Trolling

[Khadgar]

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=11854

[Kryozerkia]

It's trolling because someone you don't agree with has an opinion?

[Dyakovo]

It's trolling because someone you don't agree with has an opinion?

I think it was more because his opinions are never based on actual facts...

[Kryozerkia]

It's trolling because someone you don't agree with has an opinion?

I think it was more because his opinions are never based on actual facts...

Facts are just another part of opinion. One can easily say that there are no facts supporting God and that the Bible is not a good source to verify that, but someone else will hold the opinion that it does. Trolling has to anger. Being factually inaccurate is not trolling.

[Melkor Unchained]

Khadgar, this is the second time you've had to string this guy up on trolling charges for being hostile to Obama policy; I suggest you get a grip.

Dyakovo, if we accept that reasoning, we'd theoretically be obligated to prosecute religious people for "trolling," since their opinions/perceptions/beliefs are not always based on fact either.

[Dyakovo]

Khadgar, this is the second time you've had to string this guy up on tolling charges for being hostile to Obama policy; I suggest you get a grip.

Dyakovo, if we accept that reasoning, we'd theoretically be obligated to prosecute religious people for "trolling," since their opinions/perceptions/beliefs are not always based on fact either.

I actually wasn't arguing that it was trolling, just commenting on a possible reason as to why khadgar thought it was.

[Scolopendra]

Let the man speak for himself, then; while I don't mean to sound too brusque, Dyakovo, your speculation in this regard isn't helpful.

[Dyakovo]

Let the man speak for himself, then; while I don't mean to sound too brusque, Dyakovo, your speculation in this regard isn't helpful.

Sorry

[Khadgar]

Khadgar, this is the second time you've had to string this guy up on tolling charges for being hostile to Obama policy; I suggest you get a grip.

Dyakovo, if we accept that reasoning, we'd theoretically be obligated to prosecute religious people for "trolling," since their opinions/perceptions/beliefs are not always based on fact either.

He's trolling because he posts crap with no basis in reality that is intended solely to start a fight. He does no research to back up his claims, they're always roundly trounced within two or three posts of a thread. His poll options are always designed to insult.

I have been cautioned for less. In future do not reply to me.

[Melkor Unchained]

He's trolling because he posts crap with no basis in reality that is intended solely to start a fight. He does no research to back up his claims, they're always roundly trounced within two or three posts of a thread. His poll options are always designed to insult.

I'm sorry, but that's demonstrably untrue. In both of the posts you've reported so far, his poll options have more or less covered the gamut. Also, If I went and pulled 30 debate posts at random, I would guess 24-30 of them would be the result of opinions rather than research; hardly an actionable offense.

I have been cautioned for less. In future do not reply to me.

Oh, I'm sorry. Are you an admin in disguise? Pretty sure they're the only ones who can tell me what to do.

[Kryozerkia]

Khadgar, this is the second time you've had to string this guy up on tolling charges for being hostile to Obama policy; I suggest you get a grip.

Dyakovo, if we accept that reasoning, we'd theoretically be obligated to prosecute religious people for "trolling," since their opinions/perceptions/beliefs are not always based on fact either.

He's trolling because he posts crap with no basis in reality that is intended solely to start a fight. He does no research to back up his claims, they're always roundly trounced within two or three posts of a thread. His poll options are always designed to insult.

Let's see... that first line really describes opinion when referring to beliefs in regards to religion. In fact, your whole argument could be applied to it. His poll options have shown improvement since my first encounter with him. I find that he has improved over time.

I have been cautioned for less. In future do not reply to me.

You were only cautioned. No need for such a response.

[Khadgar]

He's trolling because he posts crap with no basis in reality that is intended solely to start a fight. He does no research to back up his claims, they're always roundly trounced within two or three posts of a thread. His poll options are always designed to insult.

I'm sorry, but that's demonstrably untrue. In both of the posts you've reported so far, his poll options have more or less covered the gamut. Also, If I went and pulled 30 debate posts at random, I would guess 24-30 of them would be the result of opinions rather than research; hardly an actionable offense.

I have been cautioned for less. In future do not reply to me.

Oh, I'm sorry. Are you an admin in disguise? Pretty sure they're the only ones who can tell me what to do.

