NationStates Jolt Archive

This poster pushes and pushes against the line of permissible insult and flamebait violation via innuendo and implied insult. Previously (different thread, different month) had asked him to stop this sort of post if he wanted me to respond to him but I could not get him to do so, so I came here to report it and asked for advice. I was told to put him on ignore, which I did, and have ignored him ever since. Today however, when coming here and going to the thread I've been participating in, I wasn't signed in yet and because of that I see his post in the thread to another poster that has not been insulting at all. I do not see anything in this post but one great big solid flamebait directed at the person, not the ideas, not the concept, but the person and their personhood...

Like I said take this to your professor who I'd imagine has actually read more than part of one book and understand the material just a bit better than your hack job. However, bring a paper towel because when he sees what you've declared here and how you bastardized that book I imagine he's going to laugh at you so hard that he'll have to wipe his chin.

We're not in academic circle or you wouldn't be allowed through the door, first year. I wouldn't even bother entertaining your thoughts on the matter until you were educated enough to understand the most basic comments. However, if you wrote a paper for me with cited sources, you most certainly would have to SUPPLY those sources to me in order to get credit for them as sources. You chose a source that you can't supply to me and it's because it's the only one you've EVER read on the subject, and let's be frank, you haven't even finished it. Your argument is less than compelling.

Come back next year when you've at least finished the course and understand the basic concepts of philosophy (yes, those terms are philosophical jargon).
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10668551&postcount=233

It is off topic, it is not even pertinent to the discussion in the thread. In my opinion he not only crosses the line of 'actionable violation,' this time, but he backs up and crosses it again for good measure. How can this be an acceptable post? It is nothing but insult and vile, spit at the other member/poster, or so it seems to me. Perhaps it is straight up flame...

Reading what he was replying to, I don't see how this is baiting.

Reading what he was replying to, I don't see how this is baiting.

I went back to see if it was a cumulative affect that I am reading...

This is what I found:


It starts simply enough…

Dude, seriously. Look up lexical definition. You're using a fancy word for dictionary definition.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10659021&postcount=127

The reply back seems reasonable enough…

Definitions in dictionaries are instances of lexical definitions. They aren't the only ones, however. We use the term a bit differently in logic. A lexical definition a definition "used to report the meaning that a word already has in a language" according to Hurley's Logic, 8th edition. Because God has been defined in each religion, the definition of God in those contexts is a lexical definition. My point was that you were attempting to use a demonstrative definition in a place it was inappropriate, while disregarding the lexical definition that the terms already have.

It goes on to state that lexical definitions are strong because they reduce ambiguity and distinguish between subtle shadings in meaning. For example, the ambiguity someone at first glance might see between the use of "God" in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. The lexical definition of the term given by each religion removes the ambiguity that would normally be there.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10659058&postcount=128

But it incited the anger and insults in response…

Do you know what a lexicon is, my friend? The list of words in usage. In other words, I reference the word properly. Your use of the term is flawed. That's why the term is call *gasp* a LEXICal definition. Notice the similarities. You should probably take another class, because your skill in this area needs a little buffing.

A simple definition disagreement results in insult…

Lexical definitions are a terrible way to make logical desitinctions. Stipulative definitions are much more useful. In the case of God, each religion has much closer to what could be refered to as a stipulative definition, only it is because it's a specific reference and not generalized, one would and should call it demonstrative.

I love these people that come here after their first course in logic and try to throw out terms they barely understand and act all pompous. They use the terms because their logic isn't strong enough to demonstrate their skills so the mask it with the jargon they just learned. We can spot you a mile away. I sincerely suggest that if you wish to learn how to debate you come with a little humility and try being more reasonable while you hone your skills. I haven't the patience for helping people cut their teeth, particularly when they behave as you have.
It doesn’t even make sense, it insults and says it is because the other guy is insulting first… but it simply isn’t there.

But he continued and continued with the implied and direct insult after insult…

Since, reading isn't your strong point, I referenced my post above. You're welcome.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10661534&postcount=163


...
Seriously, again, show this to someone who isn't taking their first logic course, because you are so outside of the actual logical definitions here.

EDIT: I'm out of town for the next week. Let your professor correct you, young padawan. They get paid to do so. I know you feel all wonderful because you starting to learn logic and it's exciting, but you really should check the size of your britches.

As far as we can tell from the thread, he knows nothing about the other poster, whether he be young or a student or not, but Jocabia insults his age and youth and education over and over again as if that somehow validated his argument over the other. It seems to be insults to the person instead of defending his position or attacking the position of the other point of view. I do not see persoanl insults returned, just self defense.

