[R] Flamebaiting -- Republicans and Democrats in TX

[Forsher]

The problem is "sole function":

Don't mind Shofercia, his sole function is to make noises about his impartiality while pushing 'bothsame' bullshit for the sole purpose of dismissing and downplaying and insisting there's no reason to get worked up about anything Republicans/right wingers in general might be doing.

Followed by:

Also, you didn't make an ad hominem.

Just sayin'

'bothsame' YouTube videos instead of naming a single city to back up his argument[/u][/i]

Ah, so saying that we shouldn't

[i][u]mind Shofercia, Forsher, his sole function is to make noises about his impartiality knowledge of other countries while pushing
isn't an Ad Hominem. Got it Forsher, thanks for the input!

It obviously bothers Shofercia so why he'd turn around and do the same thing to someone else (i.e. me) isn't clear.

[Giovenith]

Addressed.

[Necroghastia]

lol i fucking wish i lived in your world

Na bro, I would not wish that on anyone. There is a saying, truth is hell, heaven is lies. Although there is another saying, everyone lives in their own truth. You decide what suits you the most, not here to burst anyone's bubble or ego. The most intelligent would already know what I am talking about and that is all that matters. I don't even need a reaction from them

I will only say this bro, since you believe so much in the official versions, even if one goes back in time to confirm that whatever they said not happened indeed happened, you will never accept it and if you are forced to accept anything not believed by you, as you lack mental and spiritual strength due to years of experiments, a few of which they admitted, I think you or most of the population can harm themselves and I would not want that on anyone.

So bro, enjoy living the happy life and call the "others" conspiracy nut or whatever funny words you have for them.

Not outright calling me dumb, but...

[Shofercia]

It's interesting how Forsher conveniently forgot to point out that he baited me into said flame. First, here's him claiming that it wasn't an attack on the poster:

Myrensis strikes with an ad hominem that boldly defends Democrats as more and more Americans want a third party, what a shocker! Voter restrictions apply to all voters, Republican and Democrat, you can't actually restrict voters based on their party affiliation, and if you'd read the US Constitution, Myrensis, you'd know that.

Yes, dear, we're well aware that Republicans can't actually (yet) just write a law saying Democrats can't vote.

What they can do is write laws slashing polling places and hours in heavily minority/high population areas (read: Democratic areas), restrict mail-in ballot access to make sure they can't just skip the lines entirely, declare various forms of ID commonly carried by their opponents invalid for voting while preserving those favored by their own base, and cut or reduce early voting days based solely on their popularity with their oppositions voters.

And I can't help but notice that you casually glossed over the whole 'unable to produce any evidence to the contrary and frequently forced to outright admit that the "problem" they claim the laws are supposed to address doesn't actually exist.' aspect.

But of course, you know all of this all ready, and as always the sole purpose of your weaselly-centrist-bleating-about-the-regular-people act is purely to deflect, downplay, and defend the bad behavior of the GOP.

Also, you didn't make an ad hominem.

Just sayin'

And here's him confirming that it wasn't an attack on the poster, prior to reporting it:

Ah, so saying that we shouldn't

mind Shofercia, Forsher, his sole function is to make noises about his impartiality knowledge of other countries while pushing 'bothsame' YouTube videos instead of naming a single city to back up his argument

isn't an Ad Hominem. Got it Forsher, thanks for the input!

That is correct. They are not assertions that we are incorrect because of our personal qualities.

Don't use fancy words you don't understand when you can just as easily... as you often do... call it a personal attack.

Reporting Forsher for Flamebaiting.

[Forsher]

It's interesting how Forsher conveniently forgot to point out that he baited me into said flame.

It was reported and warned as flamebaiting.

First, here's him claiming that it wasn't an attack on the poster:

No, it's a claim it isn't an ad hominem. Which was later retracted, or did you forget that?

And here's him confirming that it wasn't an attack on the poster, prior to reporting it:

That is correct. They are not assertions that we are incorrect because of our personal qualities.

Don't use fancy words you don't understand when you can just as easily... as you often do... call it a personal attack.

