NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm bringing this up because it seems to be Bozzy's MO in any thread dealing with feminism. I won't bother you with the same sorts of veiled insults in a similar thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=428594) unless you would like to see more of the same (at which point I'll go through and list posts, rather than ask you to pour through 30 pages).

The kind of posts that I am referring to can be seen in this thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=439680&page=1&pp=15

I list all the posts and give you a couple of examples to look over. Frankly, I find this kind of veiled flaming to be more offensive than outright flames...

Posts: #159, 161, 194, 222, 229 (where he links to Cat Tribes posts, where he lambastes Cat as being disrespectful, and inappropriate), 240, 246, 247, 254

Nothing makes a woman less appealing than a poor attempt at sarcasm in lieu of a worthwhile contribution to a conversation.

Sloppy dodge, poorly executed. You've not addressed the fact that I provided you direct evidence that there are multiple industries beyond pornography where a woman earns mroe than a man. Coward.

TCT's hyper-protracted thread did not address the very specific question you asked, nor the answer I provided. His typical approach is to pile volumes of fallacy with a few sprinkles of fact into a mammoth post sprinkled liberally with arrogance and self-rightiousness. He then presumes the fact that nobody wants to address his topic-crowded and protracted rant somehow justifies it's validity. Rather than eat one bite at a time he tries to cram the whole turkey down your throat at once - hoping in that manner you don't notice how poorly it was prepared. TCT is the antonym of succinct. When he is capable of civilly discussing rather than sermonizing feature length essays I will be glad to address him - so long as he does so in a courteous way - which also seems to be beyond him.

"Men of few words are the best men" - Shakespear
"A truly wise person uses few words" -Proverbs 17:27
"If it takes a lot of words to say what you have in mind, give it more thought." - Dennis Roch
"The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do." - Thomas Jefferson

Meanwhile; The info I provided is factual and proven. I found a widely reported, distributed and reviewed report and you have done nothing but play dodgeball with it. You must - because apparently you are incapable of admitting that your claim has been proven wrong.

As well, despite his own manner towards others, Bozzy constantly accuses other people of being disrespectful and rude. If you can't call someone a troll for no reason because it is flame baiting, does this sort of accusation not also fit that description? Unless it is actually determined that the people he is accusing of disrespect ARE behaving that way, then the claims he is making do nothing but make the accused poster feel as though he or she must defend their statements as NOT disrespectful...an exercise in futility.

I'm bringing this up because it seems to be Bozzy's MO in any thread dealing with feminism. I won't bother you with the same sorts of veiled insults in a similar thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=428594) unless you would like to see more of the same (at which point I'll go through and list posts, rather than ask you to pour through 30 pages).

The kind of posts that I am referring to can be seen in this thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=439680&page=1&pp=15

I list all the posts and give you a couple of examples to look over. Frankly, I find this kind of veiled flaming to be more offensive than outright flames...

Posts: #159, 161, 194, 222, 229 (where he links to Cat Tribes posts, where he lambastes Cat as being disrespectful, and inappropriate), 240, 246, 247, 254







As well, despite his own manner towards others, Bozzy constantly accuses other people of being disrespectful and rude. If you can't call someone a troll for no reason because it is flame baiting, does this sort of accusation not also fit that description? Unless it is actually determined that the people he is accusing of disrespect ARE behaving that way, then the claims he is making do nothing but make the accused poster feel as though he or she must defend their statements as NOT disrespectful...an exercise in futility.

I can offer more evidence of this if necessary. B0zzy is very rude to anyone who disagrees with him and then turns around and accuses them of flaming. I can post examples of this if you like.

I don't think anyone reports him though...and I suspect a lot of that has to do with the fact that his comments make one's blood boil so much that people respond in less-than-appropriate ways as well (I know I've probably been guilty of it) and are loathe to bring their own reactions into light? I'm not sure. But yes...there are MANY more posts to link too...but I thought only current ones would be needed.