Jacobia didn't say the guy flamed him. Jacobia implied he was being arrogant/pompous/etc (which, using terms incorrectly, often sounds like as you sound like you're trying to pretend you're better than everyone else and trying talk over them when really, you're possibly not making logical sense).

Seriously, this is 3 days and 230 posts and you have Jacobia on ignore and no one else reported it nor indicated offense to it nor showed any inclination of problem with it yet you go out of your way to challenge a "non-actionable" call by a mod. Why? He's on your ignore list - keep him there.

...
Seriously, this is 3 days and 230 posts and you have Jacobia on ignore and no one else reported it nor indicated offense to it nor showed any inclination of problem with it yet you go out of your way to challenge a "non-actionable" call by a mod. Why? He's on your ignore list - keep him there.

Below are the total Post counts of the two biggest threads I have ever made, and both of which were made after he was put on my ignore list. As you can see though, despite being on my ignore and I have never responded to him in any post since the time I reported him, he is not only joining threads (which of course he has ever right to and is, as a matter of fact, more than welcome, provided he behaves civilly. But he post more than I do and he is frequently “deliberately nasty” in his tone and mannerisms when talking to people that don’t agree with him. It has mostly been directed at me, when I see him quoted in other peoples posts I see it right off and I always ignore it and don’t respond, but today, I see that he has gone after other people in the thread. Thus, I think it is appropriate that I would report it here. If nothing else, they have a record of it.

Jocabia 29
DubyaGoat 27
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=475022

Jocabia 130
Grave_n_idle 106
DubyaGoat 94
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=470317

Being rude is not flaming.

Pointing out that someone is using terms improperly is not flaming.

Being rude while pointing out that someone is using terms improperly is not flaming.

This is no more flaming than saying something like "Way to miss the point, Ace." I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're just being a little oversensitive as opposed to engaging in a witch hunt and trying to get someone you don't like deleted.

However, I will point out that the Ignore function is considerably more effective if you don't click to read the other person's posts.

I disagree (with DubyaGoat). I've seen a lot of what Jocabia writes and it is generally clear, concise and polite. I think genuinely insulting and uncalled for language is one thing (eg "you're just an f***ing w***er for thinking that"), but simply getting under the skin of your opponent is another.

A very important skill in debate is to know where your opponent is coming from and to discredit it. This is what Jocabia generally does; he shows the ulterior motives behind reasoning. It's not flaming; it's simply his way of debating, and it's generally highly effective.

Jacobia didn't say the guy flamed him. Jacobia implied he was being arrogant/pompous/etc (which, using terms incorrectly, often sounds like as you sound like you're trying to pretend you're better than everyone else and trying talk over them when really, you're possibly not making logical sense).

Seriously, this is 3 days and 230 posts and you have Jacobia on ignore and no one else reported it nor indicated offense to it nor showed any inclination of problem with it yet you go out of your way to challenge a "non-actionable" call by a mod. Why? He's on your ignore list - keep him there.
Except that this just how Jocabia is. He claims to be expert in everything. He puts everyone down personally.
When I talk to him, I have to make a big effort not to insult him back because instead of responding to my points he engages in personal attacks.
For example, in two threads I've debated him in, he has brought up my website and used it to engage in vitriol. I don't think he should be allowed to engage in such vitriolic personal attacks when debating stuff with other people in the forum.
Most recently, he brought up my former campaign site, which mentions that I was uncharactized discharge from the army in 1992. He doesn't qoute it but him and another poster discuss it and he uses to spread false assumptions about my mental state. My response, btw, was to simply state the reason I recieved the uncharacterized: failure to pass several APFT's, yet he was suggesting it was because of a mental condition or religious fanaticism.
And he always accuses everyone of being arrogant and full of it, but then he always displays the same arrogance he blames them for.

But everytime I read something about him, it's always how he never did anything wrong.

Surely it is not lost on how people have to struggle to not get in a flame or insult war with him.

Maybe if you linked all these flames, the mods would act?

Maybe if you linked all these flames, the mods would act?
It was like the Most Glorious Hack said though. Just because a person sounds rude does not mean they are flaming.

Besides, I wouldn't want him deleted or banned or anything. It's just really irritating that he thinks he is good and humble and the rest of the world is evil and arrogant. When all his posts are contrary to the humility he seeks to impose on the people he attacks.

I just think he's a fallible person who thinks highly of himself, as everyone does at one time or other.

You can also tell from his signature how pompous he tends to be. Whether it is intentional I don't know cause you can't tell intentions on an internet forum.

