NationStates Jolt Archive

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14019909&postcount=41

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14019932&postcount=50

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14019939&postcount=55

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14019946&postcount=58

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14019963&postcount=70

Wait, so the guy trolls, but me calling him a troll is a malicious personal attack which is somehow just as bad?

So what, should I have said you are trolling instead of you are a troll...? What's the right way to describe it? Frankly, after being told "my ilk" need to be kicked out of the country I thought I was being incredibly restrained and polite.

"Malicious personal attack" is the way the Jolt system describes it, so all infractions say that. "Silly shouting match" is the way I'd describe it.

You didn't have to respond to another poster's insults with insults of your own. You chose to do so. I chose to hand out infractions -- warnings to both of you to step back a bit.

Keep your nose clean for seven days and the infraction goes away.

I.... see. Note to self, "troll" is no longer a description of behavior, it's a deeply personal attack. Unless Jocabia makes it.

I.... see. Note to self, "troll" is no longer a description of behavior, it's a deeply personal attack. Unless Jocabia makes it.

What about the fact that you told him to get the fuck out. Isn't that an insult?

Oh, fer cryin' out loud! You didn't get an infraction because you called him a troll -- it's because you called him, and called him, and called him a troll, then went on to a flame. It was not the word "troll"; it was your action in repeatedly name-calling, followed by an insult.

If your next line is "but he started it", you'd be right: Nicea Sancta did, and he's the one Jocabia reported. And when I went to check on it, sure enough, there he was -- and there you were, sniping back, escalating the squabble.

You goofed, you got a slap on the wrist: get over it.

Not a Mod.

think of the word troll as a spark. a nice little flash of light if used once in a while.

but when you start using it over and over again, that spark can turn into a flame.

same with the words "Idiot", "moron" and others. if used properly, you can illuminate your arguments and add a little 'sparkle' to them, but if used improperly... flame.

The best rule of thumb I use is this. "Could I be punished for this?" if yes, then don't post it (or apologize for the tone/words you used if you already posted.) note: the key word is 'COULD'. not "SHOULD". People often mistake the intent and meanings behind posts so offence could be mistaken on both sides.

also not a mod.

What exactly does "Originally Posted by Nicea Sancta View Post
No, I just don't like you and your ilk, and would like to see you out of the country." <----- that mean cause that could be construed as either racial or otherwise discriminatory. Anyway just my two cents but why is he only getting a yellow card?

Ever heard someone shout from another room, "You kids! If I have to come in there, you're gonna regret it!"? It's a stop-that-before-it-gets-serious yell.

That's what I (thought I) was doing.

In that context, the line you quote sounded to me like a sulky little kid's, "I don't like you. Go 'way!"

That's why a yellow card.

Possibly, if I'd examined the various posters' history in detail, the outcome might have been different. For yellow cards to newbies, I usually don't. In the only other thread I'd noticed him in, Nicea Sancta had been polite, though abstruse.

Whatever, he's now on the mods' radar. As is Clomata. And they both know it. Not exactly a "get home free", methinks.

may I point out this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14022112&postcount=15), made several hours after the warning?

I.... see. Note to self, "troll" is no longer a description of behavior, it's a deeply personal attack. Unless Jocabia makes it.

Oh, come off it. IT was your "GTFO" and your harping on the word troll.

may I point out this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14022112&postcount=15), made several hours after the warning?

I thought about posting that one here, too. Not a big fan of being lied about.

Possibly, if I'd examined the various posters' history in detail, the outcome might have been different. For yellow cards to newbies, I usually don't. In the only other thread I'd noticed him in, Nicea Sancta had been polite, though abstruse.

I bring you, Nicea Sancta's Greatest Hits.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13875829&postcount=11

Either is better than the bunch of liberal Reds doing their best to destroy everything that's good about America that currently resides in that state.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13916028&postcount=8

Yes, Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq so he could invade and take all their oil. It was a plan masterminded by the second gunman, Elvis and the Roswell aliens. They all held secret meetings in the soundstage where they faked the moon landings. Fortunately for them, the guys in the CIA took time away from their busy schedules implanting microchips in bookshop owners' heads to secure the perimeter, or the Atlantean Elite Guard, led by the Bigfoot-riding Leprechauns would have invaded and gassed the whole place with SuperAIDS.

