Discussion Thread Re: 8/3 No Insults Rule Amendment

[dank69]

get turned down for cause. You can then appeal and get the matter investigated. I'm sure that's cool with you though, after all it's just someone else's rights.

Don't stray off the subject. Mental illness is not a crime. Nothing you have said so far refutes that.

 

[monovillage]

Don't stray off the subject. Mental illness is not a crime. Nothing you have said so far refutes that.

Did I ever say it was a crime ? or did I show that an accusation of it could have negative repercussions on a person?

 

[dank69]

Did I ever say it was a crime ? or did I show that an accusation of it could have negative repercussions on a person?

They explained to you that accusing someone of being a stalker is not the same thing as accusing someone of being mentally ill. They explained that they are different because one is accusing someone of a crime and the other is not. You took that to mean there is no difference and all that matters is who is being insulted.

 

[monovillage]

They explained to you that accusing someone of being a stalker is not the same thing as accusing someone of being mentally ill. They explained that they are different because one is accusing someone of a crime and the other is not. You took that to mean there is no difference and all that matters is who is being insulted.

No, "they" didn't. However I can sure see that you and bowfinger fit solidly into the mold of a cybrsage, but just on the left.

 

[dank69]

No, "they" didn't. However I can sure see that you and bowfinger fit solidly into the mold of a cybrsage, but just on the left.

No?

Here is a quote. I bolded the relevant part:

As to mental illness, I am not a mental health professional, so you would need to ask cybrtroll himself or a real mental health professional to find out about what kind of mental illness would cause someone to troll the same thing on multiple forums in a row.

"Simple" insults are petty, but when you start accusing being of more serious things, like when he made up a false claim of racism, I think more people take notice and don't want that level of lying.

Even more so with accusations of criminal activity, even if it is from a known liar and troll.

Plus this is the internet, you don't want someone to just read a few threads and think you are a stalker, because they see your name with "stalker" next to it. People believe lies all the time, we don't need to help this kind of ignorance along.

Our little troll is free to stop trolling and actually participate with rational debate, but as his history shows, he refuses to do so. He has done the exact same thing on two previous forums and been banned for doing so, and is repeating it here for #3. There is zero evidence to think he will change, so the next best thing is to ban him and let him find forum #4 to start trolling in.

 

[Bowfinger]

Just replace "stalker" with "mentally ill" and you'll see my point. As Bowfinger posted earlier, it's not really the word choice or how it's applied, it only matters who it gets applied to. It's over the top if it's applied to a lib/Dem, but perfectly acceptable if it's applied to a conserv/Rep. These are words and/or phrases that may even have an effect on posters in real life.

This is the second time I've called you out for lying about my comment. The first time you could feign ignorance. Now you are clearly spreading misinformation willfully. Knock it off or else.

You know posters like you are exactly the reason insults are appropriate for P&N. I posted a reasoned, on-topic response to your question. You were too defective to digest it, apparently because it didn't fit your attack agenda. It wasn't what you wanted to respond to, so you threw up a dishonest straw man and flailed away. Unfortunately for P&N, this is very typical behavior for you, actively seeking to undermine productive discussion.

 

[Bowfinger]

Meh. Wrong thread for this.

 

[cybrsage]

stalk·er

  /ˈstɔkər/ Show Spelled[staw-ker] Show IPA
noun

2. a person who harasses another person, as a former lover, a famous person, etc., in an aggressive, often threatening and illegal manner: Hollywood stars often have security guards to keep dangerous stalkers at bay.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stalker?s=t

Notice it says OFTEN, not always.

 

[Jaskalas]

...
Wise up righties and heed Perknose's warning. Your vitriol is not to be tolerated.

Case in point?

Action is taken on reporting a news story, in much the same manner that other shooters are covered where conservatives are generalized. One side may be blamed with a free pass... the other has action taken.

The rules need to apply to everyone or no one. It should not be allowed for them to only exist for some.

 

[dank69]

Case in point?

Action is taken on reporting a news story, in much the same manner that other shooters are covered where conservatives are generalized. One side may be blamed with a free pass... the other has action taken.

The rules need to apply to everyone or no one. It should not be allowed for them to only exist for some.

Can you link to a similar thread where a liberal poster started a thread claiming that a shooter was conservative as if it were fact without having any evidence to back it up so we can use it as reference of your claims of biased moderation?

 

[jackstar7]

Can you link to a similar thread where a liberal poster started a thread claiming that a shooter was conservative as if it were fact without having any evidence to back it up so we can use it as reference of your claims of biased moderation?

I'll take Gabby Giffords shooting for $200, Alex.




Just a hunch...

 

[Jaskalas]

Can you link to a similar thread where a liberal poster started a thread claiming that a shooter was conservative as if it were fact without having any evidence to back it up so we can use it as reference of your claims of biased moderation?

For Giffords some of us, wrongly, suspected an illegal given border violence. Then libs jumped all over conservatives with their 'civility' meme. I don't see how the recent post overreached compared to other generalizations. That's in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? Which is my point... it really shouldn't be so vague.

I'll note that there's one case I found where a direct lie "it has been confirmed" had taken action against, but that is apples to oranges. There's a difference towards alluding to and outright stating these things.

My point is that rules really should avoid being placed in grey areas. We need an up or down on their clear use. Or we begin to disagree on our (myself included) biased standards.

 

[Bowfinger]

I'll take Gabby Giffords shooting for $200, Alex.

Just a hunch...