Here's one where I actually picked out all of his rude comments from a thread because he was accusing everyone in the thread of being unable to have a reasonable discussion.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9344091&postcount=429

Just to give you an idea of the history of B0zzy.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9540796&postcount=260

This is yet another example of the one-dimensional double-standard moderation which exists on Nations States which has been pointed out several times before. Unlike many, I do not consider it a nefarious plot nor an outright bias. I am certain the mods here do the best they can with a limited time and unlimited load. The bias is unconscious, but not acceptable. I certainly don’t expect perfection – but fairness is not too much to hope for.

The people who have posted this thread have a history of baiting me in similar, if not more egregious, fashion. On the few occasions when I have reported ‘baiting’ as mild as this it has been described as verbal sparring (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=432344)

With this clarification I have decided to take up ‘verbal sparring’ of my own – answering their baits,er, verbal sparring, with similar toned responses. The vast majority of times these are tame in comparison to the post to which it is responding. For example;

Nothing makes a man more desireable than advertising his hatred of the social and political equality of the sexes. I know I, for one, never assume that such a man is woefully insecure and terrified of losing the male privaledge that has been enjoyed for generations, and I certainly never make unfavorable assumptions about the size of that man's genetalia.

to which I replied
Nothing makes a woman less appealing than a poor attempt at sarcasm in lieu of a worthwhile contribution to a conversation.


I don’t think any reasonable person would consider a suggestion that people who disagree with you are hateful and have ‘inadequate manhood’ more acceptable than my post which pointed out that such an attitude is unappealing. Either these people should move out of their glass house or stop throwing rocks.

When a poster is arrogant and sarcastic they get the same thing is return from me. When they are respectful and courteous, they get the same from me.
quite possibly one of your best posts – ever
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9517021&postcount=166

*falls over in complete and utter shock at having Bozzy AGREE with me....*

Let’s move on to the next;
Sloppy dodge, poorly executed. You've not addressed the fact that I provided you direct evidence that there are multiple industries beyond pornography where a woman earns mroe than a man. Coward

Apparently this select group of posters considers it offensive that I believe pornography is not the only industry where the majority of women out-earn men. They have attempted to re-define the word ‘earn’, reassign my entire point (attempting to change it from my naming a few industries to suggesting that there is no income gap at all), and changing the subject completely. What else is that other than a dodge? Attempting to paint my as a chauvinist for daring to disagree with them about their specific point – women only earn more than men in the pornography industry, is certainly offensive. What is worse, being called a chauvinist (for suggesting women are capable of out earning men in more honorable industries than porn) or a coward (for dodging the evidence which backs up my assertion)?

Now the next;

TCT's hyper-protracted thread did not address the very specific question you asked, nor the answer I provided. His typical approach is to pile volumes of fallacy with a few sprinkles of fact into a mammoth post sprinkled liberally with arrogance and self-rightiousness. He then presumes the fact that nobody wants to address his topic-crowded and protracted rant somehow justifies it's validity. Rather than eat one bite at a time he tries to cram the whole turkey down your throat at once - hoping in that manner you don't notice how poorly it was prepared. TCT is the antonym of succinct. When he is capable of civilly discussing rather than sermonizing feature length essays I will be glad to address him - so long as he does so in a courteous way - which also seems to be beyond him.

"Men of few words are the best men" - Shakespear
"A truly wise person uses few words" -Proverbs 17:27
"If it takes a lot of words to say what you have in mind, give it more thought." - Dennis Roch
"The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do." - Thomas Jefferson

Meanwhile; The info I provided is factual and proven. I found a widely reported, distributed and reviewed report and you have done nothing but play dodgeball with it. You must - because apparently you are incapable of admitting that your claim has been proven wrong.


On it’s out-of-context, stand-alone merits I would agree that some of this appears as a flame. (Though certainly not without considerable like shots in other threads from the poster in question) Also, pointing out that someone cannot admit they are wrong is not a flame.

Lets now look at the context of what could be construed as offensive;

First, my post was a direct reply to this;

But you haven't. You've provided a single source (against the dozens offered by Cat-Tribes) that has earned utterly no respect in peer-reviewed journals. (Find me a positive review in a social science journal... if you can.)
Where he essentially asked me why I would not reply to TCT. (along with attempting to make me prove his unsubstantiated point rather than do so himself) So my post was about why I do not address TCT.

