| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| place your vote here |
| yes |
|
17% |
[ 6 ] |
| no |
|
82% |
[ 29 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 35 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Philosophos
When we look at you, we see an asshole
Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Posts: 9299
Local time: 8:35 PM
Location: In ur body cast
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:01 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
| Moloth wrote: | | there needs to be a poll for the OTHER rule. |
Done.
_________________
Ass!
Hole!
Ass!
Hole! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
Dawkadoodle
Forum Master
Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 2230
Local time: 8:35 PM
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Philosophos wrote: | | tinker683 wrote: | | I think that if you feel that a person is a "troll" and doesn't really contribute anything, you need to PM the mods and let them decide. |
I appreciate your sentiment, as more people need to PM us to let us know what we're doing right or wrong. But if someone PM'd us at this point to request a ban for trolling, we most likely would not act. The reason being: we don't have a rule for trolling at this point in time.
I would like to hear the posters' view on whether we should have such a rule, though. |
"Trolling" isn't a real word, simply just internet slang. There is no objective definition and the reasons why people are labeled "trolls" is because of disputes, disagreements or other personal reasons. Because of the subjectivity of what "trolling" is and the lack of a definition for "trolling," then it's absurd to have a rule against "trolling" as what is "trolling" would vary from person to person. To call someone a "troll" or ban them or being a "troll" despite if they are or not, it's discrimination based on the behaviour of a person. It also places a limit on what a person may say, as posters may see it as "trolling" when it isn't. Behaviours similiar to trolling, or anything similiar to trolling, would often be called "trolling" again, if it was or was not trolling. If a group mentality forms, then a person who isn't trolling, is labeled a troll, then they could not defend themselves. There is no way to prove if someone is or isn't a "troll" as there is someone to be a sock-puppet. Trolls are most of the time people who aren't trolling, they're just a person most people don't like or agree with.
The ignore tool is simply enough if you don't like someone and mistakenly think they're a troll. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moloth
Fateless
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 23104
Local time: 8:35 PM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Philosophos wrote: | | Moloth wrote: | | there needs to be a poll for the OTHER rule. |
Done. |
love you.
_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
www.Moloth.com
Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChrissyFos
Lobal Dominatrix
Joined: 08 Dec 2005
Posts: 5315
Local time: 8:35 PM
Location: Here, There and Everywhere
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I vote no. What is this? Survivor? Is the ignore button function not working? If he isn't breaking the rules, then I don't think he should be banned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tinker683
Entirely Too Serious
Joined: 13 Mar 2003
Posts: 1111
Local time: 8:35 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Philosophos wrote: | I appreciate your sentiment, as more people need to PM us to let us know what we're doing right or wrong. But if someone PM'd us at this point to request a ban for trolling, we most likely would not act. The reason being: we don't have a rule for trolling at this point in time.
I would like to hear the posters' view on whether we should have such a rule, though. |
Ah, then I understand your dilemma.
Quick question then: What do you and the others in the Ivory Tower do then if you recieve a large volume of compliants against a particular member?
As to the rule, I'd agree to it so long as we specificied in detail what constituted as a "troll".
_________________
"Not everything that steps out of line, and thus 'abnormal', must necessarily be 'inferior'" - Hans Asperger, 1938
"If you keep doing what you've always done, you'll keep getting what you've always gotten" - Unknown Author |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Philosophos
When we look at you, we see an asshole
Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Posts: 9299
Local time: 8:35 PM
Location: In ur body cast
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tinker683 wrote: | | Quick question then: What do you and the others in the Ivory Tower do then if you recieve a large volume of compliants against a particular member? |
It would depend on the nature of the complaint.
_________________
Ass!
Hole!
Ass!
Hole! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
josephpalazzo
Illusion Master
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 8:35 PM
Location: D-brane
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| This is another underhanded tactic by Moloth to get me banned. What a fucking moron... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Philosophos
When we look at you, we see an asshole
Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Posts: 9299
Local time: 8:35 PM
Location: In ur body cast
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dawkadoodle wrote: | | "Trolling" isn't a real word, simply just internet slang. |
True. But, as you may have noticed, this is the internet.
But your point is well-taken. As with most of language, there's a gray area. Should this rule come into play, the admins must decide whether a given act is indeed "trolling". We do indeed have a problem of mapping a continuous variable ("how much of a troll is this guy?") to a discrete domain (ban or no ban). The question is then: is this, in and of itself, an argument for not having the rule in the first place? I personally don't think so. But, I am against this rule - although for other reasons.
But your point should be digested by the readers. Ultimately, the decision to ban or not ban lies upon the admins of this forum. Do you want us to judge who is "trolling" and who is not? If you vote for the trolling rule, you are giving us the implicit authortity to do so. Are you comfortable with that?
_________________
Ass!
Hole!
Ass!
Hole! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moloth
Fateless
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 23104
Local time: 8:35 PM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| josephpalazzo wrote: | | This is another underhanded tactic by Moloth to get me banned. What a fucking moron... |
O_o
wow. you ARE self-centered.
why would i want you banned? as long as you're not just spamming single nonsense words over and over again (like you did for a while), there's no reason to ban you.
_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
www.Moloth.com
Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moloth
Fateless
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 23104
Local time: 8:35 PM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Philosophos wrote: | | Dawkadoodle wrote: | | "Trolling" isn't a real word, simply just internet slang. |
True. But, as you may have noticed, this is the internet.
But your point is well-taken. As with most of language, there's a gray area. Should this rule come into play, the admins must decide whether a given act is indeed "trolling". We do indeed have a problem of mapping a continuous variable ("how much of a troll is this guy?") to a discrete domain (ban or no ban). The question is then: is this, in and of itself, an argument for not having the rule in the first place? I personally don't think so. But, I am against this rule - although for other reasons.
