NationStates Jolt Archive

I started out responding to his post because I thought he wanted to discuss the topic but I quickly saw that he was there for insulting people instead…

Careful, if they're struggling with two sylable common words like murder, then prevarication and obfuscation are really gonna make some waves.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10304496&postcount=240

So I told him that I was going to stop talking to him and I told him why…


Your attempt to convey insult instead of furthering the discussion is duly noted. I shall endeavor to dismiss future discourse with you until you can control yourself enough to cease such demeaning banter.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10305420&postcount=258

And he responded with:

...
Amusing. I'll take that as an admission that you couldn't address the actual points and you're upset that you tried to pretend a single use of a word not only can but must convey every possible definition. When you learn to use a dictionary properly, we'll stop insinuating that you do not know how to use one.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10307656&postcount=278

I asked him to stop posting in response to me, and I said I would stop posting towards him:

...
I'm not here for a personal insult fest, but rather I am here for ideologue and academic debate. And with that in mind, I'm done with you, please do not respond to my posts further and I will not respond to yours either, fair is fair. If you should choose to start writing actual debate positions instead of trying to find clever ways of adding insult through innuendo, I may readdress the matter sometime in the future. Thanks for sharing.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10308975&postcount=290

He then threatens outright griefing if I should choose to ignore him.

*Can't stand the heat? You misused a dictionary. You got called on it. Yes, if I had the same problem, I'd expect to feel insulted when someone caught me. You don't want to be called on misusing a dictionary. Please, learn to use one correctly. And I do mean please.

* You keep promising to put me on ignore, but I'm still waiting for you to do me that favor. Meanwhile, I'll still be in the thread pointing out that you are misusing the dictionary and poking holes in your weak arguments.
*He seems to have edited these two above out but I had already seen them.

… And by the way, you're welcome to ignore me if you like. Meanwhile, I'll be here, pointing out the obvious flaws in your arguments and amusing myself at the same time.

...
Quit pretending you're taking the high road and actually take it. Address my points and stop whining about how I don't argue in a style you approve of (I don't approve of your style either).
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10309129&postcount=293

I’ve asked him to stop, I’ve promised to do the same in regards to not addressing him, I told him why I refused to participate in conversation with him (because he insults through innuendo) and then he complains that I haven’t responded to his points, totally ignoring the fact that I’ve already stated why I wouldn’t ‘banter’ with him.

I can’t fathom how this could be anything other than griefing and I’ve come here with it because he’s threatened to continue it endlessly and he’s already spread it to other threads.

In a post directly under mine to a third party, he writes:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10307703&postcount=62

Again, in the other thread.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10308883&postcount=72

Griefing: Harrassing a nation because of what they did or said. This often manifests when one player follows another around in thread after thread, abusing and flaming the target nation. Note that this is distinct from Region Griefing, covered above.

Suggestion - next time, when you've decided to ignore him, don't respond to any rebuttles he fires back - no matter how demeaning, infuriating or annoying they might be. Also, while his manner is, IMO trolling and perhaps flaming, his point I'd agree with - tossing in larger words doesn't help the debate, it makes it much more difficult. Just because you can employ those words doesn't mean that you should in a debate. Personally, I would have to look up a few of those words to figure out what you're talking about - and that makes the debate less interesting and makes me less interested in continuing the debate.

*note - not a mod, just some comments from one player to another.

You will have to thicken your skin if youre going to remain in General. Its full of sarcasm and argumentative debate. People are going to say things that you dont like and they might be smart alecks about it. But if you report everyone who speaks in the tone Jocabia did in those posts, then you are in for an awful lot of reporting. I've always known Jocaboa to be intelligent and respectful......as well as sarcastic. Sarcasm isnt against the rules. And everyone uses it.

and these two examples you gave:


In a post directly under mine to a third party, he writes:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.ph...3&postcount=62

Again, in the other thread.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.ph...3&postcount=72

seem hardly offensive. Like I said, if you are here for real debate, then you have to expect some responses like this. Just giving you some advice so that you dont end up in the Mod forum all the time.

