NationStates Jolt Archive

As mild as this is, given this was his entire post, I think it's actionable.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12655615&postcount=266

EDIT: Looking at my own post, I guess I can see how I could have put out that fire before it happened, but I wasn't baiting him.

While your comment was aggressively blunt, Penguin's was definitely uncalled for.

Just for the record, mods, as I don't want to be part of the mass-ban that I'm foreseeing in this thread, I didn't flame anyone, I did not flamebait anyone and, as far as I'm concerned, I broke no rules. I just happened to be in the place, I wasn't involved in anything.

*bump* As I said, mild. If it falls off the page again, I'll assume that "too mild to be actionable" is the mod ruling and drop it.

Hmmm I am not a moderator or anything but I do not see anything too awful about this. It certainly is not nice though. Like Jacobia said, it is fairly mild. Being called a dumbass is not the worst thing that someone can be called. It sort of brings to mind the character "Red" from the 70's show always calling his son a dumbass.

Hmmm I am not a moderator or anything but I do not see anything too awful about this. It certainly is not nice though. Like Jacobia said, it is fairly mild. Being called a dumbass is not the worst thing that someone can be called. It sort of brings to mind the character "Red" from the 70's show always calling his son a dumbass.

I pretty sure that Red would be guilty of flaming most of the time given his behavior on the show. I don't think we want to use him as our level of acceptable personal attacks.

It's not the word he used or that my feelings are hurt. Who cares about that? This post doesn't attempt to debate. It rests at flaming me, however mildly, as the entirety of the argument.

I'm not going to act on the flame. We're not at that level of sanitization quite yet.

I did notice that Prodigal Penguins no longer has a living nation (though his forum account still worked, thanks to Jolt's screwups). That disparity has been corrected, and he won't be posting until his nation is restored.

C'est la vie.

Fair enough. I admit it was weak, and the reason I thought it wasn't right. I'm not sure if that's a consideration or not, but thanks for looking at it.

I would just like to point out that Jocabia has been perpetually insulting and baiting for as long as I can remember.

Saying "Wow, you really are a dumbass" maybe less eloquent, but it is not significantly different than Jocabia's own arguing style.

I would just like to point out that Jocabia has been perpetually insulting and baiting for as long as I can remember.Well, whatever you do, don't provide any links or evidence or anything.

I would just like to point out that Jocabia has been perpetually insulting and baiting for as long as I can remember.

Saying "Wow, you really are a dumbass" maybe less eloquent, but it is not significantly different than Jocabia's own arguing style.

I'm no mod, obviously... but have you really just cropped up in a moderation thread to attack a poster seeking moderation? I don't see comment on the reported 'flaming'... or response to any of the posts, or the moderation... so it looks like this is pure griefing...?

Well, whatever you do, don't provide any links or evidence or anything.

It may not be against the rules, but in the post the flamer was responding to, Jocabia started out with "Ha. You're amusing" and advised the poster as to how to stop embarrassing himself. Earlier in the thread he said "maybe we're laughing at you because your statements are laughable".

These are ridiculously common Jocabia's arguments and serve no purpose other than to belittle the person he is arguing against (even if, when pressed about his obnoxious arguing style, he consistently falls back on "I was attacking the argument, not the person" defense).

Like I said, they aren't against the rules, but I could not help but call it "trash-talking" if it were so condescending. Statements like "Ha, you're amusing" and "we're laughing at you" do not belong in rational discourse because they bring nothing to the conversation outside of the usual flame, and apparently a Jocabia moderation report.

EDIT: Another fine example (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12642220&postcount=361://).

"Aren't you a teacher? You really don't know what a blanket statement is? Come on, man. I expect better from you. This is just sad."

Especially considering that he obviously knew what a blanket statement was, what was the purpose of this statement other than to bully and bait?

And no, I am not just searching through his posts and pulling out any that I can, this was sent to me by another poster who noticed what I am saying a while ago.

I'm no mod, obviously... but have you really just cropped up in a moderation thread to attack a poster seeking moderation? I don't see comment on the reported 'flaming'... or response to any of the posts, or the moderation... so it looks like this is pure griefing...?

I'm not really sure what griefing is, but from the sound of it, this probably is mostly griefing.

It may not be against the rules, but in the post the flamer was responding to, Jocabia started out with "Ha. You're amusing" and advised the poster as to how to stop embarrassing himself. Earlier in the thread he said "maybe we're laughing at you because your statements are laughable".

These are ridiculously common Jocabia's arguments and serve no purpose other than to belittle the person he is arguing against (even if, when pressed about his obnoxious arguing style, he consistently falls back on "I was attacking the argument, not the person" defense).

Like I said, they aren't against the rules, but I could not help but call it "trash-talking" if it were so condescending. Statements like "Ha, you're amusing" and "we're laughing at you" do not belong in rational discourse because they bring nothing to the conversation outside of the usual flame, and apparently a Jocabia moderation report.

EDIT: Another fine example (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12642220&postcount=361://).

"Aren't you a teacher? You really don't know what a blanket statement is? Come on, man. I expect better from you. This is just sad."

Especially considering that he obviously knew what a blanket statement was, what was the purpose of this statement other than to bully and bait?

And no, I am not just searching through his posts and pulling out any that I can, this was sent to me by another poster who noticed what I am saying a while ago.

This your example? Me telling him I expect a better argument from (since he and I talk a lot and he often makes excellent arguments) and another time saying an argument is laughable? Seriously. Wow. Just wow.

I absolutely and agressively attacked his argument. Unless his argument is him, I don't see how that's valid.

The question about being a teacher was because I really did think he was a teacher in an area that was pertinent to what we were discussing. It turns out I was wrong, but I don't see how asking is a flame.