Making arrogant posts is one thing but engaging in personal character assassinations or drudging up mud on a person are close to if not outright crossing the line.

Making arrogant posts is one thing but engaging in personal character assassinations or drudging up mud on a person are close to if not outright crossing the line.
Not necessarily. As someone once said,

"If there are skeletons in the closet, it is because someone put them there."

You can't blame anyone for opening the door and exclaiming "omfg guys, look at this!!!" even if it is not their door to open.

Where someone's personality plays an excessive role in determining their responses, for example persistent attempts to substitute stubborness or force of personality for familiarity with the facts, attacking it is reasonable. Similarly if someone's educational or career background renders them ignorant or unqualified to discuss a particular area. Social rules being what they are, stating this fact will sound rude even if sugarcoated, but for a debate to move on instead of ending up centred on one individual's inability to grasp it, sometimes the obvious needs to be said.

It is debatable of course to what extent a particular player has mastered the art of doing so with subtlety. But were people prevented from calling others on their ignorance in the name of sparing feelings and egos, the quality of General Forum debate would not be well served at all.

Below are the total Post counts of the two biggest threads I have ever made, and both of which were made after he was put on my ignore list. As you can see though, despite being on my ignore and I have never responded to him in any post since the time I reported him, he is not only joining threads (which of course he has ever right to and is, as a matter of fact, more than welcome, provided he behaves civilly. But he post more than I do and he is frequently “deliberately nasty” in his tone and mannerisms when talking to people that don’t agree with him. It has mostly been directed at me, when I see him quoted in other peoples posts I see it right off and I always ignore it and don’t respond, but today, I see that he has gone after other people in the thread. Thus, I think it is appropriate that I would report it here. If nothing else, they have a record of it.

Jocabia 29
DubyaGoat 27
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=475022

Jocabia 130
Grave_n_idle 106
DubyaGoat 94
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=470317

1) Why is Jocabia's activity level relative to yours relevant?
2) You still are the only one in that thread that reported it - AND you had him on ignore to begin with. The fact that you went out of your way to find every single one of those ignored posts that you thought were insulting, I think, is absolutely ridiculous.

Read the actual definition of flaming.

-----------------

Most recently, he brought up my former campaign site, which mentions that I was uncharactized discharge from the army in 1992. He doesn't qoute it but him and another poster discuss it and he uses to spread false assumptions about my mental state. My response, btw, was to simply state the reason I recieved the uncharacterized: failure to pass several APFT's, yet he was suggesting it was because of a mental condition or religious fanaticism.


Slander like that may be much less tolerated on these forums - depending on the context of the issue and the relevance of the matter. You might wish to report it next time it happens.

As for the rest of your two posts, yes Jacobia acts like that, yes it's gotten on my nerves sometimes. If you disagree with his style, fine - you're entitled to your opinion. However, if his work is legal, you have the ignore function for a reason.

1) Why is Jocabia's activity level relative to yours relevant?
2) You still are the only one in that thread that reported it - AND you had him on ignore to begin with. The fact that you went out of your way to find every single one of those ignored posts that you thought were insulting, I think, is absolutely ridiculous.

Read the actual definition of flaming.

-----------------



Slander like that may be much less tolerated on these forums - depending on the context of the issue and the relevance of the matter. You might wish to report it next time it happens.

As for the rest of your two posts, yes Jacobia acts like that, yes it's gotten on my nerves sometimes. If you disagree with his style, fine - you're entitled to your opinion. However, if his work is legal, you have the ignore function for a reason.
Regarding the last part. I know he acts like. It's his personality. It gets on my nerves too. It doesn't matter that I disagree with him.
However, I chose not ignore him because reading his posts tests my convictions and the most recent case reconfirmed and made them stronger.
For that to happen, agreement is not necessary. When dealing with him, I think the appropriate question is do you believe in your convictions enough to stick your neck on the line and be crucified by someone like him. If not, then you should probably reconsider what you believe or think you know.

Not necessarily. As someone once said,

"If there are skeletons in the closet, it is because someone put them there."

You can't blame anyone for opening the door and exclaiming "omfg guys, look at this!!!" even if it is not their door to open.

Where someone's personality plays an excessive role in determining their responses, for example persistent attempts to substitute stubborness or force of personality for familiarity with the facts, attacking it is reasonable. Similarly if someone's educational or career background renders them ignorant or unqualified to discuss a particular area. Social rules being what they are, stating this fact will sound rude even if sugarcoated, but for a debate to move on instead of ending up centred on one individual's inability to grasp it, sometimes the obvious needs to be said.