I then called TCTs posts ‘hyper-protracted’ (gasp!) Since nobody has yet done so, I’ll include a few examples just from this thread;

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9502113&postcount=96
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9500659&postcount=66
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9500680&postcount=68
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9521589&postcount=215
There is no argument that these are all considerably longer than the average NS post. It would be a weak argument that these could not have been reduced considerably or split into smaller topics.

I then point out ”His typical approach is to pile volumes of fallacy with a few sprinkles of fact into a mammoth post sprinkled liberally with arrogance and self-rightiousness”. Now that you have a link you may see for yourself.

Are they actionable? I don’t think so. Do they show respect and courtesy to the other posters? Certainly not. Are they full of fallacy? Often, along with a considerable amount of contradictory and out-of-context ‘evidence’. Is this against the rules? Of course not. Is it also against the rules to point that out? Apparently it is. Am I required to engage his long over-documented fragmented posts? (with an equally long and dull post) Apparently so. Is this fair (or even interesting)? Not to me.

In a post shortly afterwards I expanded;

In an essay, yes. In a conversation - no. I am here to converse, not share essays. TCT likes to bogart a thread with these overdone posts, then ridicule you if you are not willing or fail to address each of his points with a similar length essay of your own. By introducing multiple topics into one overly long thread he assures that nobody will respond to it. Should anyone do so the thread will die quite quickly as most people are here for a conversation. TCTs more abundant posts are not conversation - they are a lecture. I, and most others here, am not here to be lectured to.

Is this also a flame? Not if it is factual. Let’s look at what happened the last time I addressed one such essay of his; (which they were kind enough to link)

Here was my reply to one of TCTs long posts;
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9288451&postcount=371
(which was in response to this one ( http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9285748&postcount=360) ; which was posted after a considerable amount of baiting because I had the audacity to not address their posts promptly enough – (due to an absence)

Here in an assortment of ‘replies’ I got -

does this string of words make sense to anyone else? i assume he's calling NOW a bunch of man-hating lesbians or something equally stupid, but my universal kook translation machine must be broken.


Gee, B0zzy, perhaps you have time to respond to some more of those prior posts.
Answering part of 1 post did not fulfill your prior challenge.


I replied
I frankly was waiting to see the response to the context of the one I posted, which has thusfar been limited at best. I really don't intend to have a conversation all alone or with the ghosts of past posts.

and was assaulted with this;

So, your "challenge" or "offer" was pure bluster.
You never intended to respond to the "ghosts of past posts."
Color me unsurprised.

TCT- I think you misunderstand. I'm perfectly willing to address past posts, just not in a vacuum. It would be unfair of me to blow through them without giving anyone the opportunity to respond until the end - not to mention a bit of feedback is appreciated just so I know that someone is actually reading it - particularly after one as long as the last one. There oughta be something in it which you'd like to respond to. It would not be unfair to reference posts which came later than the quote I responded to in your response. Just a response to the context is all I'm looking for.


B0z-
I think you misunderstand. Several of us posted many long posts thoroughly rebutting your premise.

You said several times that you would respond to those posts, but were short on time. Much time has passed with no response. (edit by boz-no response??!! Wtf was #371???)

Finally, you pledged that, if we cited the past posts, you would respond to them. This was an absurd requesting -- putting the onus on us to dig up the posts you should have looked up for yourself. Nonetheless, Sinuhue and I did look them up.
Now you are reneging on your pledge. Plain and simple.
Your word is apparently worthless.


If you disagree with my letting you have an opportunity to respond there are far more diplomatic ways to indicate such. I may reconsider my desire to engage you if you expect me to respond to so many significantly long and autonomous posts at once without any feedback, acknowledgement or commentary along the way - Particularly if your only intent is to bait me along the way without any sustentative response to the context of my posts. Your baiting is only interesting for a while. I can easily find better things to do. I have responded to one. A considerably lengthy and global one at that. There has been no discussion of any of the points therein from you. Why would you expect me or anyone else to want to take on another? I said I would respond, and I did. There was no meaningful reaction from you so why bother to continue?

