Those Darned Politics Mods!!!!!

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
... appear to be doing a good job. The outright trolling seems to have died down a lot over the past two weeks. Maybe it's just coincidence, but regardless, well done. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I knew this sentiment wasn't gonna last for the length of this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you need to give your opinion on every post related to a forum you don't use?

[BluffTHIS!]

Kaj,

Please out yourself and divulge the names of any former or current 2+2 posting accounts you have or have had.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Kaj,

Please out yourself and divulge the names of any former or current 2+2 posting accounts you have or have had.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because your anti-Islamic rantings helped shut down the Politics forum once, doesn't mean you run this site.

[BluffTHIS!]

You've got it backwards as to the type of posters who got the forum shut down. And I never said I run the site. I just asked a simple question. Why do you resist answering it?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How would that picture not be considered a personal attack?


[/ QUOTE ]
What's the personal attack? All he's doing is showing a posters style of debate in a comedic fashion. Jman didn't even call it a personal attack, he labelled it a "troll post", violating his own rules not to invoke the T-word. Practicing what you preach is over-rated, obv.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is probably the funniest part. And then when called on it, does he man up? No, he jokes, because he knows his own bull [censored] rules don't need to apply to him. Good thing he didn't make his joke with a picture; he'd owe himself two bans.

My prediction: jman will either ignore this or post some total BS defense for himself ala RR, about how he "doesn't discuss the reasons he calls people trolls and bans them" or some [censored]. There is no [censored] way he owns up to his [censored] up.

Let's see if he proves me wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Borodog,

Trolling and personal attacks will not be tolerated, whether or not you find them funny. Your user notes, created by several mods, indicate that you have been warned for, and banned for trolling on numerous occasions. If you persist in this behavior you will be permanently banned.

Regards,
--jman220

[/ QUOTE ]

1. I can't recall ever seeing Borodog troll anyone. Personal attacks maybe, but trolling, no. Are you sure you know what trolling is?

2. Steven Bickford's OP is a blatant troll, especially his immediate follow up post. I can't imagine how Borodog could have possibly gotten banned for anything said in response to such behavior. Just recently I saw you correctly not ban someone for responding to a personal attack with a personal attack, but apparantly when Boro does it, he gets banned and the original attack gets ignored? (and that's assuming we call the post in question a personal attack at all, when it isn't) WTF?

3. Sadly, I have to take back what I said in the OP of this thread. I no longer feel it is true. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
3. Sadly, I have to take back what I said in the OP of this thread. I no longer feel it is true. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]


good intentions + poor judgement still= bad outcome

[[Phill]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Iron,

Thank you for making this thread a lot clearer and helping to prove Boro's past and continued troll status.

[/ QUOTE ]

Iron is a Green, why didn't he confirm the other 4+ trolling notes just now, as was specifically requested in this thread and would help end this debate right here and now? Maybe because they don't exist? Funny how this secret society of polimods does everything in its power to NOT clear things up by always giving partial pieces of usually erroneous information.

[/ QUOTE ]

As has been stated Mods cant post user notes. Wouldnt shock me if Jman got a slap on the wrist for doing so. Confirming what has already been stated is another thing, especially when that note was written by Iron himself.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting troll threads like "Somalia is AC Utopia" for the thousndth time? What a joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, we're in complete agreement here. There are far too many threads in the politics forum about some fringe ultra-right wing philosophy eschewed by an incredibly small percentage of the population.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? I haven't seen any threads about any ultra-right wing philosophy. And ultra-libertarian philosophy, maybe, but not ultra-right wing. Where are these threads?

And of course, consider the fact that we're on a poker forum, an activity that qualifies in many places as a victimless crime, it's no surprise at all the vastly more libertarian would be here than in most places.


[ QUOTE ]
I believe that constant discussion of this relatively uninteresting fanatical philosophy drives traffic away from the politics forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who cares what you believe? When did a moderator's job become to tell people what beliefs they are and are not allowed to express in the appropriate forums for them? Are we next going to ban all the atheist threads in SMP? After all, atheists are a small minority in this country.

[ QUOTE ]
When Censored RR and I first came into politics, Censored made a request that anarcho-capitalism be kept to one thread, but that request was largely ignored,

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it was ignored. It was an absurd and impossible request. You'd have one thread with as many posts as the rest of the forum combined. Not only that, but it's blatant discrimination against a large group of posters.

[ QUOTE ]
There are far too many interesting things that get pushed off the page in politics because of the dozens of new AC and AC related threads started every week by the same group of core AC posters.