Crazy conspiracy-theorist liberals are just adorable.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13919270&postcount=60

I love the rampant Bush Derangement Syndrome run amok here. Watching the bleeding-heart warm-and-fuzzies so consumed by hatred of a single individual is like watching a soap opera.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13919293&postcount=64

Ah, and the liberal ad hominem attack machine comes out. I have this theory, that Bush Derangement Syndrome is so deeply ingrained that George W. Bush himself is not physically massive enough to contain all the hatred, so said liberals find the hatred welling up inside their brains, and require another target to allow the pressure to dissipate. Thus, Bush supporters become the targets for all the excess irrational hatred the liberals have left over.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13922448&postcount=75

I'm sure you do laugh. Laughter and ridicule are what you liberals are best at. That and meeting in your secret chambers, wearing your aluminum hats, to discuss the vast conspiracies all masterminded by the Bush administration. Your kind are so far beyond rationality I don't even get angry at you anymore. The only emotion you provoke is pity, since I imagine living in a world where the sole focus of your being is the hatred of the current most powerful man on the planet is maddening.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13925094&postcount=84

Once again, the left has revealed its true face: that its irrational hatred of the current president has so blinded it to any possible non-partisan views of the world that it will buy any load of tripe handed to it by any crazy conspiracy theorist who cares to come forward. Their arguments amount to "Oh yeah? Well, disprove this crackpot's ideas!" and "You must be the crackpot, since you disagree with my view, which is so clearly the correct one."

My suggestion, not that any of you Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers will take it, is to get over it. He's got only a few more months in office, and still you fume and fluster as much as he did when he won the 2000 elections. Bite your tongue until January, and you won't hear from him anymore, problem solved. In the meantime, go back to masturbating to recorded speeches of Barack Obama. That ought to get you through the transition to the McCain administration.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13925550&postcount=97

Once again, you've missed the point. I'm not attempting to debate you. The very focus of this thread is a collection of crackpot claims which are undeserving of justification by debating them. Similarly with the proponents of such crackpot theories, fueled as they are by irrational hatred of a man many of them have never even met. In essence, I'm not making any claims or asking anyone to disprove or prove anything. I don't debate with you because, frankly, you are unworthy of debate. I find you humorous, when you gather together with other like-minded schizophrenics and rally around your crackpot du jour. You are to be laughed at, gawked at, and perhaps pitied, but not debated. Perhaps when you grow up.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14001890&postcount=264

Ah yes, I forgot that logic and truth are anathema to the liberal mind, if such it can be called. No catchy slogans or bumper sticker opportunities to logic and truth. All facts, no heart.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14012053&postcount=28

No, it's common sense. Anyone dumb enough to be an atheist is also dumb enough to vote liberal, against the best interests of the country. Those with the basic understanding necessary to acknowledge that the logically-necessary being exists are likewise more likely to have enough of a head on their shoulders to value basic personal freedom and national security, and thus to vote conservative.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14019827&postcount=29

The answer to any question which begins with "Will the left in America stop their idiotic whining about..." will always be "No. No, they won't." The left is full of idiots and whiners, so idiotic whining is their forte.

I've ignored some of the less egregious examples.

I can do Clomata too, if you're so inclined.

Don't know if I should post this or not, but Nicea Sancta reminds me in name, posting style, and views of an old troll known as Tenete Tradiciones and Defensor Fidei. If I remember correctly, he's DoS.

If Andaras was still here they could have a gigantic Clash of the Titans petty insult match. How cool would that be?

Speaking of Nicea Sancta...

Wow, yet another anti-Palin thread. You liberals must really be starting to get scared of the McCain-Palin powerhouse.
Next thing we know, liberals will resort to using Watergate-style tactics to gain felonious access to her personal records and then illegally distributing them to the public...
Whoops, too late! Looks like the liberals sink lower faster than I can anticipate the depths of their depravity.

No. I'm equating them. This is exactly the kind of activity I expect from the liberal smear machine, from an ideology with no respect for personal freedom or responsibility.

Both are from page one of the thread http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=566392

Don't know if I should post this or not, but Nicea Sancta reminds me in name, posting style, and views of an old troll known as Tenete Tradiciones and Defensor Fidei. If I remember correctly, he's DoS.