I'll let the mods read the thread on that one. They'll see you avoiding the points and basically ordering me to stop talking to you. There is no rule that I'm aware of about engaging in a debate, which I did.

Now, what they will find in several posts in which you attack me and my style of debate while ignoring all of my points. What they won't find is a single post by me that doesn't address one or more of your points and point out that your ARGUMENT is flawed, not YOU are flawed. I am absolutely permitted to point out the flaws in your argument whether you'd like me to or not.

Let's just drop the rest of that post in there -

If you want to focus on the debate, here's a tip - DO IT! I made several points, you've not addressed. Here they are in condensed form -

1. Why did you switch dictionaries? Perhaps because the first dictionary you used didn't have a definition of baby that supported your argument?

2. Why would the OP use a version of murder that makes it no different than harvesting potatos?

3. How does an embryo meet the requirements for life?

4. According to your source, it is a baby inside the womb. Care to address when it becomes a baby?

We'll start with those and go from there. Quit pretending you're taking the high road and actually take it. Address my points and stop whining about how I don't argue in a style you approve of (I don't approve of your style either).

It's amusing to me that you keep suggesting I shouldn't be able to vehemently point out the flaws in your debate. The other thread which I was already in (rather than followed you into as you imply) shows me attacking your points, your points, not you.

You, however, have been attacking me for several pages, not to the point that I would think it violates the rules, but I find it interesting that you consider my suggestion that you stop addressing my personality and start addressing my points to be offensive and griefing. While I'll subject myself to the rules of this site on how I should behave, I won't let you tell me what points I'm allowed to address and which posts I can and cannot reply to.

Meanwhile, you complain I'm not furthering the discussion and then when I tell you to leave ME alone and address my points instead you refuse.


Now let's address the sarcasm. Yes, I'm a big proponent of sarcasm. Yes, I recognize this puts me in danger of being misunderstood and perhaps even falling afoul of the mods (though I seriously try not to exceed the level of post I've seen from the mods themselves). If the mods feel I've been inappropriately sarcastic, I will accept it and attempt to avoid such behavior in the future.

However -

Now THAT's funny. Should we quote your first post? Your original post here was nothing but a quibble in favor of a very strict and limited definition of the word murder, and you advocated no other use of it in this context? Perhaps you should readdress your complaint about adding anything meaningful.

As to copy and paste… please. The quote was indented, and it shows that I’m not ‘making it up’ to suit my purposes.

It appears I am not the only capable of being snarky. I guess I don't see how my posts are any more sarcastic or offensive than the above. I'm left to believe your actual problem is that I'm not arguing on the same side as you.

By the way my the post you claim are no longer there, are.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10308799&postcount=287

And they are in context for the mods to read and see what followed is not an attack on you but an attack on your argument and a request for you to address my arguments instead of constantly complaining that you don't like the way I post.

By the way, here is the definition of griefing -

Griefing: Harassing a nation or region because of what they did or said. This is specifically forbidden in telegrams and Regional Messageboard (RMB) posts. If you receive abusive telegrams, save them. If there are abusive RMB posts, use the Additional Information checkboxes on the Getting Help Page. Griefing also refers to the wholesale ejection of nations from a region by anyone other than the Founder, whether Native or Invader.

Notice it says nothing about threatening to reply to your points and poke holes in your argument. I wonder why? Oh, wait, it's a debate forum. I'm pretty sure in a debate forum I can't ask that someone not be allowed to debunk my arguments. I'm not harassing you. I'm harassing your arguments because they are flawed.

*rereads

Actually, I take it back.....the statements made are mildly flammable, but overall, not really something to take action on.

Griefing: Harrassing a nation because of what they did or said. This often manifests when one player follows another around in thread after thread, abusing and flaming the target nation. Note that this is distinct from Region Griefing, covered above.

Griefing: Harrassing a nation because of what they did or said. This often manifests when one player follows another around in thread after thread, abusing and flaming the target nation. Note that this is distinct from Region Griefing, covered above.