It is debatable of course to what extent a particular player has mastered the art of doing so with subtlety. But were people prevented from calling others on their ignorance in the name of sparing feelings and egos, the quality of General Forum debate would not be well served at all.

It is that the way it really works?

It is that the way it really works?
What? You think if someone hasn't a clue what they're talking about, it would be improper to point it out? If someone has a history of contradictions, it is impolite to bring it up? Misuse of terminology should be tolerated so as to avoid pedantry and elitism?

Nope. Sometimes it is not the substance of an argument that is the barrier, but the individual. I have no problem telling people who detract from a discussion that they are doing so, and I would like to think other people trying to have a constructive debate can do likewise without fearing flaming accusations just because someone's pride got hurt. Especially in the case of people who set out to be offended and look for excuses.

It's not complicated. Everyone understands that flaming is for example, calling someone a fucking dumbass. Telling them to go read a book or take a course before forming an opinion, is clearly not.

To use an example from one of my own debates, I was once informed that the world's energy needs could be met by hemp oil. :rolleyes: You cannot realistically expect a researched rebuttal of ideas like that, when the same people come out with stuff of that sort, time and time again. It's OK to just dismiss them as clueless.

I think you should reconsider what you are implying here, that an individual's character and personality should be immune from criticism. Although malicious attacks are not permitted, questions of character cannot be separated from a discussion.

What? You think if someone hasn't a clue what they're talking about, it would be improper to point it out? If someone has a history of contradictions, it is impolite to bring it up? Misuse of terminology should be tolerated so as to avoid pedantry and elitism?

Nope. Sometimes it is not the substance of an argument that is the barrier, but the individual. I have no problem telling people who detract from a discussion that they are doing so, and I would like to think other people trying to have a constructive debate can do likewise without fearing flaming accusations just because someone's pride got hurt. Especially in the case of people who set out to be offended and look for excuses.

It's not complicated. Everyone understands that flaming is for example, calling someone a fucking dumbass. Telling them to go read a book or take a course before forming an opinion, is clearly not.

To use an example from one of my own debates, I was once informed that the world's energy needs could be met by hemp oil. :rolleyes: You cannot realistically expect a researched rebuttal of ideas like that, when the same people come out with stuff of that sort, time and time again. It's OK to just dismiss them as clueless.

I think you should reconsider what you are implying here, that an individual's character and personality should be immune from criticism. Although malicious attacks are not permitted, questions of character cannot be separated from a discussion.


Absolutely correct.

However, in the situation I reported, the lack of education of the poster being attacked is not established in any obvious manner to the outside observer, except for the accusations made by Jocabia. I would say that to an outside observer who was scoring their debate, they would have been either equally scored or in fact in favor against Jocabia, which is possibly the real motivation for switching to an insulting tone. The insults themselves seem to be the sole source of evidence that suggest the other posters does not have an educated opinion in the matter.

Thus, IMO, the insults are without merit and were NOT indicative of the actual education level of the participants. To say someone is clueless, because it is a fact self-evident to the outside observer, like your example, is not the same as to say that someone is clueless simply because you are losing and the insult for the sake of being insulting is a way to try and misdirect the other participants from noticing that you are losing. It seems like it is intended to produce anger from the other party and to try and direct contempt to the other poster from other third party readers who are unaware of the entire discourse.


BTW: previously, it was suggested that I might just be trying to get him deleted, but that is not accurate of my intention. I'm sorry if that was what it seemed like I was trying to do. I was thinking more along the lines of an official post to him asking him to cool off a bit with his tone in his responses, somewhat less than a warning, but a request from someone other than me to cool off his demeaning tone. That was my intent.

Absolutely correct.

However, in the situation I reported, the lack of education of the poster being attacked is not established in any obvious manner to the outside observer, except for the accusations made by Jocabia. I would say that to an outside observer who was scoring their debate, they would have been either equally scored or in fact in favor against Jocabia, which is possibly the real motivation for switching to an insulting tone. The insults themselves seem to be the sole source of evidence that suggest the other posters does not have an educated opinion in the matter.

Thus, IMO, the insults are without merit and were NOT indicative of the actual education level of the participants. To say someone is clueless, because it is a fact self-evident to the outside observer, like your example, is not the same as to say that someone is clueless simply because you are losing and the insult for the sake of being insulting is a way to try and misdirect the other participants from noticing that you are losing. It seems like it is intended to produce anger from the other party and to try and direct contempt to the other poster from other third party readers who are unaware of the entire discourse.