Is it just me or did I literally just call it a personal attack? No, it's not just me... it is a personal attack, I later agree it's an ad hominem (here) and report it as flamebaiting either way.

Reporting Forsher for Flamebaiting.

Maybe saying you don't understand a word is flamebaiting, and I don't think it should be (even if prefixed with "fancy"), but saying something isn't an ad hominem definitely isn't.

[Shofercia]

And he's at it again:

Interesting how you posted that, not only after you reported me, in an incident that happened solely due your very own provocative bait, that you conveniently omitted in the actual report, but also after I called you out for claiming that single family zoning is a major feature of the main reason cities go bankrupt in the US and when I asked you to name a single city to back it up, (as cities have names,) your response was to post a bunch of YouTube links, while failing to name a single city...

Presenting "very provocative bait":

Also, you didn't make an ad hominem.

Just sayin'

It's not interesting at all. You took a statement you took offence to and then decided to use it on someone else in an attempt to prove personal attacks were all ad hominems. A very strange argument that proved not at all convincing and required you to personally attack someone, so you then decided to misrepresent a dictionary definition. But, hey, that got me to go get you a better definition less inclined to misrepresentation but, lo, while Wikipedia included a graphic that agreed with me, it ultimately just used my understanding as the most common form of the fallacious variant of the ad hominem.

If you haven't watched videos that name drop multiple cities, that is still on you and I suggest you keep it in the relevant thread instead of trying to threadjack this one.

First, note how Frosher sneaks in the response, i.e. If you haven't watched videos that name drop multiple cities right before telling me not to engage in a threadjack. If that's not a bait to get me warned, I don't know what is.

Second, note how Forsher, once again, quotes the original bait out of context. Forsher's claim should be taken in context with what he's claiming isn't an ad hominem:

The bait:

Don't mind Shofercia, his sole function is to make noises about his impartiality while pushing 'bothsame' bullshit for the sole purpose of dismissing and downplaying and insisting there's no reason to get worked up about anything Republicans/right wingers in general might be doing.

The original response:

Myrensis strikes with an ad hominem that boldly defends Democrats as more and more Americans want a third party, what a shocker! Voter restrictions apply to all voters, Republican and Democrat, you can't actually restrict voters based on their party affiliation, and if you'd read the US Constitution, Myrensis, you'd know that.

And that's where it would've ended, but for Forsher's second bait:

Also, you didn't make an ad hominem.

Just sayin'

That's the bait that drew the response that led to the warning, shortly after Forsher later reported, that very same post as a personal attack, the post he claimed wasn't a personal attack. He also pretended to be confused about why he was targeted, even though his claim that a personal attack, and something that he actually reported as a personal attack, was actually not a personal attack was the real reason, and Forsher probably knew it.

Sometimes NSGers use moderators when they're being destroyed in a debate, so I'll just leave this here to show Forsher's motive for baiting, it's the last post thus far, but it's how the debate's been going: viewtopic.php?p=38863821#p38863821

Finally, Forsher claimed that the statement was later retracted. Said retraction came after Forsher baited me into the response, and is completely worthless. If you go to a bar, tell someone that someone else slept with their wife while they're drunk, wait for said person to punch the other guy in the face, and then retract said statement, does the retraction serve any meaningful purpose or is it completely worthless? I'll let the mods judge that one.

[Shofercia]

I'm sorry, is there going to be a ruling here? To recap:

1. Forsher was being absolutely destroyed in another thread after claiming that single family zoning destroys cities, but failing to cite any examples; Forsher then linked to a name dropping YouTube video that dropped so many names, that Forsher failed to repeat any of them. People told me I've destroyed Lumen, well compared to Lumen, Forsher's destruction was complete. Interestingly enough, no report from that thread came, I wonder why...

2. Instead, Forsher posted a bait in a completely different thread, one named "Republicans Rounding Up Democrats in Texas" and I should note that the bait was posted after a heated exchange ended. The exchange was done. NSG political threads get heated, we all get that. At this point, prior to Forsher's bait, not a single warning was given to me or the other debater. Enter Forsher, and just so there's no doubt, here's the admission:

Look, I've only seized on this post to have something germane to the voting access conversation this thread...