Nope. That shooting was posted with no partisan commentary at all, though obviously some of the subsequent posts in the thread were the usual stupidity.

 

[jackstar7]

Nope. That shooting was posted with no partisan commentary at all, though obviously some of the subsequent posts in the thread were the usual stupidity.

I definintely wasn't trying to pardon Spidey. I just remember the rhetoric was quite speculative and unproductive.

I'm glad the thread-starter didn't start things on the wrong foot at that time. And I hope the general population of posters learns something from Spidey's example.

 

[Jaskalas]

I definintely wasn't trying to pardon Spidey. I just remember the rhetoric was quite speculative and unproductive.

I'm glad the thread-starter didn't start things on the wrong foot at that time. And I hope the general population of posters learns something from Spidey's example.

That's an interesting point.

Are the Original Posters in topics held to a higher standard?

 

[TerryMathews]

I definintely wasn't trying to pardon Spidey. I just remember the rhetoric was quite speculative and unproductive.

I'm glad the thread-starter didn't start things on the wrong foot at that time. And I hope the general population of posters learns something from Spidey's example.

I did notice that DrPizza tagged Jking as well, so there is still balance to the Force.

 

[Bowfinger]

I definintely wasn't trying to pardon Spidey. I just remember the rhetoric was quite speculative and unproductive.

I'm glad the thread-starter didn't start things on the wrong foot at that time. And I hope the general population of posters learns something from Spidey's example.

I think that's the big difference. When there's breaking news of an event like this, most thread-starters (on both ends of the partisan spectrum) will focus on the facts of the event, with little if any editorializing. Spidey's post, in sharp contrast, was focused most on attacking his imaginary "liberal" shooter, with factual details thrown in almost as an afterthought. Usually that sort of stupidity comes later in the thread. Jaskalas linked a somewhat similar counter-example (though with far less spittle); it was dealt with similarly.

Yes, there is occasional moderator bias here. Moderators are human, after all. It is neither as strong nor as one-sided* as those with a persecution complex love to claim. Most such "bias" is nothing more than people refusing to accept accountability for their actions.


*For example, I remember one thread on Michigan (IIRC) GOP redlining being locked because it was "proven" to be false ... by a Michigan GOP press release denying the story. Meh. Life goes on.

 

[monovillage]

I definintely wasn't trying to pardon Spidey. I just remember the rhetoric was quite speculative and unproductive.

I'm glad the thread-starter didn't start things on the wrong foot at that time. And I hope the general population of posters learns something from Spidey's example.

Yes, ATP&N is just full of original threads that have had the title changed, the original poster castigated, his post edited and then gets sent on a vacation all in one fell swoop.

 

[jackstar7]

Yes, ATP&N is just full of original threads that have had the title changed, the original poster castigated, his post edited and then gets sent on a vacation all in one fell swoop.

Do they speak English in What?

 

[Jaskalas]

...
Usually that sort of stupidity comes later in the thread.
...

I apologize for my first post on this, as your point is more poignant. I should have sat on it longer until I could clarify that.

We know these generalizations are common here, but maybe not in Original Posts. I'd like to know if they use a more heavy handed approach to keep those clean.

Now... here's something to consider - are generalizations taken as insults or misleading info? Do they fall under the absolute rule, or the grey one? Also... is it misleading if the news media is reporting it? Spidey's example is more of an insult violation than anything else.

 

[monovillage]

Do they speak English in What?

Sorry, I should have known this phrase would be so far above your head that it wouldn't make sense.
I live in California and we speak a version of English.

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/at-one-fell-swoop.html

 

[jackstar7]

Sorry, I should have known this phrase would be so far above your head that it wouldn't make sense.
I live in California and we speak a version of English.

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/at-one-fell-swoop.html

I live in California, also. My question was more in regards to what the heck your post had to do with the one you quoted.

I suppose I should have just stated so plainly.

 

[cybrsage]

I did notice that DrPizza tagged Jking as well, so there is still balance to the Force.

Grudgingly, as in he did not think any wrongdoing was being down, but did it to appease others. It was still the right thing to do, though, regardless of why he did it, so I applaud him for it.

 

[JEDIYoda]

so I applaud him for it.

you actually think the Dr. Pizza cares what you think...hmmmmmmm

 

[shira]

[To Shira]Then why are you engaging in a petty back and forth, having just said you know not to do it?

One direct rebuttal is not the type of extended, petty, back and forth that you constantly promulgate.

This is what you do, time and time again. You redefine what others have said, as you have done to me here, in a way that bears little true resemblance to what they actually said.

Then, you base your arguments on your wholly self-constructed falsehood. GIGO.

And then, you overtake and dominate threads, as you are again doing here, in a way that totally knocks them off kilter and makes them all about you.

It must stop. You must stop.

Clearly cybrsage's behavior won't stop. He's been banned - what - three or four times from this forum? And in every thread he continues his same destructive behavior. Why are you even waiting to perma-ban him?

Here's a "rule" for perma-banning that I think everyone can agree on:

Any member who continually and frequently engages in a pattern of behavior that's destructive to the forum, and who by their continued actions clearly shows no intention of meaningfully improving their behavior, will be banned permanently. There's no objective standard for what constitutes "frequently and continually engaging in behavior destructive to the forum" or "by their continued actions clearly shows no intention of meaningfully improving their behavior," but when the Moderators see it, they'll recognize it and will act.

Enough of his reprehensible behavior. Just get rid of him already.