BTW: previously, it was suggested that I might just be trying to get him deleted, but that is not accurate of my intention. I'm sorry if that was what it seemed like I was trying to do. I was thinking more along the lines of an official post to him asking him to cool off a bit with his tone in his responses, somewhat less than a warning, but a request from someone other than me to cool off his demeaning tone. That was my intent.
He is like me when I first entered General. My argument was always "STFU. You don't know what you're talking about."
Only he doesn't use cuss words. But it is the same thing he is doing.

How was Jocabia losing?

How was Jocabia losing?

IMO, he began losing somewhere around here:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10661640&postcount=166
And the posts after that became more and more personally insulting instead of debate focused.

But I really don't see how that is relevant, it's the tone and insulting nature of the posts I'm talking about, not their side-tracked topic debate about terms in logic debating.

However, in the situation I reported, the lack of education of the poster being attacked is not established in any obvious manner to the outside observerOne assumes that the misuse of terms (and the unnecessary inclusion thereof) is, in and of itself, evidence that not only education was lacking, but substance as well. It's usually pretty easy to tell when someone is using words beyond the norm and are simply trying to inflate what they're saying: sounding impressive through the use of superfluous and sesquipedalian words, as it were.

In other words, if it looks forced and unnatural, or isn't in keeping with a person's posting history, it's probably a smoke screen.

Thus, IMO, the insults are without merit and were NOT indicative of the actual education level of the participants.And I disagree. As does Tac, who spends far more time in General than I ever have.

It seems like it is intended to produce anger from the other party and to try and direct contempt to the other poster from other third party readers who are unaware of the entire discourse.This does not, de facto, constitute flaming or flamebaiting. Indeed, it is one of Schopenhauer's 38 Ways to Win an Argument, and when used properly, is perfectly acceptable. The trick, of course, is using it properly.

IMO, he began losing somewhere around here:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10661640&postcount=166
And the posts after that became more and more personally insulting instead of debate focused.

But I really don't see how that is relevant, it's the tone and insulting nature of the posts I'm talking about, not their side-tracked topic debate about terms in logic debating.

You presented 6 of his posts (2 of which you merely quoted, you didn't link), and only two of them (the original complaint, which was overturned instantly, and the last one on your second post) that came after post 166. Considering that his "personal attacks" hadn't changed between pre-166 and post-166, I think that your claim about personal attacks to "misdirect the other participants from noticing" he was losing is a dubious claim.

Perhaps he was losing because he felt like putting less effort into a battle where it seemed like he was getting about as much effect as a screw driver being bashed into concrete.

...
This does not, de facto, constitute flaming or flamebaiting. Indeed, it is one of Schopenhauer's 38 Ways to Win an Argument, and when used properly, is perfectly acceptable. The trick, of course, is using it properly.

I bow to the reigning authorities.

I suspect a can of worms are opened by allowing such tactics though: once allowing Schopenhauer's 38 Ways to Win an Argument as valid tactics we open the forum to:

8: Make your opponent angry.
An angry person is less capable of using judgment or perceiving where his or her advantage lies.

14: Try to bluff your opponent.
If he or she has answered several of your question without the answers turning out in favor of your conclusion, advance your conclusion triumphantly, even if it does not follow.
If your opponent is shy or stupid, and you yourself possess a great deal of impudence and a good voice, the technique may succeed.

18: If your opponent has taken up a line of argument that will end in your defeat, you must not allow him to carry it to its conclusion.
Interrupt the dispute, break it off altogether, or lead the opponent to a different subject.

28: When the audience consists of individuals (or a person) who is not an expert on a subject, you make an invalid objection to your opponent who seems to be defeated in the eyes of the audience.
This strategy is particularly effective if your objection makes your opponent look ridiculous or if the audience laughs.
If your opponent must make a long, winded and complicated explanation to correct you, the audience will not be disposed to listen to him.

But you are right, Jocabia tries to specializes in 38:
Become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand.
In becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack on the person by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character.
This is a very popular technique, because it takes so little skill to put it into effect.

Actually, he seems to be using tactic 8.

And I never said they were particularly good tactics, just that they were tactics that could be used. Most are use logical fallacies and would be shredded by someone like me in a debate, but they seem to be pretty common in most General debates.

I bow to the reigning authorities.

I suspect a can of worms are opened by allowing such tactics though: once allowing Schopenhauer's 38 Ways to Win an Argument as valid tactics we open the forum to:

Open?

8: Make your opponent angry.
An angry person is less capable of using judgment or perceiving where his or her advantage lies.