Then the attacks began;


Sinuhue; I see we've managed to go another couple of pages without anything substantial from Bozzy.

Sinuhue; if you can't bother to actually debate the thread you began, bow out. Bow out, admit you are wrong, or provide some actual proof that has not already been debunked.

The Cat Tribe (quoting Sinuhue] *applause* *applause* *applause* *standing ovation*

Jocabia; I actually laughed at this one. Out loud. Classic. Please keep posting. And whatever you do, don't address my posts or more than one post a week. Is it just taking that long to make up your facts

Sinuhue; Ah Bozzy. Ah Bozzy. You impress only yourself. Your argument, as it has been from the beginning, lacks facts to back it up, lacks consistency, and frankly, has become just plain uninteresting. You've been proven wrong again and again. No attempt to wriggle out of that using the same hackneyed arguments you started with will work. You've changed your tune so many times...violence is equal, oh, no its not, um, yes it is, oh um...hey look, a RADICAL FEMINIST!!! *cuts and runs from the thread*

Jocabia; Now, I'll tell you a secret. People are open-minded towards tolerant views, and open-minded to views that are held by people who are themselves open-minded. You fall into neither category so expect your mysoginistic views that skew facts in favor of opinion to be thoroughly and utterly 'debunked'


I finally left with this;
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=428594&page=29&pp=15

So as you see, I have valid reason to not respond to TCT and my description of why I would not (his ridicule) was accurate – not a flame. I’m sorry to include so many quotes, but since you said you already reviewed all of my posts I could only presume that you missed these gems. I’m just making your job easier.

(You can also see now why I detest long posts so much. It is an offense comparable to the old ‘chain quoting’ IMHO. Since you seem to have no problem with it, I’ll continue.)

Euroslavia, you were critical of me in this way;
Either you start treating people with respect now, and knock it off with the 'veiled insults', or I'll slap an official week forum-ban as a punishment for your attitude towards others. This is absolutely not the way that you should be debating in this forum.

Would you say the preceding quotes are examples of just how I should be debating in this forum? Because really, I think I have been quite mild in comparison.

You say

I'm about sick of reading your responses to specific people across this forum, because you are constantly baiting them, for not having similar beliefs as yours, and for not meeting your 'standards' of debate.
Yet the vast majority of the quotes I shared are doing exactly the same thing if not more pronounced.

My ‘standards’ of debate? Courtesy is not an irrational standard. Nor is being succinct. To expect a response to the points I raised is certainly not outside of the rules (in fact it is the whole point of debate) I‘ve requested little else. If they feel my attitude is inappropriate they should look first at their own. They are participating in classic Freudian Projection ( http://www.heretical.com/sexsci/bpsychol.html).

Now, look at these posts after I spent considerable time addressing one of TCTs lengthy diatribes. They refused to engage me, ridiculed me and baited me for not meeting the standards they set for me. Just WHO is it who is baiting because their standards of debate were not met? More to the point; Why would anyone ever expect me to want to engage them again after treatment such as this?

Some statements can be flames in one regard while not in another. For example; calling someone a ‘homosexual’ who is not could be offensive while calling someone who is could not be. The difference is accuracy; If the description is accurate then it is not a flame. The devil is in the detail. My explanation of why I do not engage TCT is accurate, not a flame.

Finally;

This entire post is you attacking The Cat-Tribe's personal beliefs, as well as their intelligence. I'm about sick of reading your responses to specific people across this forum,

Not once did I make any assault on TCTs intelligence or personal beliefs. In fact I did say, shortly later in post #229

If he can restrain his arrogance and post succiently I would be glad to address his arguments. He often has insightful points

Meanwhile perhapse you overlooked the many occasions where my intelligence and personal beliefs were attacked. I’ve provided quite a few here, but there are more I would be glad to share – (for now this post is long enough. -Not even TCT would deny that! :) )

