Griefing

[Jingoist Hippostan]

Neo Art is now following me around, bringing up current moderation threads. Not only did he create one to report me, he posted in the other one, but also continued posting in his, and further just made this post

viewtopic.php?p=3715184#p3715184

Tell me, oh mods: Is there a rule banning people from following around posters and harassing them over one, specific thing?

[Neo Art]

Seriously now? Pointing out what you just said not five minutes before as an example of your poor quality of arguments is a rule violation now?

[Jingoist Hippostan]

Seriously now? Pointing out what you just said not five minutes before as an example of your poor quality of arguments is a rule violation now?

I think it's rising to the level of harassment. Especially given some of the truly epic strawmans and pseudoflames you've launched against me in the past.

[Neo Art]

Seriously now? Pointing out what you just said not five minutes before as an example of your poor quality of arguments is a rule violation now?

I think it's rising to the level of harassment.

Perhaps if I brought it up days or weeks later. Or made a point to go looking for things you said after the fact. But given that I am obviously online reading the forum it should come as no surprise that I find myself reading recent posts in response to you.

Nor is it surprising I would make reference to an argument you just made to show what I perceive is your poor skill at arguing.

None of which is forbidden

[Jingoist Hippostan]

None of which is forbidden

I believe that is, in your own words, not your decision to make.

[Neo Art]

None of which is forbidden

I believe that is, in your own words, not your decision to make.

Of course it isn't. I am, however afforded the opportunittdto defend myself.

Though your post bears a striking resemblance to the very conduct you accuse me of. Following my posts and bringing up things I said elsewhere

[Melkor Unchained]

Ugh. A cursory glance suggests this is one of those situations where Nobody Looks Good^TM. I'm going backward through the quote exchange to get a feel for what's going on and pretty much all of it is petty back-and-forths. Please try to keep the fight from spilling over into here while I/we/whoever figure(s) this out.

EDIT: in other news, would one of y'all kindly change your gorram flag?!

[Jingoist Hippostan]

I believe that is, in your own words, not your decision to make.

Of course it isn't. I am, however afforded the opportunittdto defend myself.

Though your post bears a striking resemblance to the very conduct you accuse me of. Following my posts and bringing up things I said elsewhere

The difference being that mine is not a hostile manner, nor is it in unrelated threads. This thread is related to the thread in which you said that. Plus I said it to you, whereas you were just going around, bringing it up everywhere. So I'd say there's virtually no similarity at all.

EDIT: Sorry Melkor, didn't see your post until after I posted.

[Neo Art]

EDIT: in other news, would one of y'all kindly change your gorram flag?!

I keep my default in protest of this custom flag nonsense.

Or laziness and lack of inspiration. Either way

[Melkor Unchained]

Like I said earlier, no one looks good here. JH, despite having a respectable post count and the fact that you've been here for a while, you're starting to ping on our radar for some reason and I'd be careful with that. If Neo Art or Muravyets or whoever else is guilty of baiting you (more on that later), you need to shrug it off (or report it if you feel you have to) rather than retaliate in kind, which will almost always (and will here) earn you a unofficial warning/profile note. To your credit though, you did seem to still be trying to make points after the mudslinging began towards the end of this post.

Muravyets sets a poor tone by attacking a poster, something which JH apparently took exception to. If you want to wave someone off, focus on what was said and why it's not relevant/worthwhile/whatever rather than implicitly attacking someone's ability to follow the conversation/debate. Since you have two unofficials for this sort of thing on file already and are somewhat notorious for this kind of behavior, I'm *** warning you for flamebait *** to make the point that setting a poor tone by attacking the poster is something we all wish you'd consider giving up.

Neo Art was a trickier decision since he didn't really say all that much, but in the end I can't ignore the fact that he basically jumped into the thread for no other discernible purpose but to annoy/bait/belittle JH. It's one thing when people are debating the OP (or a slight derail thereof) and eventually have a heated exchange, but it has always rubbed us the wrong way when attacking another poster is one's only apparent purpose for joining a discussion. At the risk of giving JH everything he seems to want here (despite being less than perfect himself) I am also going to issue a *** warning for trolling/baiting ***.

For the record, I don't know what JH's opinion is on the thread's subject matter and I don't particularly care. I'm hesitant to warn two people with whom I have had disagreements in the past (it doesn't look good, I know) but what we have here is a pretty clear-cut case of someone attacking the poster followed by a third party jumping in to harass another, hence the two redtexts. JH gets an unofficial for responding in kind, but since he neither initiated or escalated the exchange I don't think it's necessary to punish him to the same extent as I chose to with Muravyets and Neo Art.