Done that

14: Try to bluff your opponent.
If he or she has answered several of your question without the answers turning out in favor of your conclusion, advance your conclusion triumphantly, even if it does not follow.
If your opponent is shy or stupid, and you yourself possess a great deal of impudence and a good voice, the technique may succeed.

Not only did that, did that on a subject I knew absolutely nothing about. Quite humorous results and ended about a week and 30 posts later when someone else finally joined the debate.

18: If your opponent has taken up a line of argument that will end in your defeat, you must not allow him to carry it to its conclusion.
Interrupt the dispute, break it off altogether, or lead the opponent to a different subject.

Actually, I've done this somewhat to try and win at the original argument, even if I'm going to lose the side argument. "Ok, so you're right. However, you just contradicted your original argument so...."

28: When the audience consists of individuals (or a person) who is not an expert on a subject, you make an invalid objection to your opponent who seems to be defeated in the eyes of the audience.
This strategy is particularly effective if your objection makes your opponent look ridiculous or if the audience laughs.
If your opponent must make a long, winded and complicated explanation to correct you, the audience will not be disposed to listen to him.

That's hard to pull on the forums I patrol. General....maybe.

But you are right, Jocabia tries to specializes in 38:
Become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand.
In becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack on the person by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character.
This is a very popular technique, because it takes so little skill to put it into effect.

His skill in 38 is he actually can pull it off while maintaining civility - a fun trick indeed. He doesn't actually specialize in it as his work on the UN has been absolutely clean of such attacks.

DubyaGoat;
You would do well to pay heed to the fact that there IS a double standard here. Some poeple, like Jocabia, are 'in' based largely on their political opinions. They get one set of rules. Other people, like me, are 'out' and get a whole different set of rules. For example;

Being rude is not flaming.

Pointing out that someone is using terms improperly is not flaming.

Being rude while pointing out that someone is using terms improperly is not flaming.

This is no more flaming than saying something like "Way to miss the point, Ace." I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're just being a little oversensitive as opposed to engaging in a witch hunt and trying to get someone you don't like deleted.

However, I will point out that the Ignore function is considerably more effective if you don't click to read the other person's posts.

Which is the official moderation response regarding Jocabia. Now measure that against this moderator post regarding a similar issue with me;


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.

So you see - there is a double standard. The only thing which keeps me coming back is the pleasure I get from pointing it out every now and then and then watching them all circle the wagons...

Most often the mods just post a snide remark then perform a threadlock - though I had one who once used a puppet nation to flame me in the moderation forum. THAT was funny!

Oh, and Jocabia HAS been warned in the past about his scornful attitude - back when the mods were still pretending there is not a double standard.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9574918&postcount=9

Oddly - though the behavior has continued, the mods have experienced profound amnesia regarding both their rules and Jocabia's past.


.

Keep banging that drum, B0zzy.

Keep banging that drum, B0zzy.
Thanks for prooving my point. :)

Bozzy, in the post that got you your warning, you went and tossed TCT into third person and then insulted him while addressing the crowd at large. You didn't insult him once, you did it 5 times (more, depending on your definition) in the same post. You didn't just try to discredit his knowledge, you discredited his style. In addition, Euro's comment suggests further that the reasoning for you discrediting his information was simply because your beliefs and his beliefs didn't match rather than actual facts being wrong. It is one thing to say that a person's use of a word is incorrect - especially if it really is incorrect. It's another thing to say someone's argument is incorrect if the facts behind it are not.

You also got equal punishment to Jocabia in that thread and fought the unofficial warning which makes no sense IMO.

Now, what double standard?

Bozzy, in the post that got you your warning, you went and tossed TCT into third person and then insulted him while addressing the crowd at large. You didn't insult him once, you did it 5 times (more, depending on your definition) in the same post. You didn't just try to discredit his knowledge, you discredited his style. In addition, Euro's comment suggests further that the reasoning for you discrediting his information was simply because your beliefs and his beliefs didn't match rather than actual facts being wrong. It is one thing to say that a person's use of a word is incorrect - especially if it really is incorrect. It's another thing to say someone's argument is incorrect if the facts behind it are not.

You also got equal punishment to Jocabia in that thread and fought the unofficial warning which makes no sense IMO.

Now, what double standard?

Nice attempt to attempt to switch the topic - NOT! LOL.

The topic is - is it against the rules to be rude? The answer is clearly
' depending on who you are.'

The operating post being;

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 added the bold.

This stands in direct opposition to this thread - where rudeness is lightly dismissed. This in spite of the fact that it has been clearly stated that this is a recurring problem - and the fact that I provided evidence that it has been a problem for some time. The mods seem intent on not correcting this behavior. The only possible explaination - double standards.

