NationStates Jolt Archive

I was recently banned for 1 day by Ardchoille, and I would like clarification in regards to her ruling (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13976693&postcount=807).

She cited this post:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13965459&postcount=544

CanuckHeaven, your determination to answer even the slightest reference from anyone to your arguments during the Democrat primaries is hijacking the US political threads. It has become so annoying that it is tempting other posters into what is currently fairly mild flaming. As such, your actions also constitute flamebait.

Euro warned you recently over one such situation with, predictably, Heikoku. You are still doing the same thing with other people; consequently, you've now got a yellow card infraction to remind you not to. Do not take part in any other fruitless exchanges about the past. It's over.
And this post:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13973455&postcount=758

Another example. Okay, it's a standard debating trick to focus on someone's rhetorical flourish and insist that it be supported in factual detail. Too much of it, and you're a one-trick pony. That becomes annoying to other posters, which leads to flaming and flamebaiting. Don't.
I don't see how the ensuing discussion with GNI violated these goalposts. He was seeking clarification, and I was providing that clarification, even though he was misunderstanding my explanation.

BTW, I didn't see Smunkee's post as being of the "rhetorical flourish" variety, and here is why I thought she was making a "factual" post:

Such attacks cannot be made against Sarah Palin because she really, sincerely is as insane as she seems.
To which I replied:

Perhaps you could detail this "insanity" you speak of, in regards to Sarah Palin?

Before Muravyets could reply, Smunkee jumped in with this:

http://www.feministsforlife.org/

It's kinda oxymoronic......or just moronic, your pick really.

"I want men and women to be equal, also I don't want women to have the same rights over their healthcare as men"
I truly believe that Smunkee was trying to attribute that quote to Sarah Palin, and I called her on it.

No "rhetorical flourish" whatsoever, as far as I was concerned.

GNI challenged me on my reply and I defended it. I am allowed to defend my posts in this manner?

I truly believe that I didn't step out of bounds and I am sorry if you viewed it in that manner.

Thanks for listening.

Obviously, it's best that I not take part in this, so I'll just clarify a point and then shaddup: the "rhetorical flourish" I referred to was Muravyets', in saying, in an earlier post, that Palin was insane; not Smunkee's post.

Glad to see the automatic unban function is working again, though.

Obviously, it's best that I not take part in this, so I'll just clarify a point and then shaddup: the "rhetorical flourish" I referred to was Muravyets', in saying, in an earlier post, that Palin was insane; not Smunkee's post.

Glad to see the automatic unban function is working again, though.
In reference to your further clarification on this matter (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13980639&postcount=822), I would like to point out the obvious:

Jocabia has resorted to flaming and trolling and has been a large part of 3 thread hijacks in the one thread.

I haven't responded to Jocabia since this ruling (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13724090&postcount=8)was handed out by The Most Glorious Hack, yet he has taken huge liberties, knowing that I will not respond.

I could ignore the one offs, but his posts often fire up the other posters who jump on the band wagon. This leads to more flaming, trolling and threadjacking. Perhaps Jocabia enjoys playing to HIS audience (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13969095&postcount=629)too much?

I actually operate under the impression that there is an audience, and now that the site lists that audience, i have proof of that. I just don't particularly mind being the Dr. Ian Malcom character that has to stop every five minutes to explain things to the audience things that don't actually matter to the story. Hehe.
I can provide many links to back up my points.

I don't believe that certain posters should be taken to task when one is allowed free reign to do as he pleases with only mild rebuffs.

Perhaps Jocabia needs to find himself another muse?

CH, that was not a clarification addressed to you, it was a response to Grave_n_Idle.

I do not feel I should respond further to you, as you have asked other mods to comment on my ruling, and what they should be looking at is what I have already said to you, not whatever I might say after the fact. They are also able to read what I said when giving you the infraction.

I'm not sure what to say. The fact that an issue that has nothing to do with suddenly becomes about me is astonishing. However, if you'd like to quote me flaming and trolling, please do. Or... if you're really starting this thread for the purposes you claim, why don't you focus on the issue at hand instead of making it about me, hmmmm?


MODEDIT: Undeleted because you're right. A person named in a complaint does have the right to reply in a mods-only thread.

I'm not sure what to say. The fact that an issue that has nothing to do with suddenly becomes about me is astonishing. However, if you'd like to quote me flaming and trolling, please do. Or... if you're really starting this thread for the purposes you claim, why don't you focus on the issue at hand instead of making it about me, hmmmm?


MODEDIT: Undeleted because you're right. A person named in a complaint does have the right to reply in a mods-only thread.
Your feigned innocence in this matter has got me all choked up. Although Ardchoille did not reference this post of yours (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13975654&postcount=800), it appears just six posts before Ardchoille's ban notice.

EDIT: In this post (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13980639&postcount=822), Ardchoille does mention 2 of your posts as reasons for her taking action.

Let's see what it says:

Which isn't relelevant to her in-character summary of the issue. You chose to launch an attack based on an obvious misconception. You KNEW it was a misconception and did it on purpose, which is why Ard pointed it out.

No one here believes you're completely unfamiliar with rhetoric, but if you'd actually like to continue to pretend that you aren't, I'll be happy to explain rhetoric to you. Start a thread. Till then, your feigned ignorance of rhetoric is baiting or a hijack.
The real problem here is that you got it all wrong. And there you are pouring gasoline on the fire, knowing full well that I am not responding to your posts. Not only did you get it all wrong, you also added your usual condesending remarks.

Recapping from my post above:

BTW, I didn't see Smunkee's post as being of the "rhetorical flourish" variety, and here is why I thought she was making a "factual" post:

Such attacks cannot be made against Sarah Palin because she really, sincerely is as insane as she seems.
To which I replied:

Perhaps you could detail this "insanity" you speak of, in regards to Sarah Palin?

Before Muravyets could reply, Smunkee jumped in with this:

http://www.feministsforlife.org/

It's kinda oxymoronic......or just moronic, your pick really.

"I want men and women to be equal, also I don't want women to have the same rights over their healthcare as men"
I truly believe that Smunkee was trying to attribute that quote to Sarah Palin, and I called her on it.

No "rhetorical flourish" whatsoever, as far as I was concerned.

Later Ardchoille suggested that the "rhetorical flourish" she was referring to was Muravyets. Again, I didn't see that as rhetorical at all, in that she stated unequivocally, as far as I am concerned, that Palin IS:

"really, sincerely is as insane as she seems."

Smunkee's interjection, resulted in me clicking on the link provided and searching for the "quote" that she provided that would somehow prove this "insanity" that Muravyets was referring to. When I couldn't find the "quote" that Smunkee provided and asked her for another link, she then fessed up that the "quote" was not attributable to Palin and that it was her own concoction, to which I replied:

Then attributing that quote to Sarah Palin was not particulary useful or constructive?
Not only wasn't it constructive, it was a waste of my time searching that web site, looking for that quote, which obviously wasn't there. I think my comment was fair considering the circumstances.

Note to MODS: I hope that further clarifies my position on this.

In regards to the trolling, hijacking, and flaming by Jocabia, should I detail those in this thread or start a new one?

EDIT: I have lots of examples.

I think that post stands on its own. I have no reply.

I've read through this at least three times, and I still have no idea what the hell your complaint is about.


You got into a battle of words. You got banned for a day. So what? You're back now. Move on.