I'm not abusing you. I'm abusing your argument. That's kind of the point of the general forum. And I didn't follow you to the other thread. I was there first. You have little argument for griefing. We are in two threads discussing the points in the thread. You used a logical fallacy of mixing terms and then got mad that two of us caught you and called you on it. Then you switched to another dictionary to abuse another term. I merely pointed out that you were continually misusing the multiple definitions in dictionaries to make logical fallacy arguments. No whether one agrees with my point or not, it's addressing the thread and the argument, not abusing you.

You have shown continuously that you feel like people should not be permitted to point out the problems in your posts. You have accused several posters in the thread of not contributing anything while attacking their manner rather than their points.

Pointing out your ad hominems and equivocations is a tactic in debate. It's not abuse.

By threatening to grief me and my posts if I should put him on ignore, he attempts to deny the usefulness of the 'ignore' option and says outright that he will harass my posts. To amuse himself."

… And by the way, you're welcome to ignore me if you like. Meanwhile, I'll be here, pointing out the obvious flaws in your arguments and amusing myself at the same time.

By the way, the first post which out of context seems the most abusive was making a point that we are already struggling with fairly common terms that elevating the level of verbiage would simply compound the problem, and it was directed at GnI.

There is not a single post in that thread or any other where I directly or indirectly attack DG, other than suggesting that he is using the dictionary improperly and that context is an important part of reading comprehension. In both cases I was directly addressing arguments that, in my opinion, misused the dictionary and left the context out. They are not sweeping, general attacks on him or his personality, but instead focused and direct attacks on holes in his argument. I was under the impression that I was permitted to address the arguments of the opposing side of a debate.

By threatening to grief me and my posts if I should put him on ignore, he attempts to deny the usefulness of the 'ignore' option and says outright that he will harass my posts. To amuse himself."

I'm allowed to 'harass' your posts. It's a debate forum. Otherwise, I could just request that anyone who disagrees with me not be permitted to reply to my points. I didn't threaten to grief you. I 'threatened' to address your posts. Stop trying to change this into some personal vendetta. And whether you choose to ignore me or not has no bearing on whether I will address your posts. It only has bearing on whether or not you will see my replies.

By threatening to grief me and my posts if I should put him on ignore, he attempts to deny the usefulness of the 'ignore' option and says outright that he will harass my posts. To amuse himself."

Personally I wouldn't worry about it and consider myself much more fortunate than him because I have better ways to amuse myself. When you think about it, anyone who gets their entertainment from trying to harrass someone who doesn't even read what they say has issues best delt with by a professional.

It also may be that he is attemting to change his image.

Debate involves attacking a person's arguement. I fail to see how that could be considered "griefing".

There's an ignore function; use it.

I'm allowed to 'harass' your posts. It's a debate forum. Otherwise, I could just request that anyone who disagrees with me not be permitted to reply to my points. I didn't threaten to grief you. I 'threatened' to address your posts. Stop trying to change this into some personal vendetta. And whether you choose to ignore me or not has no bearing on whether I will address your posts. It only has bearing on whether or not you will see my replies.


Why would you be allowed to "harass?" It would amount to nothing more than trolling/spamming, for the sake of inducing an angry response at that, and that then would be flamebait trolling/spamming. Thus, they have the griefing rule, which you've threatened to do to me. Thus, the reason I'm here, to report it and find out if you're actually going to be allowed to do that.

Debate involves attacking a person's arguement. I fail to see how that could be considered "griefing".

There's an ignore function; use it.

Fair enough then.

Why would you be allowed to "harass?" It would amount to nothing more than trolling/spamming, for the sake of inducing an angry response at that, and that then would be flamebait trolling/spamming. Thus, they have the griefing rule, which you've threatened to do to me. Thus, the reason I'm here, to report it and find out if you're actually going to be allowed to do that.

Hack has spoken....

you seem new to NS judging by your post count. You will get the hang of it and see how the debates go. Try not to let it become personal. Everyone is passionate about his/her stance on certain issues. It shows in the delivery sometimes. Its not personal.