In closing I'd like to note that I did not read that whole thread and instead spent most of my energy wondering what exactly to do with the exchange that occurred between this post and this one. If there are any antecedents I missed, feel free to point them out.

[Neo Art]

Neo Art was a trickier decision since he didn't really say all that much, but in the end I can't ignore the fact that he basically jumped into the thread for no other discernible purpose but to annoy/bait/belittle JH.

Except for the fact that I was already talking to Murvy? My first post in the thread was 10 minutes before the post where I "jumped into the thread", and made, essentially, instantaneously with the post by JH that I referenced in my second post. I'm not sure how you can determine that I "jumped into a thread for no other discernible purpose but to annoy/bait/belittle JH" when I was already interacting in that thread 10 minutes before hand.

I didn't even read his post in moderation (which again, was posted essentially simultaneously with my own first post in that thread) until about five minutes AFTER I entered that thread (which is when I replied to it as you can see in that thread). True, it all happened at pretty much the same period of time, but it's remarkably disingenuous to suggest I entered the thread for no other discernible purpose but to bait him, when my entry in the thread I wasn't even addressing him. Unless of course, you think that saying to Murvy "chinatown" is belittling JH. And considering that's a bit of an injoke between her and I, I'd be somewhat amazed if you even knew what it referenced, let alone were somehow, miraculously, able to discern my meaning.

The fact that I found, within the space of about 5 minutes, that he made a very poor argument elsewhere on another thread, and found it worthwhile to point out can not retroactively make my purpose to enter a thread "nothing but to annoy", because, again, my original entry into the thread was not even addressing him, and I find it not terribly shocking that I'd continue to read a thread, once I started posting in it.

Or, in very simple terms, kindly explain how I "entered a thread just to belittle JH" when I entered the thread 10 minutes before the post he linked. Unless, somehow, 12:47 comes before 12:37 now. In which case sure, your post makes sense.

With that being said, any resolution to the complaint that I made, a full half hour before this thread was created, for conduct not in any way related to the thread being discussed?

I'm not sure why this complaint was dealt while two threads addressing prior, unrelated conduct by the OP remain unaddressed, even though created first.

[Melkor Unchained]

Unless of course, you think that saying to Murvy "chinatown" is belittling JH. And considering that's a bit of an injoke between her and I, I'd be somewhat amazed if you even knew what it referenced, let alone were somehow, miraculously, able to discern my meaning.

(gonna just go ahead and steal a trick I hate here, if only to save time/sanity)

So it's spam then? I don't really care what your excuse might be, but it's pretty clear to me why you joined that thread when you did. You could at best argue that you posted spam to start and bait to follow it up, but in either case I think the warning stands.

[Neo Art]

(gonna just go ahead and steal a trick I hate here, if only to save time/sanity)

So it's spam then? I don't really care what your excuse might be, but it's pretty clear to me why you joined that thread when you did. You could at best argue that you posted spam to start and bait to follow it up, but in either case I think the warning stands.

A post is spam unless it is understood by every single person? How nonsensically ascinine. Also remarkably telling for you to admit that you don't care what I have to say.

And yes I am sure the ruling will stand. They have a tendency to even when expliciitly proven incorrect. This I am sure is no different.

Still waiting on the resolution of my complaint, posted prior to this one, by the way.

[Melkor Unchained]

NA, the stuff in red is what you're warned for, the stuff in black-and-white that precedes and follows it is explanation. You weren't warned for how you entered the thread (even if it is still mildly spammish, inside joke or no), you were warned for baiting JH. It was evidence, not the reason or meaning for your 'conviction'.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

JH has an official now for similar behavior, but I most likely wouldn't have done so without factoring in this incident also. Taken as a package, I think it's sorted out.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Like I said earlier, no one looks good here. JH, despite having a respectable post count and the fact that you've been here for 6 months, you're starting to ping on our radar for some reason and I'd be careful with that. If Neo Art or Muravyets or whoever else is guilty of baiting you (more on that later), you need to shrug it off (or report it if you feel you have to) rather than retaliate in kind, which will almost always (and will here) earn you a unofficial warning/profile note. To your credit though, you did seem to still be trying to make points after the mudslinging began towards the end of this post.

Muravyets sets a poor tone by attacking a poster, something which JH apparently took exception to. If you want to wave someone off, focus on what was said and why it's not relevant/worthwhile/whatever rather than implicitly attacking someone's ability to follow the conversation/debate. Since you have two unofficials for this sort of thing on file already and are somewhat notorious for this kind of behavior, I'm *** warning you for flamebait *** to make the point that setting a poor tone by attacking the poster is something we all wish you'd consider giving up.

Neo Art was a trickier decision since he didn't really say all that much, but in the end I can't ignore the fact that he basically jumped into the thread for no other discernible purpose but to annoy/bait/belittle JH. It's one thing when people are debating the OP (or a slight derail thereof) and eventually have a heated exchange, but it has always rubbed us the wrong way when attacking another poster is one's only apparent purpose for joining a discussion. At the risk of giving JH everything he seems to want here (despite being less than perfect himself) I am also going to issue a *** warning for trolling/baiting ***.

For the record, I don't know what JH's opinion is on the thread's subject matter and I don't particularly care. I'm hesitant to warn two people with whom I have had disagreements in the past (it doesn't look good, I know) but what we have here is a pretty clear-cut case of someone attacking the poster followed by a third party jumping in to harass another, hence the two redtexts. JH gets an unofficial for responding in kind, but since he neither initiated or escalated the exchange I don't think it's necessary to punish him to the same extent as I chose to with Muravyets and Neo Art.

In closing I'd like to note that I did not read that whole thread and instead spent most of my energy wondering what exactly to do with the exchange that occurred between this post and this one. If there are any antecedents I missed, feel free to point them out.

It is unclear to me whether NA has asked for a second opinion and/or received one, but I'd like the following to be considered. I'm sure with the rules about spamming in Moderation and "Rules Lawyering" this will somehow get me warned as well, but I fail to see how these rulings above make any sense whatsoever.

1. There does not appear to be any rationale for why the following is NOT flamebait (emphasis added):

That would be the problem if it were the topic. However, it isn't, so... yeah.

It's clearly related to the topic of your post, specifically the part I was replying to. Perhaps you should reread your post and see what topic you were referring to, if you cannot remember.

(Note: Mur was right that the point was off-topic, BTW).

But this is post IS flamebait:

It's clearly related to the topic of your post, specifically the part I was replying to. Perhaps you should reread your post and see what topic you were referring to, if you cannot remember.

I know perfectly well what the posts contained, both mine and the one I was responding to. I also know better than to argue about it with someone whose immediate response to being told his comment was beside my point is to be insulting. 'Bye.

They both seem rather innocuous and inactionable. The later is not a personal attack. The first arguably is.

2. Regardless, how is saying you will not argue with someone because they are being insulting flamebait?

3. Melkor admits Neo Art's "offense" is borderline at best, and when confronted, retracts the only justification he gave for warning Neo Art. Here is the relevant exchange (emphasis added):

I also know better than to argue about it with someone whose immediate response to being told his comment was beside my point is to be insulting.

Chinatown.

No doubt, but still.

Well keep in mind, this is a poster who admitted, in the moderation forum, no less, something that essentially boiled down to "but someone told me not to say something, so how could I resist saying it?"

Well keep in mind, this is a poster who admitted, in the moderation forum, no less, something that essentially boiled down to "but someone told me not to say something, so how could I resist saying it?"

You know NA, I admire your ability to pretend someone said something they didn't say, ridiculously oversimplify their argument, ignore all mitigating factors, and then act like you just pwned their argument.

A. How is JH's post not a personal attack on NA -- i.e., a flame?

B. Clearly, NA was not guilty of griefing as JH alleged. He is allegedly warned for "trolling and baiting." The One Stop Rules Shop defines flamebaiting and trolling as:

Flamebait: Posts that are made with the aim of angering someone indirectly. Not outright flame, but still liable to bring angry replies. Flame baiting is a far more subtle and covert action; it is an underhanded tactic that is designed to provoke a response from another player. It's in the same context of trolling but with flamebaiting it's just the one person.

Trolling: Posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example). While Trolls often make these posts strictly in an attempt to provoke negative comment, it is still trolling even if you actually hold those beliefs. Intent is difficult to prove over the internet, so mods will work under their best assumptions.

Note that posts of opinions you disagree with does not automatically equate with trolling. Disagreements are expected, as long as they are done in a civil manner. Max Barry has made it clear that he welcomes all opinions in civil debate, even those that are highly unpopular or minority-held. Make your case without the invective, if you want to avoid banishment as a Troll.

Trolling is also is used to refer to making obviously silly topics that people nonetheless will reply to, despite all common sense. Don't feed the trolls.

Clearly, neither of NA's posts were even close to trolling. Flamebait is a far more ambiguous and capricious category. Technically a good argument that throughly decimates an opponents post may anger them and may even be intended to anger them, even if entirely substantive and not personal. However, I recognize that NA's post was somewhat personal (if also substantive) and I would agree this is a close call that could go against NA on the merits.

C. What is rather bizarre and indefensible is Melkor's explanation of the warning to NA. Melkor says "I can't ignore the fact that he basically jumped into the thread for no other discernible purpose but to annoy/bait/belittle JH. It's one thing when people are debating the OP (or a slight derail thereof) and eventually have a heated exchange, but it has always rubbed us the wrong way when attacking another poster is one's only apparent purpose for joining a discussion..." and "what we have here is a pretty clear-cut case of someone attacking the poster followed by a third party jumping in to harass another." Several problems:

I. This is based on the false premise that Muravyets was "personally attacking" JH.

II. Melkor does NOT accuse NA of (or warn him for) actually flaming/personally attacking JH, so these comments about doing so make no sense.

III. It is quite common to join (and would be absurd to bar anyone from joining) a thread specifically to attack a position taken by a poster in said thread.

IV. Melkor states as a "fact" his apparent knowledge of NA's intent in joining the thread without explanation-- despite being wrong, as NA pointed out about when NA joined the thread.

V. Finally, Melkor conveniently and cryptically states:

NA, the stuff in red is what you're warned for, the stuff in black-and-white that precedes and follows it is explanation. You weren't warned for how you entered the thread (even if it is still mildly spammish, inside joke or no), you were warned for baiting JH. It was evidence, not the reason or meaning for your 'conviction'.

In other words, NA is warned for "for trolling/baiting" for UNKOWN REASONS -- because Melkor's erroneous "explanation" was neither the "reason [n]or meaning for [NA's] 'conviction.'"

4. Melkor says that "To [JH's] credit though, [JH] did seem to still be trying to make points after the mudslinging began,"
but also says "In closing I'd like to note that I did not read that whole thread and instead spent most of my energy wondering what exactly to do with the exchange that occurred between this post and this one." I am unable to find any post by JH in that section of the thread by JH that "tr[ies] to make points" that are substantive. In fact, JH's only post in that span are:

That would be the problem if it were the topic. However, it isn't, so... yeah.

It's clearly related to the topic of your post, specifically the part I was replying to. Perhaps you should reread your post and see what topic you were referring to, if you cannot remember.

Well keep in mind, this is a poster who admitted, in the moderation forum, no less, something that essentially boiled down to "but someone told me not to say something, so how could I resist saying it?"

You know NA, I admire your ability to pretend someone said something they didn't say, ridiculously oversimplify their argument, ignore all mitigating factors, and then act like you just pwned their argument.

Why is JH being praised for thse posts?

Yes, BTW, I am supposed to be on vacation. I am awaiting a second opinion on another Mod ruling and noticed this thread while checking for one. As soon as that matter is resolved, I will be gone "cold turkey."

[Muravyets]

"Setting a poor tone"? I protest that warning, and here's why:

I get flamed on a regular basis in these forums and have done for years. I get openly flamed -- called such things as stupid, irrational, bitchy, whiny, dishonest, illiterate, and more -- all for the crime of pointing out flaws in others' arguments or failing to back down from a debate. This happens at least once every other thread I participate in. I have even been griefed and harassed on occasion as well. In fact, Melkor, you should know well that I have on two occasions had to privately remind a certain user that targeting another player for ridicule and insults, even behind their back, is against the rules. For five years I've been putting up with that stuff, and in all that time, the attackers have been told to knock it off perhaps four times, while I have been told multiple times to just suck it up.

The message that this latest ruling seems to send is that five years of open flaming and harassing and baiting are perfectly okay, but telling someone just once that their argument is irrelevant to the point I was making is "setting a poor tone" and that is enough of a rules violation to earn me a warning.

I protest this warning on the grounds that "setting a poor tone" is arbitrary and overly subjective and thus not a valid judgment.

EDIT TO ADD:

Further, in reference to TCT's point regarding my warning, above, I would also point out that this is yet another instance of me being punished and/or blamed for NOT continuing to argue with someone. That is virtually Kafka-esque in how it forces me to lose, no matter what I do.