I am about sick of being treated as a second class citizen simply because my values and ideas do not conform. If I have been out of line – it has been no more than those to whom I was replying. I have been careful to measure my tone and attitude in line with posts to which I reply. I have been no saint – though apparently the standards I am set to are higher than those to whom I reply. Any prior warnings were exactly this and resulted in both of us getting warned. (though when I complain it is promptly dismissed - hence why I no longer complain)

I frankly think that mods have better things to do that address mild issues such as those listed before and the ones I’ve listed. Since you seem fit to warn me in such aggressive terms I feel compelled to point out that either we are all guilty, or nobody is guilty. I am of the opinion that nobody is guilty. This is a mild disagreement, we are all adults and should be able to work it out without running to our mommy and telling on each other. IMHO the advice you should have given to them was to move out of the glass house or stop throwing rocks. If you feel compelled to give warnings, then at least do so in an even-handed way.

I'm bringing this up because it seems to be Bozzy's MO in any thread dealing with feminism. I won't bother you with the same sorts of veiled insults in a similar thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=428594) unless you would like to see more of the same (at which point I'll go through and list posts, rather than ask you to pour through 30 pages).

The kind of posts that I am referring to can be seen in this thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=439680&page=1&pp=15

I list all the posts and give you a couple of examples to look over. Frankly, I find this kind of veiled flaming to be more offensive than outright flames...

Posts: #159, 161, 194, 222, 229 (where he links to Cat Tribes posts, where he lambastes Cat as being disrespectful, and inappropriate), 240, 246, 247, 254







As well, despite his own manner towards others, Bozzy constantly accuses other people of being disrespectful and rude. If you can't call someone a troll for no reason because it is flame baiting, does this sort of accusation not also fit that description? Unless it is actually determined that the people he is accusing of disrespect ARE behaving that way, then the claims he is making do nothing but make the accused poster feel as though he or she must defend their statements as NOT disrespectful...an exercise in futility.

I see no problem with him. He says what he really feels, and that is to be admired.

And what exactly is "veiled flaming" anyway?

B0zzy, one word of advice from a non-mod: The mods do NOT appreciate getting into a debate about conspiracy theories and double-standards on their parts. Besides that, whether someone attacks you or not does NOT give you license to attack them.

When a poster is arrogant and sarcastic they get the same thing is return from me.

Not acceptable. Rulebreaking does not justify rulebreaking. Report them, ignore them, or respond civily, but do not respond in kind.

While the combination of arrogance and sarcasm are not officially warnable in isolated incidents, we will take action against anyone using it consistently.

The people responding to you, and baiting or insulting you as well should know that they shouldn't be doing so, and equal treatment is always the first in mind. I do understand that mainly The Cat-Tribe and Jocabia may have been a bit overboard with their responses (as quoted earlier by you), and this will be an 'unofficial' warning for them to knock it off.

Not acceptable. Rulebreaking does not justify rulebreaking. Report them, ignore them, or respond civily, but do not respond in kind.

While the combination of arrogance and sarcasm are not officially warnable in isolated incidents, we will take action against anyone using it consistently.


OK, let me see if I got this right; Responding in a sarcastic way to a sarcastic post is unacceptable because rule breaking does not justify rule breaking - even though sarcasm really isn't against the rules. I should report them, but the combination of arrogance and sarcasm are not warnable in isolated incidents, but actionable against anyone who uses it consistently?

Am I to keep a log of sarcastic events to report? How long should it be before I should report it? Is there a time period? An acceptable ratio of sarcastic to non-sarcastic posts? Should I rate the level of sarcasm of a post? Will a pattern be determined by the actual number of sarcastic posts, or the number of times someone else’s complains in moderation, no matter how trite it may have been? These are all valid questions if that is to be the policy.

You've posted a self contradictory solution with a vague and subjective definition of the offense of 'sarcasm' and 'arrogance' which could be abused by anyone against the vast majority of posters who do NOT keep a log of people/posts they find to be sarcastic.

I strongly doubt you or any other mods want to maintain a 'sarcasm log' or create a 'sarcasm scale' (if she weights the same as a duck... whoops - I digress). I also doubt that every time a person complains of sarcasm you want to go through all of their posts looking for offensive matter as well (as I did for you in my earlier post). Soon you would be bogged down with a dispute which it totally not worth arbitrating.