But your point should be digested by the readers. Ultimately, the decision to ban or not ban lies upon the admins of this forum. Do you want us to judge who is "trolling" and who is not? If you vote for the trolling rule, you are giving us the implicit authortity to do so. Are you comfortable with that? |
please my post in the other thread.
_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
www.Moloth.com
Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
josephpalazzo
Illusion Master
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 8:35 PM
Location: D-brane
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Moloth wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | This is another underhanded tactic by Moloth to get me banned. What a fucking moron... |
O_o
wow. you ARE self-centered.
why would i want you banned? as long as you're not just spamming single nonsense words over and over again (like you did for a while), there's no reason to ban you. |
Oh yeah, prove it, asshole... Show me where I was spamming a single word over and over again. Put up or shut the fuck up... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moloth
Fateless
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 23104
Local time: 8:35 PM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| josephpalazzo wrote: | | Moloth wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | This is another underhanded tactic by Moloth to get me banned. What a fucking moron... |
O_o
wow. you ARE self-centered.
why would i want you banned? as long as you're not just spamming single nonsense words over and over again (like you did for a while), there's no reason to ban you. |
Oh yeah, prove it, asshole... Show me where I was spamming a single word over and over again. Put up or shut the fuck up... |
i sent a link to the series of threads using the "show all posts by Member" link to the mods at the time. I suggest you take this up with them.
_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
www.Moloth.com
Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dawkadoodle
Forum Master
Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 2230
Local time: 8:35 PM
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Philosophos wrote: | | Dawkadoodle wrote: | | "Trolling" isn't a real word, simply just internet slang. |
True. But, as you may have noticed, this is the internet.
But your point is well-taken. As with most of language, there's a gray area. Should this rule come into play, the admins must decide whether a given act is indeed "trolling". We do indeed have a problem of mapping a continuous variable ("how much of a troll is this guy?") to a discrete domain (ban or no ban). The question is then: is this, in and of itself, an argument for not having the rule in the first place? I personally don't think so. But, I am against this rule - although for other reasons.
But your point should be digested by the readers. Ultimately, the decision to ban or not ban lies upon the admins of this forum. Do you want us to judge who is "trolling" and who is not? If you vote for the trolling rule, you are giving us the implicit authortity to do so. Are you comfortable with that? |
No, what I said won't be taken seriously by many of these forum because I've already been labeled a "Troll." People shouldn't be judgde to be a "troll." Obviously, there isn't much diversity here as most have similiar views, so it wouldn't be a very fair or objective way to do so. I'm against the rule not only because what a troll is, is subjective, but because group mentality will very often decide who a troll is regardless if they are or not. With a generic rule, a good amount of users on here could be banned for being a "Troll."
Troll, if any rule is to exist, should be special cases in which a debate between the accused (Troll) and the adminstrators is allowed. Strict debate guidelines should be enforced, and each side is given ample time to present their cases. A rough draft, perhaps, but if developed would likely be the best way to resolve the problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moloth
Fateless
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 23104
Local time: 8:35 PM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dawkadoodle wrote: | | Philosophos wrote: | | Dawkadoodle wrote: | | "Trolling" isn't a real word, simply just internet slang. |
True. But, as you may have noticed, this is the internet.
But your point is well-taken. As with most of language, there's a gray area. Should this rule come into play, the admins must decide whether a given act is indeed "trolling". We do indeed have a problem of mapping a continuous variable ("how much of a troll is this guy?") to a discrete domain (ban or no ban). The question is then: is this, in and of itself, an argument for not having the rule in the first place? I personally don't think so. But, I am against this rule - although for other reasons.
But your point should be digested by the readers. Ultimately, the decision to ban or not ban lies upon the admins of this forum. Do you want us to judge who is "trolling" and who is not? If you vote for the trolling rule, you are giving us the implicit authortity to do so. Are you comfortable with that? |
No, what I said won't be taken seriously by many of these forum because I've already been labeled a "Troll." People shouldn't be judgde to be a "troll." Obviously, there isn't much diversity here as most have similiar views, so it wouldn't be a very fair or objective way to do so. I'm against the rule not only because what a troll is, is subjective, but because group mentality will very often decide who a troll is regardless if they are or not. With a generic rule, a good amount of users on here could be banned for being a "Troll."
Troll, if any rule is to exist, should be special cases in which a debate between the accused (Troll) and the adminstrators is allowed. Strict debate guidelines should be enforced, and each side is given ample time to present their cases. A rough draft, perhaps, but if developed would likely be the best way to resolve the problem. |
you've made no point.
you've only disrupted, insulted and derailed.
People cannot comment on any points that you have made, because you have made none.
its that simple.
leave. leave, before the Mods have to ban you.
_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
www.Moloth.com
Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
josephpalazzo
Illusion Master
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 8:35 PM
Location: D-brane
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Moloth wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | Moloth wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | This is another underhanded tactic by Moloth to get me banned. What a fucking moron... |
O_o
wow. you ARE self-centered.
why would i want you banned? as long as you're not just spamming single nonsense words over and over again (like you did for a while), there's no reason to ban you. |
Oh yeah, prove it, asshole... Show me where I was spamming a single word over and over again. Put up or shut the fuck up... |
i sent a link to the series of threads using the "show all posts by Member" link to the mods at the time. I suggest you take this up with them. |
Sure, as if I am restrained to a single word vocabulary... Nice try in your efforts to muscle up some power here on this forum, so you can eliminate those who are capable of putting you in your place... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