[/ QUOTE ]

What forums are you reading? Most of the "AC" threads here are started by non AC posters asking questions about AC. This shows that AC is much more interesting to even the non ACers in the forum than you give it credit for. Looking at the first page in politics now:

AC threads started by ACers: 1
AC threads started by nonACers: 2
Non AC threads started by ACers: 2
Non AC threads started by Non ACers: 5
Other (mod post): 2

So 3 out of 10 (not counting stickies) is a ton of AC threads? And only 1 of them started by an ACer (Nielso of course).

Let's try again but go 5 pages deep for a better sample size:

AC threads started by ACers: 4
AC threads started by nonACers: 6
Non AC threads started by ACers: 9
Non AC threads started by Non ACers: 29
Other (mod post): 3

So not counting mod threads, we've got 38 non AC threads to 10 AC threads. 21% isn't that much. Furthermore, 6 out of those 10 threads were started by nonAcers. Of the 4 started by ACers, I counted one by OJC even though I'm not really sure that that thread should have counted or that OJC is really an ACer, but since all the responders were ACers sympathizing, I went that way. Another was a post by BKholdem which wasn't really about AC, but it mentioned AC in the OP, so I went ahead and included it. The other two were by Nielso and pretty definitely AC threads.

So in the first 5 pages, we've got maybe 4 threads started by ACers about AC. How is this "dozens of new AC and AC related threads started every week by the same group of core AC posters?"

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting troll threads like "Somalia is AC Utopia" for the thousndth time? What a joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, we're in complete agreement here. There are far too many threads in the politics forum about some fringe ultra-right wing philosophy eschewed by an incredibly small percentage of the population.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? I haven't seen any threads about any ultra-right wing philosophy. And ultra-libertarian philosophy, maybe, but not ultra-right wing. Where are these threads?

And of course, consider the fact that we're on a poker forum, an activity that qualifies in many places as a victimless crime, it's no surprise at all the vastly more libertarian would be here than in most places.


[ QUOTE ]
I believe that constant discussion of this relatively uninteresting fanatical philosophy drives traffic away from the politics forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who cares what you believe? When did a moderator's job become to tell people what beliefs they are and are not allowed to express in the appropriate forums for them? Are we next going to ban all the atheist threads in SMP? After all, atheists are a small minority in this country.

[ QUOTE ]
When Censored RR and I first came into politics, Censored made a request that anarcho-capitalism be kept to one thread, but that request was largely ignored,

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it was ignored. It was an absurd and impossible request. You'd have one thread with as many posts as the rest of the forum combined. Not only that, but it's blatant discrimination against a large group of posters.

[ QUOTE ]
There are far too many interesting things that get pushed off the page in politics because of the dozens of new AC and AC related threads started every week by the same group of core AC posters.

[/ QUOTE ]

What forums are you reading? Most of the "AC" threads here are started by non AC posters asking questions about AC. This shows that AC is much more interesting to even the non ACers in the forum than you give it credit for. Looking at the first page in politics now:

AC threads started by ACers: 1
AC threads started by nonACers: 2
Non AC threads started by ACers: 2
Non AC threads started by Non ACers: 5
Other (mod post): 2

So 3 out of 10 (not counting stickies) is a ton of AC threads? And only 1 of them started by an ACer (Nielso of course).

Let's try again but go 5 pages deep for a better sample size:

AC threads started by ACers: 4
AC threads started by nonACers: 6
Non AC threads started by ACers: 9
Non AC threads started by Non ACers: 29
Other (mod post): 3

So not counting mod threads, we've got 38 non AC threads to 10 AC threads. 21% isn't that much. Furthermore, 6 out of those 10 threads were started by nonAcers. Of the 4 started by ACers, I counted one by OJC even though I'm not really sure that that thread should have counted or that OJC is really an ACer, but since all the responders were ACers sympathizing, I went that way. Another was a post by BKholdem which wasn't really about AC, but it mentioned AC in the OP, so I went ahead and included it. The other two were by Nielso and pretty definitely AC threads.

So in the first 5 pages, we've got maybe 4 threads started by ACers about AC. How is this "dozens of new AC and AC related threads started every week by the same group of core AC posters?"

[/ QUOTE ]

We're going to try Censored's directive out for a little while, and see how it effects the forum discussion. If after a while, that effect is negative, the ruling can be reversed.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I did in fact warn Borodog on that date and the usernote JMan posted is accurate. The reason why was his "gold star" program whereby he was mockingly congratulating people who he believed he destroyed in debate for helping him convince others to convert to AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Iron,

Thank you for making this thread a lot clearer and helping to prove Boro's past and continued troll status.

[/ QUOTE ]

He actually did neither of those things. Assuming that the message Boro posted in here is correct, it's very easy to see how Iron could see it as a warning when it really wasn't one at all.