Frankly, a ban on excessive 'sarcasm' and 'arrogance' is a bit close to extreme for my likes. Incidences of flames, bait and troll are far different from pithy and mildly sarcastic comments. People who cannot take it should be dismissed in simple terms. (rocks/glass house suggestion from earlier) This is a forum for grown-ups. I will fight for Cat Tribes right to be arrogant and sarcastic; It is a valid form of communications. They just need to know if they dish it the should expect it also. What I will not stand for is when one person's mild sarcasm is treated as;

Either you start treating people with respect now, and knock it off with the 'veiled insults', or I'll slap an official week forum-ban as a punishment for your attitude towards others. This is absolutely not the way that you should be debating in this forum. Treating others with respect should be something that you should do more often. You've been in trouble before with this problem, and you didn't learn anything, so I'm hoping that this post somehow gets to your head
while others are treated as;

I do understand that mainly The Cat-Tribe and Jocabia may have been a bit overboard with their responses (as quoted earlier by you), and this will be an 'unofficial' warning for them to knock it off.

and yet even more go unnamed... (is it really acceptable to suggest that a persons opinion determines the scale of their genital???)

Just because a few feel the need to post a thread in moderation every time I shine a light on their own poor attitude does not indicate I have a 'pattern' any more egregious than they. (not to mention that I still feel that the vast majority of my comments were not incendiary as much as they were accurate)

You say arrogance and sarcasm are not against the rules. The posts of mine which were reported here were neither IMHO - I showed why I consider them to be accurate. Am I to understand that I could be forum banned for being accurate? Is it sarcastic and arrogant for people here to be accurate? or only for those of us who hold non-conforming opinions?

OK, let me see if I got this right; Responding in a sarcastic way to a sarcastic post is unacceptable because rule breaking does not justify rule breaking - even though sarcasm really isn't against the rules.Maybe it's more you being an irritating prat of a rules lawyer.

I should report them, but the combination of arrogance and sarcasm are not warnable in isolated incidents, but actionable against anyone who uses it consistently?Who would have guessed that being a persistant pain in the ass would have consequences?

Am I to keep a log of sarcastic events to report? How long should it be before I should report it? Is there a time period? An acceptable ratio of sarcastic to non-sarcastic posts? Should I rate the level of sarcasm of a post?Ah, the irony...

Frankly, a ban on excessive 'sarcasm' and 'arrogance' is a bit close to extreme for my likes.Who cares what you like?

People who cannot take it should be dismissed in simple terms.Same with people who can't handle what the mods say. So... um... g'way.

Just because a few feel the need to post a thread in moderation every time I shine a light on their own poor attitude does not indicate I have a 'pattern' any more egregious than they. (not to mention that I still feel that the vast majority of my comments were not incendiary as much as they were accurate)Of course, it couldn't just be that you're an arrogant asshole, no... never that... you're always right...

Umm, wow. Creme n Sugar. Looks like someone wants to sacrafice a puppet... Flaming in the moderation forum certainly calls for an IP check and action against the parent nation... Now, who do I know who uses the word 'prat' often....

Well, I do. But it's not me.

Now, who do I know who uses the word 'prat' often....Yes, because prat is such an uncommon word :rolleyes:

Umm, wow. Creme n Sugar. Looks like someone wants to sacrafice a puppet... Flaming in the moderation forum certainly calls for an IP check and action against the parent nation... Now, who do I know who uses the word 'prat' often....

We'd appreciate it if you didn't tell us how to do our job.

We'd appreciate it if you didn't tell us how to do our job.

That was most certainly not my intention. Sorry if you perceived it that way. I don't suppose you expect me to be immune to getting a bit defensive when flamed like that.

Now, I'd appreciate if you'd keep me appraised how the response to this additional incident unfolds. I don't think my suggestion to check for a puppet nation is unwarranted.