Hack has spoken....

you seem new to NS judging by your post count. You will get the hang of it and see how the debates go. Try not to let it become personal. Everyone is passionate about his/her stance on certain issues. It shows in the delivery sometimes. Its not personal.

He posted while I was typing. I edited to clarify who I was responding to, and then I posted a recognition of what the Moderator said.

Thanks for the advice.

He posted while I was typing. I edited to clarify who I was responding to, and then I posted a recognition of what the Moderator said.

Thanks for the advice.

yes, I'm sorry...i must have been typing as you were. Now go have some fun debating!

Why would you be allowed to "harass?" It would amount to nothing more than trolling/spamming, for the sake of inducing an angry response at that, and that then would be flamebait trolling/spamming. Thus, they have the griefing rule, which you've threatened to do to me. Thus, the reason I'm here, to report it and find out if you're actually going to be allowed to do that.

Actually, having made the same "threat" myself, I can tell you the logic. At some point, there are many arguments where people realize "there is no way I can convince you". However, there is another problem that needs to be addressed - it isn't just you and me reading our arguments - people around us are reading them and formulating their opinions on what it said. Thus, the "threat" is to say "you aren't just going to scare me off. If you don't want to address the arguments that I leave for you to consider, others are going to look at my arguments and agree with them without reason to disagree with them". Debate - especially on forums - is rarely about convincing the other person, but to get your viewpoint and reasoning out into the open. If I can outreason you, then I've won the debate - not if I can convince you to change your mind.

Edit:.....er.....sorry - didn't realize I'm 8 hrs behind the last post....

Actually, having made the same "threat" myself, I can tell you the logic. At some point, there are many arguments where people realize "there is no way I can convince you". However, there is another problem that needs to be addressed - it isn't just you and me reading our arguments - people around us are reading them and formulating their opinions on what it said. Thus, the "threat" is to say "you aren't just going to scare me off. If you don't want to address the arguments that I leave for you to consider, others are going to look at my arguments and agree with them without reason to disagree with them". Debate - especially on forums - is rarely about convincing the other person, but to get your viewpoint and reasoning out into the open. If I can outreason you, then I've won the debate - not if I can convince you to change your mind.

Edit:.....er.....sorry - didn't realize I'm 8 hrs behind the last post....

Well, said. That was the point I was trying to make. I wasn't threatening to harrass him. I was 'threatening' to continue debating whether he addresses my points or not, thus leaving my points unopposed. Your way of saying it was more eloquent.

Anyway, it seems to be settled.

I think it's worth noting that regardless of 'legitimate' debate tactics or the strength or weakness of one's opponent, the manner in which one replies and furthers the discussion can very much make a difference in the responses one gets, and the actual quality of said debate. This doesn't excuse poor behaviour on either side of the equation, mind - we're all responsible for ourselves regardless. Still.

While within the bounds of acceptability, there's an awful lot of deliberate nastiness that gets tossed around on the forums, and ample attempts to infuriate other posters into working themselves up into a frothing rage, or being condescending to the point of idiocy. Personally, I think the phrase 'grow a skin' has become overused, and more an excuse to continue with what can be percieved as abusive behaviour because a lot of folks enjoy going for the digs and easy shots and don't want to be bothered with taking things up a notch or two as far as quality debate goes. But then, it's easy enough to do, even unintentionally, especially when in a heated discussion. I think we've all been guilty of that a time or three.

It doesn't make one a bigger or better person for it in spite of what seems to be common acceptance on the forums, though it may 'win' one an argument, at least until the next round, or until one runs into another person who's better at playing that game than they are.

You can claim 'it isn't personal' as much as you like - but it is, and very, because what it boils down to is satisfying one's ego in being able to come out on top in a debate. Not that this is an inherently bad thing, but there you have it. No need to pretend otherwise.

Not pointing any fingers here, just making some general observations on things I've been seeing go on for a long time now, for whatever it's worth.