Now- pull your wagon in tighter - that opening was too easy.

The mods seem intent on not correcting this behavior. The only possible explination - double standards.
More of a case of people wearing tin-foil hats not being taken seriously by the authorities, I would imagine.

Nice attempt to attempt to switch the topic - NOT! LOL.

Your the one that took the topic to "look how they treated me!" And looks like it was switched quite nicely by you.

The topic is - is it against the rules to be rude?

Fine

The answer is clearly
' depending on who you are.'

Or "Waaah. The mods gave me an unofficial warning so Jocabia should be banned for doing the same thing even though the mods have said it wasn't really the same thing"

The operating post being;

I added the bold.

Fine

This stands in direct opposition to this thread - where rudeness is lightly dismissed. This in spite of the fact that it has been clearly stated that this is a recurring problem - and the fact that I provided evidence that it has been a problem for some time. The mods seem intent on not correcting this behavior. The only possible explaination - double standards.

And you're being....?
And you're punishment has been....?

That's not a double standard, that's a standard of lenience

Now- pull your wagon in tighter - that opening was too easy.

No. You didn't attack my argument, you dismissed it outright and changed where your stance was. Let's see:

DubyaGoat;
You would do well to pay heed to the fact that there IS a double standard here. Some poeple, like Jocabia, are 'in' based largely on their political opinions. They get one set of rules. Other people, like me, are 'out' and get a whole different set of rules. For example;

You also got equal punishment to Jocabia in that thread

Nice attempt to attempt to switch the topic - NOT! LOL.

Nope - you're losing an argument so you switched the topic before I could beat you outright. Oh wait....I've heard that before.....

18: If your opponent has taken up a line of argument that will end in your defeat, you must not allow him to carry it to its conclusion.
Interrupt the dispute, break it off altogether, or lead the opponent to a different subject.

Talk about pulling your circle in tighter! Your last post reads like you can hardly breathe. Loosen up Bucky!

I think you are so intent on ignoring their bias that you completely miss the point that - when I was the subject warnings were issued and people were told to cease the behavior or there would be repercussions. When Jocabia is the subject the response is that no rules were broken.

Why is it that the offense is now dismissed as not against the rules even though an unofficial warning was issued for that same behavior before? Why is there no action taken even though the behavior which he was clearly warned for has continued?

So what is it - a warnable offense or acceptable behavior? Again - it seems to depend on who you are.

Belittling and baiting comments from the mods don't change the fact of this obvious inconsistency. These petty comments reveal far more about them than anything I have said.

Talk about pulling your circle in tighter! Your last post reads like you can hardly breathe. Loosen up Bucky!

I think you are so intent on ignoring their bias that you completely miss the point that - when I was the subject warnings were issued and people were told to cease the behavior or there would be repercussions. When Jocabia is the subject the response is that no rules were broken.

Why is it that the offense is now dismissed as not against the rules even though an unofficial warning was issued for that same behavior before? Why is there no action taken even though the behavior which he was clearly warned for has continued?

So what is it - a warnable offense or acceptable behavior? Again - it seems to depend on who you are.

Belittling and baiting comments from the mods don't change the fact of this obvious inconsistency. These petty comments reveal far more about them than anything I have said.

You have a telegram.

Talk about pulling your circle in tighter! Your last post reads like you can hardly breathe. Loosen up Bucky!

If you ask around, you'll find that I tend to act quite stiff. It's not a matter of having difficulty debating, that's just how I am.

I think you are so intent on ignoring their bias that you completely miss the point that - when I was the subject warnings were issued and people were told to cease the behavior or there would be repercussions. When Jocabia is the subject the response is that no rules were broken.

Why is it that the offense is now dismissed as not against the rules even though an unofficial warning was issued for that same behavior before? Why is there no action taken even though the behavior which he was clearly warned for has continued?

So what is it - a warnable offense or acceptable behavior? Again - it seems to depend on who you are.

No, it seems to depend on context. Again, when it happened before, Jocabia was given equal punishment to you. Let's see, last time it happened he had the same punishment as you. If last time he was given the same punishment as you, then obviously they aren't being more lenient on him. Sheesh.

Belittling and baiting comments from the mods don't change the fact of this obvious inconsistency.

Actually, you so far seem to be the only one that sees this "obvious inconsistency", so maybe the mods are merely playing the "obviously there's no point in debating with you" card.

These petty comments reveal far more about them than anything I have said.

Yep - this isn't the first time they've had to put up with claims of mod-bias from you, and they're sick of hearing it. It also tells me a lot about you.