If arguments that aggressively attack *gasp* the arguments of others become illegal here I can think of a few mods that wouldn't have made a couple of days. Long time, respected mods, in fact.

This your example? Me telling him I expect a better argument and another time saying an argument is laughable? Seriously. Wow. Just wow.

I absolutely and agressively attacked his argument. Unless his argument is him, I don't see how that's valid.

One doesn't attack an argument by saying that a teacher shouldn't make such an argument, or by describing the argument as sad or laughable. You attack an argument with a counterargument.

The question about being a teacher was because I really did think he was a teacher in an area that was pertinent to what we were discussing. It turns out I was wrong, but I don't see how asking is a flame.

I never said it was a flame, I never even said it was against the rules.

But I cannot imagine any teacher who would not get offended if I plainly said "A real teacher wouldn't hold this sad opinion, so you must not be a teacher".

Your style of argument is extremely insulting, and the flame that got reported should be taken with a grain of salt, considering.

Since the moderation has already acted on the original complaint, and I don't actually think you are guilty of any act that warrants moderation, I will end my argument.

One doesn't attack an argument by saying that a teacher shouldn't make such an argument, or by describing the argument as sad or laughable. You attack an argument with a counterargument.

This is nothing illegal about saying things about an argument even if they aren't a couterpoint. You want my style to be illegal because you don't like it. It attacks the argument. Whether or not it offers evidence doesn't make it illegal.




I never said it was a flame, I never even said it was against the rules.

Then you are griefing. If it's not against the rules then why are you here other than to complain that you don't like Jocabia?


But I cannot imagine any teacher who would not get offended if I plainly said "A real teacher wouldn't hold this sad opinion, so you must not be a teacher".

That's not what I said. We were discussing what a blanket statement is. I was under the impression that he was in an area of teaching that focused on language and writing, which would make a blanket statement something he would know. I was saying he should change his opinion. I thought he was being obtuse.



Your style of argument is extremely insulting, and the flame that got reported should be taken with a grain of salt, considering.

My style can never excuse the actions of someone else. If I'm guilty of breaking the rules than I am. You've not claimed I am. However, what I do will never change whether or not someone else is guilty of breaking the rules.


Since the moderation has already acted on the original complaint, and I don't actually think you are guilty of any act that warrants moderation, I will end my argument.

It's not an argument. It's a personal attack that you followed me into a thread to make. If that's not griefing, then I don't know what is.

Mods, I ask that you review past moderation threads as well, as this isn't the first time he's jumped into moderation to point out what a dislikable individual I am.

It may not be against the rules, but in the post the flamer was responding to, Jocabia started out with "Ha. You're amusing" and advised the poster as to how to stop embarrassing himself. Earlier in the thread he said "maybe we're laughing at you because your statements are laughable".No links, and thus ignored.

Another fine example (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12642220&postcount=361://).

"Aren't you a teacher? You really don't know what a blanket statement is? Come on, man. I expect better from you. This is just sad."

Especially considering that he obviously knew what a blanket statement was, what was the purpose of this statement other than to bully and bait?There's a difference between being rude and flaming. That link was fine.

It may not be against the rules, but in the post the flamer was responding to, Jocabia started out with "Ha. You're amusing" and advised the poster as to how to stop embarrassing himself. Earlier in the thread he said "maybe we're laughing at you because your statements are laughable".

These are ridiculously common Jocabia's arguments and serve no purpose other than to belittle the person he is arguing against (even if, when pressed about his obnoxious arguing style, he consistently falls back on "I was attacking the argument, not the person" defense).

Like I said, they aren't against the rules, but I could not help but call it "trash-talking" if it were so condescending. Statements like "Ha, you're amusing" and "we're laughing at you" do not belong in rational discourse because they bring nothing to the conversation outside of the usual flame, and apparently a Jocabia moderation report.

EDIT: Another fine example (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12642220&postcount=361://).

"Aren't you a teacher? You really don't know what a blanket statement is? Come on, man. I expect better from you. This is just sad."

Especially considering that he obviously knew what a blanket statement was, what was the purpose of this statement other than to bully and bait?

And no, I am not just searching through his posts and pulling out any that I can, this was sent to me by another poster who noticed what I am saying a while ago.

That's not baiting.

There's a difference between, "your agument is bullshit" and "YOU are bullshit."

The classical Greeks knew that as they were effectively inventing debate, and had a metaphor to illustrate this concept. You attack the argument: the argument is like a clay vessel for carrying water. As a debater, you are to attack the vessel if it leaks, not the potter. That's where we get the phrase "that argument doesn't hold water".

Jocabia does flirt with that line, but I've yet to see him cross it. "You are amusing" is hardly flamebait. "You are a dumbass" is.

Very eloquent and I appreciate the support, but I think Hack settled it. Besides Vittos admitted he didn't actually think I was rulebreaking but rather came to attack me as a poster. So it doesn't seem anyone here believes I've broken the rules.

I suppose by a lack of comment that Hack is saying that there is no grounds for the griefing cliam, so I think we're done here.

By the by, thanks. I didn't know that was where that phrase comes from.

Lacking all forms of politeness is fine on NSG, as far as I know. Otherwise the number of members would halve overnight from all the bans. Vittos, just because you don't like someone isn't really grounds to report them to moderation.

Lacking all forms of politeness is fine on NSG, as far as I know. Otherwise the number of members would halve overnight from all the bans. Vittos, just because you don't like someone isn't really grounds to report them to moderation.

I never reported him or asked for moderation, I simply was standing up for the poster who Jocabia reported (and future posters that he reports, as there will be at least some).

Vittos, you're teetering on the edge of trolling in Moderation. Since I don't know whether you make a habit of it, take this as a friendly warning. Next one won't be.

I think we're done here.