I can't put you on ignore. The issue had been dealt with before you decided to chime in and gloat. So respectfully, leave me the fuck alone.

[Melkor Unchained]

He's trolling because he posts crap with no basis in reality that is intended solely to start a fight. He does no research to back up his claims, they're always roundly trounced within two or three posts of a thread. His poll options are always designed to insult.

I'm sorry, but that's demonstrably untrue. In both of the posts you've reported so far, his poll options have more or less covered the gamut. Also, If I went and pulled 30 debate posts at random, I would guess 24-30 of them would be the result of opinions rather than research; hardly an actionable offense.

I have been cautioned for less. In future do not reply to me.

Oh, I'm sorry. Are you an admin in disguise? Pretty sure they're the only ones who can tell me what to do.

I can't put you on ignore. The issue had been dealt with before you decided to chime in and gloat. So respectfully, leave me the fuck alone.

"Gloating" lol...

I'm not "gloating" I'm asking that you refrain from running to Moderation every time you read a post from him that you disagree with. You can't put me on ignore, but you sure as hell can put You-Gi-Owe on ignore. If he offends you so badly, I suggest you consider it.

[Khadgar]

"Gloating" lol... :palm:

I'm not "gloating" I'm asking that you refrain from running to Moderation every time you read a post from him that you disagree with. You can't put me on ignore, but you sure as hell can put You-Gi-Owe on ignore. If he offends you so badly, I suggest you consider it.

When the higher ups get tired of your bias and behavior and smack you back to being a regular peon. I'll laugh.

[Melkor Unchained]

Wait, "bias?" Really? I wasn't the one who made either ruling; I just had the audacity to reiterate to you that criticizing Obama is not trolling. People bashed Bush for years and we put up with it both because he deserved it and because criticizing politicians/policy is necessary to allowing any manner of debate in NSG to begin with.

I highly doubt I'll be "smacked" for upholding precedent; i.e., that it's okay to dislike/criticize the President.

[Sdaeriji]

"Gloating" lol...

I'm not "gloating" I'm asking that you refrain from running to Moderation every time you read a post from him that you disagree with. You can't put me on ignore, but you sure as hell can put You-Gi-Owe on ignore. If he offends you so badly, I suggest you consider it.

Is there a reason why we can't put Moderators on ignore? I've heard that you're notified of any official warnings via the message function, and surely anyone who fails to heed Moderator advice because they had the Moderator on ignore would be just as culpable if they later got in trouble (ignorance is not justification for breaking the law, after all). Is it just a function of the board's code, or was it a conscious decision? If it was a conscious decision, I'd love to know the reasoning behind it.

[Kryozerkia]

Wait, "bias?" Really? I wasn't the one who made either ruling; I just had the audacity to reiterate to you that criticizing Obama is not trolling. People bashed Bush for years and we put up with it both because he deserved it and because criticizing politicians/policy is necessary to allowing any manner of debate in NSG to begin with.

I highly doubt I'll be "smacked" for upholding precedent; i.e., that it's okay to dislike/criticize the President.

Yeah, I found myself wondering the same thing. Why isn't Khadgar berating me accusing me of mod bias? After all, I AM the one who looked at the thread. I am the one who said it wasn't trolling. You're innocent and caught in the crossfire. I think if Khadgar had been paying attention, (s)he would've noticed that you never even made a second ruling until after he started ranting.

[Hydesland]

He's trolling because he posts crap with no basis in reality

So why hasn't all the generalities been banned yet?

[Kryozerkia]

He's trolling because he posts crap with no basis in reality

So why hasn't all the generalities been banned yet?

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=11231

You're not helping. Take the discussion elsewhere.

[Sarzonia]

When the higher ups get tired of your bias and behavior and smack you back to being a regular peon. I'll laugh.

I haven't always agreed with Melkor's or other moderators' rulings. In fact, there's one ruling I'm still annoyed with.

Having said that, you haven't come CLOSE to proving Melkor has been biased. If you genuinely believe he is, I suggest you 1) document it with links AND 2) file a Getting Help request. Otherwise, I suggest you go for a walk if you start getting worked up. Give yourself time to calm down.