Don't really use the forums, but I'd just like to point out that I have already complained about Jocabia once due to flame-baiting, (and was rudely rebuked by a moderator whose opinion was that if he was a native it was irrelevant whether or not Jocabia was flame-baiting ((although he wasn't actually a native))).

He also posted this in the region ‘Zion’, I suppose on about the 15th of March:


3 days ago The Essence of Jocabia I asked them not to. A little frustrating, huh? You put so much effort into taking and holding a region and nobody cares except y'all. Heehee.

Don't worry though, even if we don't justify your accolades you guys can keep patting each other the back till your arms get tired.

No one is coming to try and liberate the shell of Zion you are holding. The soul of Zion is alive and well and you guys can have the skin. Consider it a St. Patrick's Day present from me to you. Enjoy our cracked carapace.

Oh, wait, here come some defenders. Rise up and prepare for war, invader heros. Oh, sorry, that was tumbleweed.

Well, good luck with that and Happy St. Patty's Day. Everyone here who's not thirteen feel free to enjoy a beer on my behalf.


No doubt Jocabia will continue in this vein, so it's perhaps best to collect as much evidence as possible against him in the interim period.


As for moderator in-action, I personally feel that although it has never been great, it has deteriorated as of late, and there are growing concerns among gamers not just within the game, of the fact that Max Barry's little experiment has gone from being a fun, humorous game to one whereby a certain clique of users are using their power in corrupt ways.

Anyway, I have no interest in 'debating' with people at the present time; It was just my intention to agree with the thread, and as getting moderator help via the help page is as likely as waking up and discovering one has changed sex over night... to offer my support to the poster.

Oh brother:rolleyes:

Can we have a lock here?

Why is it that the offense is now dismissed as not against the rules even though an unofficial warning was issued for that same behavior before? Why is there no action taken even though the behavior which he was clearly warned for has continued?

So what is it - a warnable offense or acceptable behavior? Again - it seems to depend on who you are.
You seem to be clamouring for "equal treatment." However, if someone has no record of breaking forum rules, they aren't going to get warned for something that a person with a past is going to get in trouble for doing.

That's the way the world works: A third string tight end falls asleep in a meeting, he gets cut. A star quarterback falls asleep in a meeting, he just gets a whispered "Wake up!" from the coach. It may not be equal, but it's fair.

snip



OK... so what you are claiming to be upset about is the fact that some invaders came and took over Jocabia's region, and he did NOT get upset, but rather LAUGHED at you and said "Sure thing guys, whatever... be proud of yourselves for taking over a region that was totally undefended. Wahoo for you."

Basically you are proclaiming yourself to be a sore winner? How is this Jocabia's fault?

You seem to be clamouring for "equal treatment." However, if someone has no record of breaking forum rules, they aren't going to get warned for something that a person with a past is going to get in trouble for doing.

That's the way the world works: A third string tight end falls asleep in a meeting, he gets cut. A star quarterback falls asleep in a meeting, he just gets a whispered "Wake up!" from the coach. It may not be equal, but it's fair.
umm. actually in my view its not fair. Rules are supposed to be enforced equally. Jocabia is getting away with a lot.

Ramir - sarcasm does not equate to flaming.

umm. actually in my view its not fair. Rules are supposed to be enforced equally. Jocabia is getting away with a lot.

While there may be argument that Jocabia doesn't have a clean record himself, rules are enforced more harshly on someone who's got a record compared to someone wh doesn't for a reason. Punishment is handed out to try and get people to start behaving in an appropriate manner. If someone doesn't seem to be behaving any better from that level of punishment, more punishment of the same punishment may not do the trick, so you increase the punishment to address it. That's how someone could get deleted for flaming - they continually don't learn from their 2-day bans that their attitudes are not acceptable.

umm. actually in my view its not fair. Rules are supposed to be enforced equally. Jocabia is getting away with a lot.
Frankly, if someone has a history of breaking rules and someone else has a history of being a model citizen, treating the person who breaks rules frequently more harshly is an "unfairness" they brought on themselves.

Oh brother:rolleyes:

Can we have a lock here?
Seconded - the question really has already been answered.

1) No action will be taken on this occasion.

2) Those who have long-running personality conflicts are reminded of the wisdom of avoiding unnecessary confrontations.

3) The same rules and guidelines are applicable to all players. Severity of punishment may vary depending on individual history.

This is common sense. Imagine the consequences of a traffic offence. Imagine the consequences of a third or fourth, after you have bitched out the judge in the previous cases. :rolleyes: