NationStates Jolt Archive

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=503677

Trolling, flaming (against those NSers who may be on welfare, or those who know people that are), flamebaiting...need I continue?

I haven't flamed anybody. I have been completely civil and coutreous in my comments. While some may construe referring to those on welfare as "ticks" as flaming, it doesn't qualify. My analogy was correct insofar as ticks contribute nothing to their host organism and simply suck their blood, while those on welfare simply suck the money of society without giving any in return. Just because my views are not aligned with yours does not automatically make me a troll.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=503677

Trolling, flaming (against those NSers who may be on welfare, or those who know people that are), flamebaiting...need I continue?

What are you talking about? Strong views aren't 'trolling', no matter how much you disagree with them. Hell, if they were, General wouldn't last very long.

And I'd be careful yourself, if I were you:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11826429&postcount=3
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11826446&postcount=9

This could easily be seen as 'using Mods as a weapon'. And this:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11826460&postcount=11

is flaming.

(Not a Mod)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=503677

Trolling, flaming (against those NSers who may be on welfare, or those who know people that are), flamebaiting...need I continue?

Well, I'll help with a few quotes that are pretty harsh -
"If not, we'll have to transport them to countries with more lax immigration measures, such as Madagascar. Once there, they cannot plague society any more. "

Apparently, people in Madagascar have no society, I suppose.

"easily manipulated members of society and bleed them try."

And clearly, if you defend people on welfare, you're 'easily manipulated'.

"in an effort to dissuade the indolent and stupid from leeching off society."

Yet another suggestion that all people on welfare are stupid.

They are also "the scum of the earth whose dearest ambition is to destroy society from within and be as useless as a lump of clay."

"They suck their money and use it to fund a care-free life of drugs, alcohol, and hedonism "

All people on welfare are drug-addicts, alcohol-abusers and hedonistic apparently.

I haven't flamed anybody. I have been completely civil and coutreous in my comments. While some may construe referring to those on welfare as "ticks" as flaming, it doesn't qualify. My analogy was correct insofar as ticks contribute nothing to their host organism and simply suck their blood, while those on welfare simply suck the money of society without giving any in return. Just because my views are not aligned with yours does not automatically make me a troll.

You've been completely civil? Seriously? Are you suggesting you've never referred to people who advocate welfare as 'easily manipulated' and that you haven't repeatedly called people 'imbecillic' and synonyms?

It's not about your views being contrary to those of others, but the fact that you incorporate into your views that all of group X deserve to die or are stupid or are easily manipulated or are uneducated or some other caustic claim that is designed to rile people up.

-snip-
If the Mods decide to act for that, it's worrying to think where they'll end.

I don't like the guys views, but no one in that thread is even trying to engage him. Whatever happened to showing someone they are an idiot through debate and logic?

All that thread is at the moment is:
"I have a strong view."
"You're a troll!"
"I'm telling on you!"
"Troll troll troll!"
"Stop talking, you're a troll!"

It's more than a little bit pathetic.

If the Mods decide to act for that, it's worrying to think where they'll end.

I don't like the guys views, but no one in that thread is even trying to engage him. Whatever happened to showing someone they are an idiot through debate and logic?

All that thread is at the moment is:
"I have a strong view."
"You're a troll!"
"I'm telling on you!"
"Troll troll troll!"
"Stop talking, you're a troll!"

It's more than a little bit pathetic.

That part I agree with. People should debate with him and some have.

However, the guy exists in the real world. You can't tell me that comparing Rosa Parks to Pedophiles is not designed to piss people off. Or the generous stereotyping/insulting he regularly does in his OP's. While I agree he should be debated and I and others have done so in other threads, if you look at his style, he starts a thread and abandons it within a couple of pages to move on to the next extreme position. Could he believe all these things? Of course. I suspect he does. Should he be able to discuss them? Yes. Could he do so without making gross generalities about everyone he doesn't like or who doesn't agree with him? I would hope so, but as of yet there is no evidence that he is attempting to do that.

That part I agree with. People should debate with him and some have.

However, the guy exists in the real world. You can't tell me that comparing Rosa Parks to Pedophiles is not designed to piss people off. Or the generous stereotyping/insulting he regularly does in his OP's. While I agree he should be debated and I and others have done so in other threads, if you look at his style, he starts a thread and abandons it within a couple of pages to move on to the next extreme position. Could he believe all these things? Of course. I suspect he does. Should he be able to discuss them? Yes. Could he do so without making gross generalities about everyone he doesn't like or who doesn't agree with him? I would hope so, but as of yet there is no evidence that he is attempting to do that.

Like I say, I have little time for his views. Very little time. But gross generalisations are not generally actionable offences by themselves - hell, if they were, I could be in here everytime someone makes an offensive comment about Christianity, my 'imaginary friend' or how religion is responsible for all the death ever caused in the world.

How that specific thread has turned out, and the fact that it has been reported here, is really quite embarrassing to General. It's meant to be a debate and discussion forum, and yet the moment someone throws up a controversial point for discussion he gets shouted down in a really quite childish way. If people carry on like this, to the point where he cannot post because of the attitudes of others, it'll more likely be them having action taken against them for griefing.

If he's doing other things wrong, then report them (and I can see people already are). But that doesn't mean that everytime he posts the Mods need to be alerted to the fact. Even released prisoners are innocent until proven otherwise.

That part I agree with. People should debate with him and some have.

However, the guy exists in the real world. You can't tell me that comparing Rosa Parks to Pedophiles is not designed to piss people off. Or the generous stereotyping/insulting he regularly does in his OP's. While I agree he should be debated and I and others have done so in other threads, if you look at his style, he starts a thread and abandons it within a couple of pages to move on to the next extreme position. Could he believe all these things? Of course. I suspect he does. Should he be able to discuss them? Yes. Could he do so without making gross generalities about everyone he doesn't like or who doesn't agree with him? I would hope so, but as of yet there is no evidence that he is attempting to do that.

Frankly, I think the best way to defang him is to refuse to take him seriously, and make it known loudly in the thread that that's what you're doing. He's probably treading close to the line of trolling, but that's really a subjective judgment. His thread yesterday on Foley was practically performance art, and I wish it hadn't been closed.

Like I say, I have little time for his views. Very little time. But gross generalisations are not generally actionable offences by themselves - hell, if they were, I could be in here everytime someone makes an offensive comment about Christianity, my 'imaginary friend' or how religion is responsible for all the death ever caused in the world.

How that specific thread has turned out, and the fact that it has been reported here, is really quite embarrassing to General. It's meant to be a debate and discussion forum, and yet the moment someone throws up a controversial point for discussion he gets shouted down in a really quite childish way. If people carry on like this, to the point where he cannot post because of the attitudes of others, it'll more likely be them having action taken against them for griefing.

If he's doing other things wrong, then report them (and I can see people already are). But that doesn't mean that everytime he posts the Mods need to be alerted to the fact. Even released prisoners are innocent until proven otherwise.

Obviously the mods will decide but past decisions have shown that calling huge groups of people 'indolent and stupid', suggesting that they are all addicted to drugs, alcohol and are hedonists, is generally frowned upon as trolling, as is calling everyone who disagrees with you 'easily manipulated'. He dismisses his opposition in the OP as not aware of their own choices. That's not an argument. That's trolling. You're right that some of the complaints people have made about him are over-the-top, but this thread is a pretty classic example of trolling, IMHO.

Meanwhile there appears to be a bit of puppet-wanking as well -

We must implement more stringent programmes in an effort to dissuade the indolent and stupid from leeching off society. Welfare reform is in order.

The current birthrate favors the stupid and indolent.

I could be wrong, but it sounds like the same person when one reads the original posts. Is he posting with a puppet to make it look his argument has support?

The mods can decide but past decisions have shown that calling huge groups of people 'indolent and stupid', suggesting that they are all addicted to drugs, alcohol and are hedonists, is generally frowned upon as trolling, as is calling everyone who disagrees with you 'easily manipulated'. He dismisses his opposition in the OP as not aware of their own choices. That's not an argument. That's trolling. You're right that some of the complaints people have made about him are over-the-top, but this thread is a pretty classic example of trolling, IMHO.

Well, I do take on board what you're saying, and it's thin ice he's on, for sure. I still don't believe it needed reporting, though; an argument was put forward, however crudely, and people should have at least tried to enter into a discussion about it.

EDIT: I mean, seriously, look at this:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11826854&postcount=34
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11826678&postcount=6
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11826636&postcount=26
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11823280#post11823280

Is this really necessary everytime the guy posts?

Would you guys mind quieting it down in here until a mod shows up to make a decision? This is not an extension of the General Forum, and none of you have the official capacity to rule on the thread in question, so it may be the best idea to wait until a mod arrives to deal with it.

Would you guys mind quieting it down in here until a mod shows up to make a decision? This is not an extension of the General Forum, and none of you have the official capacity to rule on the thread in question, so it may be the best idea to wait until a mod arrives to deal with it.

I'm happy to shut up if the Mods want me to, but I was under the impression that constructive analysis by non-Mods has always been acceptable.

Oh, and *throws tomatoes at Czardas and whacks him with a heavy board* ;)

I'm happy to shut up if the Mods want me to, but I was under the impression that constructive analysis by non-Mods has always been acceptable.

I didn't see a lot of constructive analysis. Mostly what I see is a bunch of stuff we have to wade through before we can even begin to address the reported problem. In short, you're not helping. None of you. Take a break until somebody has a chance to moderate this thread.

Frankly, I think the best way to defang him is to refuse to take him seriously, and make it known loudly in the thread that that's what you're doing. He's probably treading close to the line of trolling, but that's really a subjective judgment. His thread yesterday on Foley was practically performance art, and I wish it hadn't been closed.

Which is what I usualy try to do to posters like him, when I'm not flying off the handle like I did earlyer today (for which I apologise again as I did in the thread). Doing this gives me pleasure which is why I get a little upset when people try to ban my favorite playmates or close threads I'm enjoying.

This could easily be seen as 'using Mods as a weapon'. And this:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11826460&postcount=11

is flaming.

(Not a Mod)

This is one of the objections I have to the current system (yeah yeah I'm going way off topic, but I have a point here) what one person considers flaming is considered by another voicing your opinion strongly or even as an attempt at humor. Hell my formitive posting years were spent on unmoderated usenet where you needed at least three explitives and a reference to someones momma to be considered to be flaming . . .

Hell my formitive posting years were spent on unmoderated usenet where you needed at least three explitives and a reference to someones momma to be considered to be flaming . . .

This isn't an unmoderated usenet.

As to "who decides", mods do. As I've mentioned in at least one other thread, save your rants against the system for somewhere else. Regardless of your opinion, these players are using the Moderation forum as it was intended. If you want changes, start a discussion topic in Technical.

Sorry to bump this, but no one actually answered whether it was trolling or not. Seeing as MTAE is continuing to create threads in a similar style, it would be helpful to have a ruling.

Yes, please.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=503920
Bring Back Slavery
"controlling the population of the idiots."
"This measure would improve the quality of life for many idiots."

By 'idiots' he's referring to the poor.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11818013&postcount=16

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=503677
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=503522
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11826669&postcount=5
Amusingly, the OP article doesn't even mention Muslims.

His threads and comments appear to aim for broad sweeping comments intentionally worded in the most offensive ways possible and intentionally pushing people to a heated reaction. Suggestions of nuking an entire country, giving women a choice of starving to death or getting impregnated by the state, which is an actual form of rape, giving women the choice of prison or getting impregnated by the state, calling all poor people stupid or idiots or some similar term, suggesting they should be denied benefits because the world would be better off without them, even at one point suggesting that wiping them out completely wouldn't be a bad outcome, suggesting the poor should be enslaved because they'd be easier to control.

I'm all for free speech even free offensive speech, but when a person is so clearly out to rile people up it's hard to believe it's not trolling.

Seeing as MTAE is continuing to create threads in a similar style, it would be helpful to have a ruling.

I looked over the player's posting history when these first started getting reported. His style on the forums has gotten steadily more aggressive, but his position appears to be largely consistent. The fact that his positions do not match the majority of the forum posters does not make him a troll.

MTAE posts frequent threads on hot-button issues and takes a strongly conservative viewpoint. He then sticks around to defend it. That, to me, isn't trolling. It definately has the potential to roll over into trolling, but he's adjusted his posting style based on mod feedback and appears to be creating less flamebaitish material.

We're aware of your concerns, but haven't seen anything specifically actionable at this point. (Except the one thread with a pedophilia theme, which was closed.)

I disagree, he is an obvious troll.

How can you go from defending the freedoms of pedophiles to have sex with children (a very left wing comment) to introducing slavery (very right wing).

How can you go from defending the freedoms of pedophiles to have sex with children (a very left wing comment) to introducing slavery (very right wing).An extreme libertarian view would cover both of these positions.

Remember, just because you disagree with his views doesn't make him a troll.

Remember, just because you disagree with his views doesn't make him a troll.

There has been a worrying trend of unsubstantiated trolling accusations in general, seems like this recent increase in the number of trolls has created some paranoia, and a quick back door out of a debate....

An extreme libertarian view would cover both of these positions.

Remember, just because you disagree with his views doesn't make him a troll.

His statements are not "Radical Libertarian". They are on all sides. He says that the government should FORCE women to have kids. I doubt that's a "Radical Libertarian".


He's not a "Radical Libertarian" he's just a jerk.

Speaking of that why did you lock that conspiracy thread about him?
Especially since it sounds like it could be true in which you are just helping him.

He's not a "Radical Libertarian" he's just a jerk.That's enough of that.

Speaking of that why did you lock that conspiracy thread about him?Gee... I can't imagine why...