NationStates Jolt Archive

Question about this thread. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=491492)

how is this trolling and flamebaiting when it's obvious (well to me anyway...)
1) he's happy to be back
2) he's posting a description of what others say of him... (note alot can be taken in many ways, so it's more of a humor thing... again, to me)
3) it's more spamlike than troll/flame like...

the posters there didn't take offense (yet) and seemed to be welcoming him back.

just confused by this ruling. that's all.

EDIT: Oh, and I am asking on my own, not for anyone else. Just wanted to make that clear.

He accused a section of the political spectrum of being liars, and declared himself to be the antidote. Not particularly amusing, and it indicates his attitude is not yet sufficiently improved to post here. Had he truly been ready to rejoin us, he would not have posted that thread at all.

I am doing him a favour, to be honest. You watch, he will be back on Friday night a whole new person - calm, measured and full of reflection.

He accused a section of the political spectrum of being liars, and declared himself to be the antidote. Not particularly amusing, and it indicates his attitude is not yet sufficiently improved to post here. Had he truly been ready to rejoin us, he would not have posted that thread at all.

I am doing him a favour, to be honest. You watch, he will be back on Friday night a whole new person - calm, measured and full of reflection.
...uh...this is Corneliu we're talking about, here. There's no way that'll happen. He won't change a bit. You'll see.

He accused a section of the political spectrum of being liars, and declared himself to be the antidote. Not particularly amusing, and it indicates his attitude is not yet sufficiently improved to post here. Had he truly been ready to rejoin us, he would not have posted that thread at all.

I am doing him a favour, to be honest. You watch, he will be back on Friday night a whole new person - calm, measured and full of reflection.

Given it was in right upon return, I understand why you would respond, but, coming from someone who often takes things a bit too seriously on this board, it did seem like he was actually trying to be playful and self-deprecating. I could be wrong, but (if one ignores the spam) such behavior actually kind of indicates that he has reflected on his position and intends to accept that perhaps he was over-the-top.

Just food for thought, TG.

Given it was in right upon return, I understand why you would respond, but, coming from someone who often takes things a bit too seriously on this board, it did seem like he was actually trying to be playful and self-deprecating. I could be wrong, but (if one ignores the spam) such behavior actually kind of indicates that he has reflected on his position and intends to accept that perhaps he was over-the-top.

Just food for thought, TG.
There was a thread a few days ago about whether trolling was acceptable if it 'was just a joke'. It was decided it wasn't. I assume it's the same logic here.

He accused a section of the political spectrum of being liars, and declared himself to be the antidote. Not particularly amusing, and it indicates his attitude is not yet sufficiently improved to post here. Had he truly been ready to rejoin us, he would not have posted that thread at all.

I am doing him a favour, to be honest. You watch, he will be back on Friday night a whole new person - calm, measured and full of reflection.
except most people who posted didn't seem to take offense... (yeah, I know, why wait.)

(say, would you object to me putting up a poll to see if people objected to what he.. nah, nevermind.)

and also you have alot of posters who also lump bunch political parties/ideologies into liars, cheats, swinders and nonesuch... however, he did this with (again to me) an air of humor and I got the idea he purposly stood up on stage for people to throw the fruit he provided at him.

I guess I just feel that the short ban was a little too harsh for someone who seemed so happy to be back.

He accused a section of the political spectrum of being liars, and declared himself to be the antidote. Not particularly amusing, and it indicates his attitude is not yet sufficiently improved to post here. Had he truly been ready to rejoin us, he would not have posted that thread at all.

I am doing him a favour, to be honest. You watch, he will be back on Friday night a whole new person - calm, measured and full of reflection.

I wouldn't care if he'd called them aliens out to kill planet earth! That's no reason to ban him. If you're going to ban people, I have a few pedophiles that I'd like to see go... permanently

He accused a section of the political spectrum of being liars, and declared himself to be the antidote. Not particularly amusing, and it indicates his attitude is not yet sufficiently improved to post here. Had he truly been ready to rejoin us, he would not have posted that thread at all.

I am doing him a favour, to be honest. You watch, he will be back on Friday night a whole new person - calm, measured and full of reflection.

This is quite funny. I mean, when I read this response I wonder why responses like these aren't held to the same accountability:


Originally Posted by Heikoku
No, you won't. Unless he agrees with you.

And I'll repeat it, for shock value: If a person tries to force their religious views upon, say, their mother, then, they're raping their mother. I'll say it again, this time louder, and for anyone for whom the shoe fits:

TRYING TO FORCE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS DOWN PEOPLE'S THROATS IS RAPE. IF YOU DO THAT, AND I DON'T CARE WHO YOU ARE, YOU ARE A RAPIST. WHOEVER DOES THAT IS. NO EXCEPTIONS.