I think it's worth noting that regardless of 'legitimate' debate tactics or the strength or weakness of one's opponent, the manner in which one replies and furthers the discussion can very much make a difference in the responses one gets, and the actual quality of said debate. This doesn't excuse poor behaviour on either side of the equation, mind - we're all responsible for ourselves regardless. Still.

While within the bounds of acceptability, there's an awful lot of deliberate nastiness that gets tossed around on the forums, and ample attempts to infuriate other posters into working themselves up into a frothing rage, or being condescending to the point of idiocy. Personally, I think the phrase 'grow a skin' has become overused, and more an excuse to continue with what can be percieved as abusive behaviour because a lot of folks enjoy going for the digs and easy shots and don't want to be bothered with taking things up a notch or two as far as quality debate goes. But then, it's easy enough to do, even unintentionally, especially when in a heated discussion. I think we've all been guilty of that a time or three.

It doesn't make one a bigger or better person for it in spite of what seems to be common acceptance on the forums, though it may 'win' one an argument, at least until the next round, or until one runs into another person who's better at playing that game than they are.

You can claim 'it isn't personal' as much as you like - but it is, and very, because what it boils down to is satisfying one's ego in being able to come out on top in a debate. Not that this is an inherently bad thing, but there you have it. No need to pretend otherwise.

Not pointing any fingers here, just making some general observations on things I've been seeing go on for a long time now, for whatever it's worth.

I agee that "grow a thicker skin" isn't generally appropriate. I also think though strong debate is, in and of itself, going to be a bit offensive. Many of these beliefs are strongly held and having someone punch holes in how you arrived at those belliefs is fairly unpleasant. Then you have to add in that if you are using fallacies or poor debate tactics to make your point, you're likely going to get called on it, which is generally much more offensive.

Could many of us, including myself take the higher road? Yes, and we often do. However, when talking about some things like basic civil rights, it's fairly hard not to grasp every handhold when trying to climb over the rock face people have put up betweeen what supports their beliefs and what is actually true.

However, I'll give you that in some cases (not this case) that it amounts to bullying and I could stand to be a little less of a bully. I'll take your advice.

Also, I could do a lot less to make myself giggle and a lot more to stick the points of the debate, namely easing up on the sarcasm. I'll take your advice there too.

Fair enough?

Thank you all for your consideration. And especially this:

...

While within the bounds of acceptability, there's an awful lot of deliberate nastiness that gets tossed around on the forums, and ample attempts to infuriate other posters into working themselves up into a frothing rage, or being condescending to the point of idiocy. Personally, I think the phrase 'grow a skin' has become overused, and more an excuse to continue with what can be percieved as abusive behaviour because a lot of folks enjoy going for the digs and easy shots and don't want to be bothered with taking things up a notch or two as far as quality debate goes. But then, it's easy enough to do, even unintentionally, especially when in a heated discussion. I think we've all been guilty of that a time or three.
...

I may not be able to have an overall affect on the forum itself, but I believe that if we don't want to debate under such "play-ground with a bully” antics then one such simply refuse to participate in it. Does that mean they should have to 'go home' or should they be able to simply stay and continue the discussion with the other participants that aren’t emphasizing the “deliberate nastiness” in their posts, whether they have valid argument in their posts as well is not the point. Making good points is not the issue, simply having the right to ignoring the people that refuse to attempt to participate with ordinary civility was my point.

And thus, I came to the Moderators forum to find out what level of ‘playground’ protection the moderators enforce here. As to placing such a character on the ignore list, it’s too bad really, but there is no other action an individual on a forum can take (outside of leaving the forum altogether and finding a new one) to show that they will simply refuse to participate if deliberate nastiness isn’t left out of the discussion (I really like that name for it, Deliberate Nastiness, I think you should trademark that :) ).

Well, there is always the option of choosing not to respond, and taking care what debates you get involved in and which you opt to pass on. It can be a pretty cutthroat environment out there, and frankly I don't think there is much protection available (depending on how you measure that) given the level of skill so many have developed in toeing the line in just how far they can push without quite crossing over it.

No, we don't have to rise to every challenge thrown at us, regardless of how some might pull the 'no backbone' card. Sometimes it's better to be quiet and thought the ass than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt, after all. Then again, there's a time and place for making a stand and sticking by your convictions - all I can offer by way of advice is to choose your battles wisely.

Getting into debate in General can be rather akin to playing with fire. Some understand how easy it is to get burned, and manage to pull it off pretty well. Some choose to use it as a weapon. Others wade right in with their ideals or agendas forgetting there are opposing views that may be just as strong, or foolishly start sticking their fingers into any and everything without an appreciation for just how hot the debate can get, then end up crying for salve and kisses to make it all better. And then there's some that walk in and just end up stumbling right into things simply not knowing better, and end up walking off with burnt fingers wondering what the hell happened and where it all went wrong.

Add to that the mods can't possibly follow every little thread the way some slavishly do, and it makes it difficult sometimes to see a clear pattern without using up loads of time that a lot of them simply don't have. Before anyone accuses them of 'not doing their jobs' take into consideration simple ratios. There's a lot more of us than there are of them. (And no, I don't think it means we need a horde of mods to remedy it, I think we just need to behave ourselves.) Thus the point of this forum here - to bring to their attention things any of us have a strong objection to or question about. Use it, don't abuse it has been the mindset so far as I can see.

Jocabia: Do what you want, man. Like I said, just offering some general observations. If you feel any of the comments apply, use 'em or lose 'em as you see fit. What you choose that way doesn't affect me in the least, nor am I in any position to be dictating how folks need to behave, so there's not really a 'fair enough' about it. ;)

DLN: I wasn't exactly looking for permission. I was merely making it known that I'm always willing to make an effort to raise the level of debate that goes on. I admit I enjoy sarcasm, but I do see that it occasionally subjugates the actual discussion. So, I appreciate your advice whether or not it was directed at me (and let's face it, it was).

Jocabia, I think I'd know if I was being direct or not. Kindly take the ego, and stow it for a while, thank you. I said I was making general observations of things I've observed over time concerning debate and what passes for it on the forums. It isn't my problem if you choose to take any of it personally in spite of my statements to the contrary.

What I'm seeing is more effort to justify positions and tactics, and go on with the 'yeah, but he did it toooooo' while not seeing any real reason for it - you're not being called out here. Relax. When I have something to say to you directly, you'll know because I will address you by name - as I'm doing now - or I will quote or refer to pertinent examples so there is no mistaking.

For someone previously saying 'we're done here' you certainly seem bent on continuing some sort of debate over who is or isn't guilty of what when supposedly all that had been resolved, and the discussion was no longer 'Jocabia is a meanie'. Perhaps it is time to take it for what it's worth (just casual observations and well-meaning advice to anyone who cared to bother with reading about 'think before you speak or leap) and move on already? This wasn't intended as any sort of challenge. No need to treat it like one.

I may not be able to have an overall affect on the forum itself, but I believe that if we don't want to debate under such "play-ground with a bully” antics then one such simply refuse to participate in it. Does that mean they should have to 'go home' or should they be able to simply stay and continue the discussion with the other participants that aren’t emphasizing the “deliberate nastiness” in their posts, whether they have valid argument in their posts as well is not the point. Making good points is not the issue, simply having the right to ignoring the people that refuse to attempt to participate with ordinary civility was my point.

And thus, I came to the Moderators forum to find out what level of ‘playground’ protection the moderators enforce here. As to placing such a character on the ignore list, it’s too bad really, but there is no other action an individual on a forum can take (outside of leaving the forum altogether and finding a new one) to show that they will simply refuse to participate if deliberate nastiness isn’t left out of the discussion (I really like that name for it, Deliberate Nastiness, I think you should trademark that :) ).

It is one thing to say "could you please stop with the high-and-mighty attitude?". It's quite another thing to ask someone to leave the debate. Moderators will address personal attacks, they will not address debate style. It is the difference between asking someone to follow the rules of soccer as you play a game and asking them to stop playing because they keep dropping the ball back to their teammate behind them.