Finally, a last point that I was previously not going to raise but which, upon closer examination of your remarks, I feel I need to: I request a second opinion on my warning from a moderator who is neither you nor Scolopendra. The reason for this request is as follows:

1) The "certain user" that I had to remind twice in TGs that it is against the rules to single out another player for in-forum ridicule and personal attacks was you, Melkor. It happened a good long while ago, but I remember it well. Because your language in the present ruling reads as hostile, judgmental, and as if you are seeking to punish me for unspecified "notorious" behavior which you claim is somehow habitual, combined with the grossly arbitrary description of what you say is my present offense, I do not believe your present ruling is objective. You have shown yourself in the past willing to hold and carry out a personal grudge against me, and frankly, I do not trust you now.

2) The reason I also ask that Scolopendra not moderate me here is because he has been pursuing a personal conflict with me off NS and, recently, in NS as well.

Now, I'll be honest about this: I really couldn't care less if there is a warning level of 1 on my record. What I do care about is if that warning is arbitrary, unfair by comparison to other situations, and delivered by people who have proven themselves in the past to hostile to me personally.

[Ardchoille]

And the mods wonder why people find them biased.

CP, keep out of this or cop a warning for spamming Moderation, I don't care which. For the rest, hang on and stop upping the temperature until those mods who aren't involved can get up to speed on this. iLock for a cooldown.

[Melkor Unchained]

Before I get into the details of this audit and what it means, I want to remind our players that the Moderation forum is not the place to file appeals. Appeals are to be filed via GHR, in part to prevent this exact spectacle from occurring. This and this should be GHRs, and this is completely unnecessary. Typically whatever punishment/warning/whatever we hand down is between us and the offender, and is not the concern of a third party. If you'd like to commiserate or discuss a friend's warning, please do it in TG or offsite. Since the proper appeals process was not carried out, I am auditing myself rather than calling in another mod to handle this.

Muravyets, if you're being insulted left and right as your appeal seems to suggest, you need to report it. You can't just say "well I get insulted all the time" and pull it out as a trump card when you resort to similar tactics. You're allowed to say things like "You don't know what you're talking/on about," or "Do your research" or "that's irrelevant/beside the point," but there is a difference between this:

"You don't know what you're on about. If you did your research you'd see that studies have shown that clowns wearing green face paint suffer a higher rate of allergic reacions... etc etc etc.

and this:

"Studies have shown that clowns wearing green face paint suffer a higher rate of allergic reactions, etc etc etc.

You don't know what you're talking about. Do your research.

In the first example, you start with the idea that the other poster is wrong/mistaken/ignorant and spend the rest of the post/paragraph explaining why. This is probably the best way to go about it if you feel it necessary to include those or similar comments, as it indicates that your opponent being cluless is secondary to the points you're trying to make.

In the second example, however, it looks an awful lot like pointing out @@shortcoming@@ is the purpose or thesis of the post rather than any specific point about clowns and face paint. Remember that the OP/topic should be your primary focus and the in/ability of others to debate shouldn't entice you into making @@shortcoming@@ the main message of your post(s). Otherwise inactionable comments can still rub us the wrong way depending on how they're phrased/structured and this was a good example. Obviously your closing sentence will be the last thing another user reads before responding, and the choice to end posts with this kind of commentary could be construed as an attempt to bait the opposition.

What pushed you over the top for a warning at the time was NA's involvement and my heavy skepticism that he just-so-happened to notice the exchange just as it was turning nasty. I felt that it was the beginning of a dogpile, and after talking it over with another mod (who wasn't Scolo, if you have to know) we decided you started the trend of attacking the poster and that things started to deteriorate once you did. However, the only really meaty stuff took place between NA and Jingo, so your warning will be removed momentarily.

Neo Art, your argument doesn't really hold water. You can't just jump into a thread with a one-word post (almost no matter what it is) and claim that as a pretense for benign entry. It's obvious you came in when you did to goad/belittle/insult JH and your warning will stand. If you had something you wanted to say to JH, it should have been at least vaguely on-topic and there is absolutely no attempt made on your part to debate or discuss any point made by him.

Also, we want Neo Art and Muravyets to add Jingoist Hippostan to their Foes List and vice versa. Please be aware that any further contact between you may be judged more stringently now that you have demonstrated a lack of ability/motivation to co-exist.

Since a modly consensus has been achieved, this constitutes a Final Ruling and the thread will remain locked.