If the shoe doesn't fit, you're not a rapist (in this area).

Or this:

Grave_n_idle
Honorary Spam Forum Owner


Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 14,532 Quote:
Originally Posted by Maimed
Ah, turn the accusation to me as I have brought it on myself. When did I ever say that I support exterminating people??? Where??? Because that is heinous to even suggest what you are doing.


I didn't say you had... I emrely pointed out that you opened that particular avenue, by claiming that it is ESSENTIAL for a child to be raised in a two-oppositely-gendered/sexed-parent-family. Which is transparently untrue... and which you haven't even pretended to make a decent defence for being able to 'prove'.

Your argument lacks evidentiary support - as it must, because it is bigotry.[/quote}

Or this:

[quote]Heikoku
Forum Boredom


Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,763 Quote:
Originally Posted by Maimed
If you want to critique a Christian become one, otherwise you really don't know what you're talking about.


If you want to criticize Al Qaeda, become a part of it.

On a second thought, you have shown many things in common with them...

Or this:

Skinny87
Sp@mQueen advisor


Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 4,821 Quote:
Originally Posted by Maimed
Ah, I should have expected that you would defend that type of garbage. Speaks volumes for the crowd here.


It was an apt point. Defense Of Marriage was an act of legal 'Rape', as it would have forced bigoted laws on an entire nation, and breached the seperation of Church and State that the US was founded on.

All these fulfill your requirement about accusing a group of something. These posts are way beyond what one guy says about lefties being liars.

There was a thread a few days ago about whether trolling was acceptable if it 'was just a joke'. It was decided it wasn't. I assume it's the same logic here.
That's basically it. :)

I accept he may have aimed for self-depreciating humour. However, in forgetting that this is achievable without repeating the mantras that makes said individual objectionable, he miscalculated. Why reward someone for a supposed step in the right direction, when it is still not good enough?

Perhaps he will reflect that an ideologue can make light of himself without once again branding an opposing side liars and underlining his own superiority.

All these fulfill your requirement about accusing a group of something. These posts are way beyond what one guy says about lefties being liars.
And since I have not seen the actual posts myself, and they have not been promptly reported in their own thread here with links, I am not in a position to do anything. This particular offence, I have not seen committed. Nor has it been properly reported. Nor do I know how timely this information is. Thus I am currently not in a position to do anything about it. It is not as if there is bias, it is simply that I do not notice everything that happens.

I am doing him a favour, to be honest. You watch, he will be back on Friday night a whole new person - calm, measured and full of reflection.
No he wont

favour
Oh those Brits and their spelling

And since I have not seen the actual posts myself, and they have not been promptly reported in their own thread here with links, I am not in a position to do anything. This particular offence, I have not seen committed. Nor has it been properly reported. Nor do I know how timely this information is. Thus I am currently not in a position to do anything about it. It is not as if there is bias, it is simply that I do not notice everything that happens.
so are you saying that if things like that is posted, reguardless of intent, and reported to the mods, it will be acted upon and not get the response "Grow a skin"?

Oh those Brits and their spelling

Yes, our correct spelling.

so are you saying that if things like that is posted, reguardless of intent, and reported to the mods, it will be acted upon and not get the response "Grow a skin"?
Well, to be fair, all except possibly the top one do warrant the response 'grow a skin'.

Well, to be fair, all except possibly the top one do warrant the response 'grow a skin'.
Indeed. The top one is the only one that is actionable.

Indeed. The top one is the only one that is actionable.
That's right folks, I am back to bring the intelligence level of this fair board back up to normal.

I am back to take down liberals who decide to lie about the facts and to insert the truth back into the board.assuming the bolded one, and not the intelligence level one. :D

I took that as a humorous exaggeration (him taking down liberals? insert the truth?) and generalization about liberals (the same type of generalization that people make about Conservatives, religous people and Neo-cons). and looking at the replies, I think most others took it the same way.

I can see a Warning (official and otherwise) but a ban does seem rather harsh.

I can see a Warning (official and otherwise) but a ban does seem rather harsh.
A two-day forum ban is far, far softer than an official warning.

You also have to bear in mind that the history of a specific player is taken into account in judgement calls such as this. In this case, the identity of the individual and their history, has a direct bearing on the situation.

And since I have not seen the actual posts myself, and they have not been promptly reported in their own thread here with links, I am not in a position to do anything. This particular offence, I have not seen committed. Nor has it been properly reported. Nor do I know how timely this information is. Thus I am currently not in a position to do anything about it. It is not as if there is bias, it is simply that I do not notice everything that happens.

No, no, no. I will say, yes, I wrote something against people that force religion down other people's throats. Why? Because I assumed more people would identify themselves as liberals than those that would identify themselves as people that would shove religion down other people's throats. And because, yes, forcing religion on people is an act of control, is an act of violation and is an act of showing power. It has all the similarities to rape. Quite simple. Otherwise, we can't say anything against the Taliban either, because they are "a group". And, in that context, Maimed HAD shown religious zealotry that is similar to Al Qaeda's, yes. I never said he WAS from Al Qaeda, I said he had shown similarities to it. Why? Because of the kind of things he posted about religion. If that's flaming, then I have many examples of flaming by several people here, even because the mere pointing out of logical fallacies could be construed as an insult to intelligence.

However, if Maimed takes offense in my claiming people that shove religion down other people's throats are rapists, by all means, do ban me, because it'll be such a pleasure to find out how well the shoe fits for him that I won't care about being banned.

I didn't know Corneliu had gotten banned. I don't know why, though I can imagine. And only now I found out he got banned again. But I can tell you this: Many, MANY more people take pride in being liberal than the number of people that take pride in calling themselves neocons (Not "conservatives", mind you), or in admitting to themselves that they force religion down other people's throats. That's why Corneliu got banned, and that's why, assuming normality, I shouldn't be. But - again - Maimed, if you decide to think I called YOU a rapist for saying people that force religion down other people's throats are rapists, then by all means say so. Because, by claiming offense, you'll be admitting you shove religion down people's throats, or would like to.

No, no, no. I will say, yes, I wrote something against people that force religion down other people's throats. Why? Because I assumed more people would identify themselves as liberals than those that would identify themselves as people that would shove religion down other people's throats. And because, yes, forcing religion on people is an act of control, is an act of violation and is an act of showing power. It has all the similarities to rape. Quite simple. Otherwise, we can't say anything against the Taliban either, because they are "a group". And, in that context, Maimed HAD shown religious zealotry that is similar to Al Qaeda's, yes. I never said he WAS from Al Qaeda, I said he had shown similarities to it. Why? Because of the kind of things he posted about religion. If that's flaming, then I have many examples of flaming by several people here, even because the mere pointing out of logical fallacies could be construed as an insult to intelligence.

However, if Maimed takes offense in my claiming people that shove religion down other people's throats are rapists, by all means, do ban me, because it'll be such a pleasure to find out how well the shoe fits for him that I won't care about being banned.

I didn't know Corneliu had gotten banned. I don't know why, though I can imagine. And only now I found out he got banned again. But I can tell you this: Many, MANY more people take pride in being liberal than the number of people that take pride in calling themselves neocons (Not "conservatives", mind you), or in admitting to themselves that they force religion down other people's throats. That's why Corneliu got banned, and that's why, assuming normality, I shouldn't be. But - again - Maimed, if you decide to think I called YOU a rapist for saying people that force religion down other people's throats are rapists, then by all means say so. Because, by claiming offense, you'll be admitting you shove religion down people's throats, or would like to.

Um, you do realize that whether or not your post is actionable is not decided by the poster it was aimed at, but instead by mods, yes? I don't think you do.

You also realize that it's not a matter up for vote or about hoe popular you are or are not, yes? I don't think you do.

I really think posters should explore the moderation forum a bit before they post in it. Look up only threads. Examine old decisions. And PARTICULARLY, read the rules. It seems like people come in here unware the rules even exist and then proceed to say what is or is not against the rules or is an offense. You're not even the first one today.

The OSRS is a great place to start to find out whether your tirade has anything to do with what actual does or will go on. Look, particularly, at the parts about trolling and flamebaiting.

Um, you do realize that whether or not your post is actionable is not decided by the poster it was aimed at, but instead by mods, yes? I don't think you do.

You also realize that it's not a matter up for vote or about hoe popular you are or are not, yes? I don't think you do.

I really think posters should explore the moderation forum a bit before they post in it. Look up only threads. Examine old decisions. And PARTICULARLY, read the rules. It seems like people come in here unware the rules even exist and then proceed to say what is or is not against the rules or is an offense. You're not even the first one today.

The OSRS is a great place to start to find out whether your tirade has anything to do with what actual does or will go on. Look, particularly, at the parts about trolling and flamebaiting.

Oh, I was saying that to the mods as well ad to Maimed. I was defending myself from what he said.

*Sighs.*

This is not the place to discuss the politics behind alleged flamebaiting and counter-baiting. The original query has now been explained at length. This discussion is off topic. Action on other matters will be taken at such a time as evidence is presented with links. I am not going to grab some keywords and whip myself with the Jolt search function.