand scheme of the legal system.

In short, my point is that it's impossible to answer every question in writing and preplan every potential problem.

On the other hand, maybe you just want to see certain important rules put into writing... May I suggest you offer to write up your own objective rules and submit it to the mods to OK. The mods probably (and rightfully so) don't want to take the time to create the Jazzfanz bylaw page... it's a lot of work to do, especially when your only "pay" will be undue criticism. I'm sure if you put together a coherent set of reasonable bylaws, the mods would love it... they might even promote you to mod yourself.

Under the circumstances that are presented here, free and open membership, the current system (a modified dictatorship) is the only reasonable way to run this forum. Like you, I don't always agree with the leadership around here, but considering that my only contributions here have been bandwidth usage, I don't really feel that I am entitled to anything more than... well anything.

Finally, don't get me wrong, if you have something to say, then say it... just don't be surprised if you don't get the reaction you expected from going off the deep end.

 

[Hopper]

considering that my only contributions here have been bandwidth usage, I don't really feel that I am entitled to anything more than... well anything. Finally, don't get me wrong, if you have something to say, then say it... just don't be surprised if you don't get the reaction you expected from going off the deep end.

Heh, good overall post, Goat, even though I didn't repost it all. Yeah, they can immediately ban me anytime they want and I have no legal right to complain. That's fully understood. And by "fully" I mean about 3 years worth of bein banned. And, as you suggest, I will say what I think is appropriate to say. If it's "off the deep end" then it is. Again, who but the mods can really say.

Deep end, or not, I would rather speak my mind and be banned than eat crap.

 

[Hopper]

May I suggest you offer to write up your own objective rules and submit it to the mods to OK. The mods probably (and rightfully so) don't want to take the time to create the Jazzfanz bylaw page...

Well, I really wouldn't expect anyone, other than me and Kicky, maybe, to have paid much attention to what was said in our exchanges, but if you had, you might have seen the point. I have no desire to write rules. None whatsoever. I could live fine with NO rules coupled with the "protection" required by those with no will power of an "ignore" feature.

That said, some rules have been written. Including one that defines "trolling." If your point is that any word can be used to mean anything whatsoever by those who have enough imagination and no semantic scruples, then, sure, I agree.

 

[G-O-A-T]

Deep end, or not, I would rather speak my mind and be banned than eat crap.

IMO, Jazzfanz is a better place with you than without... so seeing you get banned would be quite unfortunate. But... if you do decide to go that route, I hope you'll keep the banning offense short, sweet, and entertaining.

 

[Hopper]

...if you do decide to go that route, I hope you'll keep the banning offense short, sweet, and entertaining.

Witcha there, homey! If Imma go out, Imma trys and goes out with a bang, sho nuff.

 

[Gameface]

I dunno. This could be pretty lame...

https://www.xtranormal.com/watch/6805111/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40lMw5JXPsk&feature=youtube_gdata

This is quoted directly from Hopper's and Sirkickyass's posts in this thread. If either of them want it removed I'll do so immediately.

 

[Hopper]

Heh, Game, not sure anybody is really interested in the exchanges between me and Kicky, but if anyone is, they should thank you for your efforts in trying to make it all easier to follow. Generally a statement or claim is made in one post, and the response, if any, is presented in another post, perhaps with many posts in between. It is much easier to follow the statement and response sequence when presented together. And it’s much easier to listen to something than it is to wade through, and actually read, voluminous text. Needless to say, it is also much more entertaining to look at cute little cartoon characters than stark black and white text on a monitor, too.

I can only imagine the process of cutting and pasting all that, and trying to keep straight what was what, so it’s not at all surprising that the sequence kinda gets outta whack about half-way through. It starts out well, as far as matching statement to response goes, but there comes a point where the responses are not related to the claims, and vice versa, so it all takes on a kinda randomness that makes no real sense. Unfortunately, that detracts from your finished production, but again, you deserve an A+ for effort.

 

[bigb]

I finally had the time to wade through this mess of a thread. I had to take Hopper of my ignore list to read his posts and get a good view of it all.
I'm not sure who you PM'd, hopper, but if it was me, I never got them. (Maybe because you were on my ignore list?) If you'd like to send me a PM again, I'll leave you off the list for a while and we'll see if they come through. I'll be happy to converse with you via PM for a little bit and answer your questions.

As far as Raspberry Delight and me being friends...so what? He's the only person to request me (I know, what a loser I am) and I'm not interested in requesting friends. I personally find that kind of lame for this board. I list my location as Delighting the Raspberry because it is part of an inside joke, and I happen to be friends with him outside of this board. In fact, he's the reason I even found out about this board. On the last incarnation of the board, my location was "Trout's dreams, doing a pole dance". Nobody seemed to have a problem with that.

There's one thing I try to keep in mind. If you have the same problem with multiple people, it's probably not the fault of the other people. For example, my father-in-law has been married six times to five different women. Who is the issue? The ex-wives? Or my father-in-law?

 

[Hopper]

...considering the way you were pumping up your post count over the past few weeks, I think Kicky was perfectly justified in doing what he did)

I thought I would briefly comment on this statement of yours Goat, even though it has nuthin to do with Jesse Jackson. My comments may nonetheless be somewhat appropriate in a "site feedback" forum. The issues here are insignificant, I just find them interesting enough to comment on, even if they don't matter in the overall scheme of things.

It has never even remotely occurred to me that it would have any meaning or value whatsoever to "pump up" my post count, yet I see people accusing me and others of "trying" to do that. I used to wonder why. If they think someone else is merely trying to increase his post count, then it must be something they think is desirable, but again, what difference could it possibly make?

After a while I start to see why: Many posters judge others, and want to be judged, by virtue of the number of posts made (or not made, in the case of "noobs'). I have always found this to be utterly ridiculous. Whether it is a poster's first, or his 10,000th, post is utterly irrelevant to me. I simply look at the content of the post to evaluate it's merit, NOT the number of prior posts made by its author. The "status" of a poster, from my perspective, is TOTALLY unrelated to the number of posts made in this forum. I have seen cases where a poster making his very first post completely outclasses the poster he is addressing, who has 5,000+ posts. Yet many people still seem to think that the "status" of both themselves and others is somehow determined in whole or part by the number of posts they have made, versus someone else. I guess this just goes to show how superficial, shallow, petty, and arbitrary message board posters can be in their methods of evaluating the "worth" of another poster, eh?

On a related note, the seemingly sincere complaints about "off-topic" comments have always puzzled me. To me these thing just naturally meander, and that hurts no one. Everyone is free to compose any post they want and publish it. If they are interested in commenting about the topic indicated in the thread title nobody is "preventing" them from doing so, as they appear to think.

Here you, in passing, mention "pumping up a thread count." For me, this now becomes a comment that is part of the thread, and there is no other thread in which to respond to such, admittedly secondary, points, other than the thread where the comment was made. Yes, it would be much more "orderly," but also much more stifling to natural discussion, to ABSOLUTELY PROHIBIT any allusion to ANY matter that is not STRICTLY and DIRECTLY related to the "post topic," whatever one may interpret that topic to mean.

There was a point in this thread where the commentary between One Brow and 2814 took on a much more "general" socio-political tone than could be strictly related to the particular exchanges made by and between specific and particular NBA owners, players, commissioners, and outside activists. I found that direction interesting, but unrelated, so I started a new thread in what I thought was the more appropriate "general discussion forum" to pursue it.

Kicky'a response was to insist that it ALL belonged in the same thread, so it seems to me that what constitutes "thread hijacking" is itself a very subjective thing. All said and done "thread hijacking" is a concept that, for me, at least, is virtually unintelligible and useless. Separate forums I think I understand but trying to analyze each and every sentence within a particular thread which is in the appropriate forum seems pointless to me. It does, however, seem to provide a convenient excuse for an officious type poster to berate another and whine about the "harm" being caused to himself by reading a sentence that is not directly related to words contained in the title of the thread. This is a message board, a place for people to discuss things. If you're in the "general" forum, I really can't see why virtually any comment made in virtually any thread is not a "general" one that "fits" if it develops out of the natural course of an ongoing discussion.

I understand that if I take a tolerant, liberal view of "relevancy" then I am losing a potential basis for complaining that I am "disturbed" by what other posters are doing, but I can live with that, ya know?

 

[Hopper]

I'm not sure who you PM'd, hopper, but if it was me, I never got them. (Maybe because you were on my ignore list?) If you'd like to send me a PM again, I'll leave you off the list for a while and we'll see if they come through. I'll be happy to converse with you via PM for a little bit and answer your questions.

Well, there's really nuthin more to be said at this point, Catratcho, but thanks for the offer. However, if you send me any notifications in the future, I would appreciate it if you would do whatever needs to be done to allow me to respond, which I may, or may not do, of course.

It still kinda bothers me that all "explanations" given have been strictly ex post facto, i.e. what I am "prohibited" from doing is not indicated by the written rules and is not explained until AFTER the infraction for violating the (previously undisclosed) new "rule" has already been assessed. Kicky wants to cite "explanations" which were given AFTER, not BEFORE, the behavior punished was engaged in. It very easy for Kicky, Mo, or anyone else to simply state, whether emphatically or not, that the nature of the allegedly intolerable behavior I was supposedly informed of was unequivocally "obvious" from the message you sent me, but I really don't think that a thoughtful, unbiased person could possibly conclude that. I sense that the entire exchange between me and Kicky on this topic has been little more than a determined effort at self-justification on his part, regardless of the reasonableness or accuracy of the assertions and claims he makes in the process of presenting that self-justification. Either way, it would have been nice to understand the "rule" in advance.

I still really cannot fathom, of course, how a good faith, bona fide, response to a post previously made can possibly be deemed to be "trolling," but I'm sure I've already made that failure of comprehension on my part quite clear, so there is certainly no need to repeat it now. I do kinda resent the cocksure "OF COURSE YOU KNEW" assertions of the mods on this point. Let them get that kinda message and figure out just exactly what it means, and does not mean, and they might perhaps have a different tale. But they've never looked at it as I might have, only as they, with their inside knowledge of their own minds, "saw" it.

Well, as Goat suggests, I guess that what mods are there to do, eh? Oh, well....

 

[YB85]

I haven't read this thread but for the past few posts and I watched the video of it thanks to Gameface. Not that anyone is asking,but here are my thoughts:

1. Hopper's down-on-the-corner posting style from the previous board was unreadable and I feel polluted the board. The maddening part is that I always have thought aint/hopper could be one of the best posters on the board if the schtick was dropped. This thread shows how intelligent he is and he has made numerous posts on this board that I felt were brilliant. I gave him a + rep on a post and he told me to stop because he wants the lowest possible rep. I guess goals are good. Anyway, many of his multiple posts in a row could be alleviated if he would just edit (and show that it's an edit) the last post to include new thoughts, unless he is replying to multiple posts.

2. I have read a couple times about moderators having posters on ignore. Is that fair? That seems to be a bias against that poster and influence any votes. I understand that this is not a court of law, but when it comes to fairness in moderating, I would naively like to think that there is no bias.

3. The Internet is serious business.

 

[moevillini]

Is it time for a group-hug? I do miss that emoticon - - as I also miss kicky's dancer avatar. Things just won't ever be quite the same.

but I do have just a bit more to say about this issue (of trolling, etc) - so I'm giving this warning so those who don't care to read it can skip this post...

... Not that anyone is asking,but here are my thoughts:
1. Hopper's down-on-the-corner posting style from the previous board was unreadable and I feel polluted the board....

overall, I'd say I share these feelings. I could tolerate it in small doses, and every once in a blue moon it was funny because it seemed somehow to be appropriate on certain occasions, but it got to be overused and used in situations where it seemed completely inappropriate and unacceptable to me. If it were used "too much" I think I'd consider it trolling according to this definition from the rules: "...trolling. These include (but are not limited to) comments made solely to provoke reactions, bizarre formatting of posts..." - I would consider it to fall into both of these categories. OF COURSE, the definition of "too much" is subjective and not easily defined, so there is no absolute answer I can give to to help anyone ascertain at what point it becomes "too much"

...On a related note, the seemingly sincere complaints about "off-topic" comments have always puzzled me. To me these thing just naturally meander, and that hurts no one. Everyone is free to compose any post they want and publish it. If they are interested in commenting about the topic indicated in the thread title nobody is "preventing" them from doing so, as they appear to think....

A couple comments here: Most everyone has made an occasional comment in a thread that is off-topic for that thread. Some of us do it more than others (wink, wink). It may be very annoying to those who are trying to take part in (or at least follow) the "serious" discussion taking place. I have been on some message boards where a single off-topic post results in a "warning" from a moderator. I think most folks around here are pretty tolerant - they may get annoyed, but they just skip over the off-topic post. But when the poster makes repeated, consecutive posts, it gets difficult to skip over those posts without perhaps missing something that is part of the discussion. So folks might consider that type of behavior to be trolling because it is "disrupting the readability" of the topic.

And even if the posts are on topic, I can see where it can get annoying if there are consecutive posts by one poster. For instance, many of us probably have other posters whose posts we tend to "skip" over (or perhaps put on a formal "ignore" list). There can be any number of reasons for this: we feel a poster has a particular agenda, we feel a poster has opinions we always disagree with, we feel a poster makes no sense, or we just plain don't like that poster. Whatever the reason, if we're hoping to save time by skipping over certain posts, but still keep to the topic under discussion, this is again a situation where repeated consecutive posts by one poster might disrupt the readability of the board.

OK, well at some point we may have to relabel this the "Dead Horse" topic, but I'm not completely certain it's been beaten enough quite yet.

(for someone who doesn't like to read long posts, I've certainly written enough of them lately...)

 

[Hopper]

The Internet is serious business.

True dat, Blood!

I have at least one "annoying" trait, I know, in that I like to joke around sometimes. I realize that this can completely piss some "dead serious" types off at times. It's not that I'm trying to piss them off. Truth be told, I tend not to give a second thought to posters who respond that way. My comments are made for my own amusement and for the benefit of those, if any, who can appreciate my humor, not for the detriment of those who don't. But the dead serious types can only see it one way--that I have done, and have intended to do, nothing except disturb them. Of course, that's the quintessential nature of the "dead serious" types to begin with, so, like, what else would ya expect, ya know?

Many of them, if they had their way, would ban me. I would never ban them (assuming I could) just because they are the dead serious type and I aint, but that's irrelevant. They would ban me. And, if they are mods, they eventually will, no doubt. It's not hard to manufacture "good reasons" for doin what you have already determined you will accomplish, so they are never lacking in absolute, indubitable justification for banning me, either, at least not from their perspective.

Anyway, many of his multiple posts in a row could be alleviated if he would just edit (and show that it's an edit) the last post to include new thoughts

Yeah, Blood, I have pretty much done that since receiving a rather confusing "warning." In the past, if I made a post while a thread was quiet, and then another thought occurred to me, I would generally just put it in a new post if it wasn't particularly closely-related to the one I just made (if it was related, I would add it to the existing post). I figured that it was totally irrelevant if both thoughts were in one post or not.

Actually, I thought it was often easier, for both the comprehension and potential response of others, to present separate thoughts in separate posts, kinda like starting a new paragraph within a post. I never saw the harm in it--still don't truth be told. It seems the "harm" is strictly contingent upon the accidental circumstance of whether another poster has entered a post while you are composing yours. If so, fine. If not--strike one. But that aint why I got an infraction now, anyway, as you will see if you care to read the thread (which no one would, but, still....).

...unless he is replying to multiple posts.

That's what I done, right there. Come to find out, this is "trollin," eh? It is a "deliberate attempt to disrupt the board" as the rules define "trollin." Like, whooda thunk, I ax ya?

P.S.: Thanks for sayin some of the kind thing about me that you did. Just cause I didn't repost them don't mean I didn't read them.

 

[sirkickyass]

This is quoted directly from Hopper's and Sirkickyass's posts in this thread. If either of them want it removed I'll do so immediately.

The discussion doesn't quite match up (it looks like you tried to do it in two post segments so it doesn't sound like a natural conversation, and doesn't capture replies to replies organically). However, I don't feel nearly so bad about being long-winded after watching that segment and seeing the long drone of aint's doppelganger prattle on for minutes on end.

Also, I really liked the way the voice intonates "I see, so it's a conspiracy."

 

[Hopper]

...many of us probably have other posters whose posts we tend to "skip" over (or perhaps put on a formal "ignore" list). There can be any number of reasons for this: we feel a poster has a particular agenda, we feel a poster has opinions we always disagree with, we feel a poster makes no sense, or we just plain don't like that poster. Whatever the reason, if we're hoping to save time by skipping over certain posts...this is again a situation where...posts by one poster might disrupt the readability of the board.

OK, well at some point we may have to relabel this the "Dead Horse" topic, but I'm not completely certain it's been beaten enough quite yet.

Well, Mo, if this here hoss aint quite dead yet, then lemme share a brilliant idea that just come to me with the mods, eh?

If a particular poster, by his very postin, annoys a mod, and "intereferes" with his ability to "use" the board by impedin his haste to git to the next "non-annoyin" poster, why not solve ALL problems actual and potential, past present, and future, for ALL time, immediately. Ban his sorry *** if he annoys you! If he annoys you, he undoubtably annoys a couple of your mod homeys too. He's just "trollin" if he posts. Anytime, ever, see? Ban his sorry ***, right now, I tellya! That will keep the board annoyance-free, for the mods at least.

You can see that I selectively quoted from your post to demonstrate the necessary rationale, eh?

 

[Hopper]

If ya aint gunna change the rules and just bar all annoyin posters from ever postin, can I make a request? Can I give the mods a list of 276 posters who annoy me, and then have them issue an infraction to all five of them if any on the list happen to make posts right after each other? I find it "annoyin" to have to look at five posts in a row by posters I don't wanna read. As it stands, I am forced to endure the insufferable inconvenience of skippin over DOZENS of posts made by posters I'm not interested in readin, ya know?

 

[sirkickyass]

I haven't read this thread but for the past few posts and I watched the video of it thanks to Gameface.

I daresay you missed the meat of the conversation then.

I gave him a + rep on a post and he told me to stop because he wants the lowest possible rep.

You know, that sounds like an essential admission that he's seeking to troll other users into giving him negative rep to me. Why would we be forced to tolerate a poster that actively seeks to have the worst reputation on the board? Isn't that EXACTLY the kind of behavior we're supposed to be against? If seeking to have the worst reputation on the board isn't trolling for negative reactions, then what is?

True story: We've literally been talking about aint's posting style for over a month when it became obvious that this was spiralling out of control. We didn't step in for two reasons: 1) we thought maybe it might be some isolated incidents and 2) some of us didn't want to have to get into the inevitable interminable back and forth that always accompanies sending aint any disciplinary message. Aint, intentionally or not, behaves in such a way that he was deterring moderation because he's such a pain in the *** to deal with (as this thread demonstrates). That's practically the definition of a problem poster because it interferes with our ability to do our job. In the future, I may suggest that aint gets a single post as an appeal that is sent directly to colton/Jason and that their response is final.

Anyway, many of his multiple posts in a row could be alleviated if he would just edit (and show that it's an edit) the last post to include new thoughts, unless he is replying to multiple posts.

That is precisely the recommendation he was given via PM.

2. I have read a couple times about moderators having posters on ignore. Is that fair? That seems to be a bias against that poster and influence any votes. I understand that this is not a court of law, but when it comes to fairness in moderating, I would naively like to think that there is no bias.

I for one have put aint on ignore at times because I figure no one wants to read what I have to say to him and even though I think I have a very long tolerance for continuing a discussion, aint's is surely longer. In his previous incarnation, he and I went close to 450 posts just going against each other on a single topic. That's bad for everybody and preventing things from spiralling out of control is, at least for me, an act of self-moderation for the benefit of everybody.

Furthermore, I think aint has done far more well-poisoning with respect to moderator bias than any ignore feature could ever do. I think you're asking too much to claim that we have to read all posts (as distinct from all posts that are reported in context with their threads) in order to fairly moderate. If anything, being on ignore should actually decrease the amount of disciplinary actions a single poster receives because the moderators are unable to report his posts. Part of the reason I put aint on ignore originally is that it's difficult for him to claim I'm running around trying to witch hunt him if I can't read his posts in the first place. So at the primary report level the ignore feature may actually promote moderater neutrality.

The consensus system operates to obviate some of these concerns. Fairness in moderating questions are nowhere near what they were in the bad old days when a single moderator could unilaterally issue a user an infraction. In any event, you'd have to get nearly half the moderating staff to be actively against you for "bias" to have any real effect. Furthermore, you'd have to keep those antaganistic attitudes running for months at a time in order to get suspended or banned.