You remember correctly. Pretty amazing, since he was deleted 1445 days ago. However, I can't make a definitive link between The Res publica Sancta of Tenete Traditiones and The Libertarian Theocracy of Nicea Sancta, despite the similarity in names and the fact that both favor Catholic regions.

I agree that it's trolling, but it's actually milder that what I've been hearing in the mainstream news. I'm going to recuse myself from this one on the basis of the filters I've installed for election season between my eyes/ears and my brain.

Oh, there's also this wonderful gem:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14022112&postcount=15

"infanticide advocates known as liberals" is, of course, the standard way of complimenting your opponents in debate.

If Andaras was still here they could have a gigantic Clash of the Titans petty insult match. How cool would that be?

No, a Clash of the Titans would be a MeansToAnEnd, Jesussaves, HerPower, MKULTRA free for all.

Frisbee: So I'm guessing NS here goes on watch for awhile, and if he keeps this up he's byebye?

Frisbee: So I'm guessing NS here goes on watch for awhile, and if he keeps this up he's byebye?

NS Mods don't act on supposition and hearsay. We require evidence. There is no definitive evidence typing Nicea Sancta to the DoS player, so he'll have to work his way up to banning the old fashioned way, via multiple warnings and such. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

Incidentally, I specifically have NOT ruled in this case. I answered one side question. We're still waiting on a ruling proper.

Incidentally, I specifically have NOT ruled in this case. I answered one side question. We're still waiting on a ruling proper.

Who, me? Okay; bear in mind that it's Saturday afternoon over here, and I've got a time limit before I have to be somewhere else. So I'm still not going to go back through every one of Nicea Sancta's posts.

I've checked out the posts people have specifically complained about, and gone back to the threads in question to see them in context.

Flaming: yes, this could be read as such:

I don't debate with you because, frankly, you are unworthy of debate. I find you humorous, when you gather together with other like-minded schizophrenics and rally around your crackpot du jour. You are to be laughed at, gawked at, and perhaps pitied, but not debated. Perhaps when you grow up.

The first sentence, and possibly the second ("other like-minded schizophrenics"), is aimed at Heikoku. The rest could be read as "you" in the general sense, suggesting that the poster views liberals as a group that needs to grow up. Generalisation appears to be a hallmark of this poster's style (a judgment I can now make, having read through the links).

Ruling: Nicea Sancta, argue the post, not the poster.

Flamebait: Too much of a stretch. The target of the poster's remarks is the group "liberals". As far as I can see, no individual has reason to take the remarks as deliberately framed to make him, personally, flame the poster.

Trolling: You betcha.

Ruling: Not quite actionable yet. Nicea Sancta, watch the tone.

Everyone, this is a political website. Many people do not respect their political opponents; for example, Wow, you are probably one of the dumbest people I've ever met.
I could cite quite a few similar light flames, too. But I see no point in playing post ping-pong, interrupting the flow of debate, when even the person responsible has realised by the end of his post that there are better debating tricks available:
Really, if you're going to genneralize about all liberals, lumping us all togeather as a bunch of smering criminal hackers soley for having a political affilliation in oposision to your own, you could at least try to offer some evidence instead of making wild, vauge, and unsupported claims

That is, Nicea Sancta is employing a debating trick: professing disdain for the opposition. He/she, while walking perilously close to the line that would make it flaming, has not crossed it egregiously. Though it is trolling, it's of the sort best treated by (ahem!) not feeding the troll; otherwise you're confirming his assumption that this is your weakness.

Bear in mind that, if the person concerned is the former DoS poster he appears to be, he may now be trying to debate on NS without getting DoSd again. He may also have learned to go so far, but no further, in arguing his message.

I would recommend generally that, instead of yourself courting mod action by replying in kind but taking it too far, you abandon debating tricks and engage in debate.

Consider the tactics employed by (yes, I am writing this) Heikoku in this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14022896&postcount=101) -- and, especially, this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14022873&postcount=97).

He is ignoring the distracting adjectives and honing in on what he sees as the weaknesses of his opponent's arguments. He probably won't convince Nicea Sancta, but he may convince others.

NS Mods don't act on supposition and hearsay. We require evidence. There is no definitive evidence typing Nicea Sancta to the DoS player, so he'll have to work his way up to banning the old fashioned way, via multiple warnings and such. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

Incidentally, I specifically have NOT ruled in this case. I answered one side question. We're still waiting on a ruling proper.
Right. Just checking.