If nothing else this post most certainly illustrates the hostility a few select posters have simply because I refuse to let them roll over me, bait me, or accept their view of the world. This time it just wasn't so subtle. Most participants here are well mannered and courteous, but a select few are trying very hard to 'bully' me and other dissenters into submission. If nothing else this is an example of the type of post I would personally consider actionable (flaming) vs most of the earlier ones I shared (sarcasm) which I would diagree with but not ask for action on.

Sadly, this little bomb may have derailed our discussion about the nature of equal treatment, sarcasm, and flames vs accurate observations. (could that have been the intent of it?) I am still interested in continuing that discussion once this other issue is resolved.

Personally, I see little problem with this situation. I see B0zzy as the one being attacked more so than attacking. If my memory serves me, I see no outright insult or baiting present from him that seems present. If you can prove me wrong then by all means do so, I shall appreciate the chance to understand this situation just a little more.

But I have to agree with B0zzy on some counts. While there were some posters whom took upon themselves to supposedly criticize and slander his opinions through a number of ways and not contributing to the subject itself, he merely responded with an even tone. But that is up for interpretation.

Note: Not responding to a post does not prove much, it merely means the poster who is not posting has a life and must return to it. I see no reason to criticize that and jump on the person when he/she is gone. It speaks volumes about the person doing the said jumping.

B0zzy, one word of advice from a non-mod: The mods do NOT appreciate getting into a debate about conspiracy theories and double-standards on their parts. Besides that, whether someone attacks you or not does NOT give you license to attack them.

You missed my point - my posts were accurate observations - not attacks. I made clear at the first line in the thread that this is not about a conspiracy.

Attack - An observation or statement about the views, the condition, the arguments, the statements, or a person that is not concrete or holds little evidence.

That is what I can sum up as to what it means at least.

I would really like to know when that definition became consistent with B0zzy's statements please. If you could then all the more better for me for understanding the situation.

Personally I think you lack tact which makes your accurate observations come accross as actionable

Well. That is up to interpretation, eh. Your opinion is respected.

Personally I think you lack tact which makes your accurate observations come accross as actionable
There are some who would take that statement as a flame, particularly if I said it. I think that is silly and that is the point I'm trying to make.

The issue of my possesion or not of 'tact' notwithstanding; are you suggesting that you feel tactlessness should be actionable? It would be a very very busy moderation forum if that is so.

Not acceptable. Rulebreaking does not justify rulebreaking. Report them, ignore them, or respond civily, but do not respond in kind.

While the combination of arrogance and sarcasm are not officially warnable in isolated incidents, we will take action against anyone using it consistently.

The people responding to you, and baiting or insulting you as well should know that they shouldn't be doing so, and equal treatment is always the first in mind. I do understand that mainly The Cat-Tribe and Jocabia may have been a bit overboard with their responses (as quoted earlier by you), and this will be an 'unofficial' warning for them to knock it off.

I wanted to acknowledge that I saw your warning and will heed it. For the record, those comments are taken out of context. Even so, You would be hardfought to find a dozen flamebaity comments in my 4000+ posts even taken out of context.

Bozzy. I would suggest that you drop this. The Moderation made their decision, now you are supposed to live with it. Don't debate it, don't try to say that they have a "double-standard". They do their job as they do it.

Bozzy. I would suggest that you drop this. The Moderation made their decision, now you are supposed to live with it. Don't debate it, don't try to say that they have a "double-standard". They do their job as they do it.Bozzy hasn't posted in 2 days...

Bozzy. I would suggest that you drop this. The Moderation made their decision, now you are supposed to live with it. Don't debate it, don't try to say that they have a "double-standard". They do their job as they do it.

Um, no. I was flamed. Clear - simple, and right in front of a mod. In case your back button does not work let me help you;
flame (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9575517&postcount=11) No decision has yet been rendered on it. No action yet taken.

Now, since this happened in moderation and in front of Euroslavia, I don't really see the point of creating yet another thread to report it. I am certain that Euroslavia and the other mods are capable and willing to address it, and doing so right now.

Bozzy hasn't posted in 2 days...

I am patiently waiting for the mods. If you feel they should go faster, certainly be my guest to say so. Before you do though, consider

this (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9595810&postcount=3)
and
this (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9596010&postcount=5)

to share a portion of one;

I dealt with close to 250 cases today. Probably averaged about 45 seconds on each. I spent close to an hour researching your complaints, reading your miles-long responses, and responding in kind. Despite that, you STILL aren't satisfied. You want it NOW, and if it doesn't happen instantly, it's because we DON'T CARE.

Bullshit.

so really, patience IS a virture. I wouldn't suggest my use of it is any kind of acceptance of the flame in question, nor should it indicate acceptance of it from the mods. I was baited on one of the threads listed for not responding fast enough. Such baiting is unfair and annoying. I can empathize with Frisbeeteria.

I should add, it is nice to see that I am not the only person who find "miles-long responses" annoying.

After the flame has been dealt with I will address any issues of balance that I have about Euroslavia's post. I already have said most of what I have to about that - but I think the flame issue should and does take priority.

I can wait on both issues - but don't think my patience equals resignation.

Grrrr.

I will take to heart and obviously heed your unofficial warning, Euro. :)

I would note, however, that my "objectionable" posts quoted by B0zzy were (a) from over 1 month ago and (b) entirely out of context. :headbang: He did not complain then -- with good reason, but only raises them now when he has been unofficially warned for his recent behavior.

I'm a little annoyed that B0zzy flamed several people, including me (apparently on the "grounds" that my posts are too long and too full of documentation), and, by virtue of his rules lawyering, he has now claimed to be the victim. This has happened before. And B0zzy has been unofficially warned several times to avoid the time of posts that he was unofficially warned for here. Each time he tries to drag down as many others who lost their temper in response to his posts as possible.

I've tried to avoid interacting directly with B0zzy. He joined the thread in question long after the posts to which he now objects and his swipe at me in the most recent thread was not in direct response to me. He was arguing there was "no evidence" against his point and others pointed to my posts that he now complains were too long and contained too much evidence. :headbang: How I got dragged into whether B0zzy deserved an unofficial warning is beyond me.

EDIT: I could comb through B0zzy's last 2 months of posts and find further evidence of his at least borderline behavior. But using that kind of evidence to justify your own wrongdoing was fallacious. I repeat that I take my unofficial warning seriously. I hope B0zzy will do the same. Given that he defended his comments with more attacks on my posts, I am less than optimistic.

I would note this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9014154&postcount=6) by Cogitation.

EDIT2: This has been merely a vent brought to you courtesy of The Cat-Tribe. Thank you for listening.

It has now been a week since I was flamed in this thread. There is no message from a mod about what remedial activity they plan to take up or any progress on checking the 'puppet' status of the poster. The nation is still active.

I am starting to wonder if anything is being done at all or if it has been decided that on this occasion the flame is acceptable.

How about it mods, is this being pursued or ignored?

I am patiently waiting for the mods. If you feel they should go faster, certainly be my guest to say so.Please don't be offended. I was criticizing Shazbottom's post telling you to drop it, when in fact, you hadn't added anything in 2 days. ;)

It has now been a week since I was flamed in this thread. There is no message from a mod about what remedial activity they plan to take up or any progress on checking the 'puppet' status of the poster. The nation is still active.

I am starting to wonder if anything is being done at all or if it has been decided that on this occasion the flame is acceptable.

How about it mods, is this being pursued or ignored?

No Cream and No Sugar has been addressed of his mistake, by me personally.

That's nice. Why on this occasion is the reprimand private? Who is the nation which C+S is a puppet of? Is the puppet to continue or be deated?

If the 'puppet master' nation is not revealed it will be difficult to report if this behavior is recurring with this or other puppets. I for one am interested in knowing more as well as understanding the reprocussions of flaming by puppet proxy.

Your response does little to convice me this will not happen again, either by the original or by a copy-cat. I think everyone here deserves better than to be left in the dark. What makes that poster so special?

The way I've seen the Mods say it, not every moderator action needs to be handled in the public eye.

That's nice.<list of ridiculous demands>

We're under no obligation to tell you any of that and that information will not be divulged. End of line.