That's from his response to New Rogernomics. Here's another post:

Also, you didn't make an ad hominem.

Just sayin'

Forsher would later report Myrensis' post as an ad hominem to moderation, but only after my response, so that he could also report me.

Third, after Forsher's flamebait, he attempted another one, the good old "here's my complete response to you, but please don't respond to me, as it'll be totally off topic trick:

Interesting how you posted that, not only after you reported me, in an incident that happened solely due your very own provocative bait, that you conveniently omitted in the actual report, but also after I called you out for claiming that single family zoning is a major feature of the main reason cities go bankrupt in the US and when I asked you to name a single city to back it up, (as cities have names,) your response was to post a bunch of YouTube links, while failing to name a single city...

It's not interesting at all. You took a statement you took offence to and then decided to use it on someone else in an attempt to prove personal attacks were all ad hominems. A very strange argument that proved not at all convincing and required you to personally attack someone, so you then decided to misrepresent a dictionary definition. But, hey, that got me to go get you a better definition less inclined to misrepresentation but, lo, while Wikipedia included a graphic that agreed with me, it ultimately just used my understanding as the most common form of the fallacious variant of the ad hominem.

If you haven't watched videos that name drop multiple cities, that is still on you and I suggest you keep it in the relevant thread instead of trying to threadjack this one.

No Forsher, I didn't attack someone else, I called out your bait for what it was, and foolishly broke the rules. You were being wrecked in a debate, hijacked another thread for the sole purpose of baiting me, and then proceeded to bait me yet again. If the mods won't give you a warning, at least have the decency to admit what we all knew you were doing.

And yes, mods, I'd like a second opinion on Forsher's bait.

[Forsher]

Destroyed? Seriously?

Anyone, anyone at all, tell me if you care that I provided four Youtube links to substantiate a claim I made in this thread.

No. It's trivial.

From a third person perspective, this is quite the making-a-mountain-of-a-molehill kind of issue.

Nope. I'm done.

I'm never going to reply to another post by Shofercia again. That took more than five fucking hours to write (and 4387 words that I either wrote or quoted from sources). And I have to point this out because, as I said, he's making a meal of what's happening in this thread elsewhere.

You know, I shudder at the name, every time I see his post. I can totally anticipate what's coming.

It's been a month. The thread is now dead, having run its course productively after Shofercia stopped posting in it (also note: my last post to Shofercia, made before I refused to respond to this bullshit any further, remains unreplied to... and the conversation Shofercia is now claiming was a "finished" exchange, continued on until Shofercia stopped replying). The only two comments about the "conversation" we were having both indicate that Shofercia has acquired a reputation for being incredibly tedious, and certainly not that anyone felt that anyone was being "destroyed".

EDIT: Shofercia has gravedug the thread to reply. I don't know why I assumed that wouldn't happen.

Similarly,

If you haven't watched videos that name drop multiple cities, that is still on you and I suggest you keep it in the relevant thread instead of trying to threadjack this one.

[snip]

Look, I've only seized on this post to have something germane to the voting access conversation this thread is about so maybe you've succinctly stated your case, but with the exception of people imprisoned for electoral crimes (if there are any) there is no relationship whatsoever between the crime and the punishment. Even if we're interested in punitive justice, and not everyone is, that seems unsound... cruel, even.

only exists because continuing to talk to Shofercia on the incredibly tedious matter of what was happening in an entirely different thread... a threadjack. I'm really not sure what reply Shofercia intended to make to a post agreeing that he was correct. However, he had already tried to start a fight about that the previous time I did it. So if Forsher from a month ago was trying to direct Shofercia to stop trying to continue a conversation that had no where to go, it would be understandable.

Talking about what and what isn't an ad hominem is a threadjack. That conversation ended when I agreed with Shofercia. Shofercia then tried to start a new conversation about this thread. Do we have a rule against threadjack baiting? Because I don't know how to characterise what's happening here when someone wins an argument and then tries to keep that same argument going otherwise.

Incidentally, the point at which Shofercia was encouraged not to talk about what was and wasn't an ad hominem, was in the initial horribly, terribly provocative "bait" post when I said "just sayin'". Or, you know, something that is not only neither remotely provocative nor an invitation to a conversation being instead a marker that one should not happen (between anyone). Obviously, to my regret, it caused one. And I assume Shofercia regrets it too since he succeeded in convincing me that the post I was claiming wasn't even an ad hominem was, in fact, one... after he'd already used the same thing on me.

I would assume that no mod ruling was ever made because the premise of this thread is ridiculous and the premise of my supposed motive for baiting Shofercia is even more ridiculous... sublimely absurd, even.

I suggest that Shofercia's report and its follow ups in this thread are a failed attempt to flamebait. Having failed to provoke any flaming, Shofercia has returned after more than a month to see if the secondary objective of using mods as weapons could still be achieved.

That being said, Necroghastia's report was probably missed as a result of Shofercia's report:

Na bro, I would not wish that on anyone. There is a saying, truth is hell, heaven is lies. Although there is another saying, everyone lives in their own truth. You decide what suits you the most, not here to burst anyone's bubble or ego. The most intelligent would already know what I am talking about and that is all that matters. I don't even need a reaction from them

I will only say this bro, since you believe so much in the official versions, even if one goes back in time to confirm that whatever they said not happened indeed happened, you will never accept it and if you are forced to accept anything not believed by you, as you lack mental and spiritual strength due to years of experiments, a few of which they admitted, I think you or most of the population can harm themselves and I would not want that on anyone.

So bro, enjoy living the happy life and call the "others" conspiracy nut or whatever funny words you have for them.

Not outright calling me dumb, but...

[Shofercia]

Destroyed? Seriously?

No. It's trivial.

From a third person perspective, this is quite the making-a-mountain-of-a-molehill kind of issue.

You know, I shudder at the name, every time I see his post. I can totally anticipate what's coming.

It's been a month. The thread is now dead, having run its course productively after Shofercia stopped posting in it (also note: my last post to Shofercia, made before I refused to respond to this bullshit any further, remains unreplied to... and the conversation Shofercia is now claiming was a "finished" exchange, continued on until Shofercia stopped replying). The only two comments about the "conversation" we were having both indicate that Shofercia has acquired a reputation for being incredibly tedious, and certainly not that anyone felt that anyone was being "destroyed".

Similarly,

If you haven't watched videos that name drop multiple cities, that is still on you and I suggest you keep it in the relevant thread instead of trying to threadjack this one.

[snip]

Look, I've only seized on this post to have something germane to the voting access conversation this thread is about so maybe you've succinctly stated your case, but with the exception of people imprisoned for electoral crimes (if there are any) there is no relationship whatsoever between the crime and the punishment. Even if we're interested in punitive justice, and not everyone is, that seems unsound... cruel, even.

only exists because continuing to talk to Shofercia on the incredibly tedious matter of what was happening in an entirely different thread... a threadjack. I'm really not sure what reply Shofercia intended to make to a post agreeing that he was correct. However, he had already tried to start a fight about that the previous time I did it. So if Forsher from a month ago was trying to direct Shofercia to stop trying to continue a conversation that had no where to go, it would be understandable.

Talking about what and what isn't an ad hominem is a threadjack. That conversation ended when I agreed with Shofercia. Shofercia then tried to start a new conversation about this thread. Do we have a rule against threadjack baiting? Because I don't know how to characterise what's happening here when someone wins an argument and then tries to keep that same argument going otherwise.

Incidentally, the point at which Shofercia was encouraged not to talk about what was and wasn't an ad hominem, was in the initial horribly, terribly provocative "bait" post when I said "just sayin'". Or, you know, something that is not only neither remotely provocative nor an invitation to a conversation being instead a marker that one should not happen (between anyone). Obviously, to my regret, it caused one. And I assume Shofercia regrets it too since he succeeded in convincing me that the post I was claiming wasn't even an ad hominem was, in fact, one... after he'd already used the same thing on me.

I would assume that no mod ruling was ever made because the premise of this thread is ridiculous and the premise of my supposed motive for baiting Shofercia is even more ridiculous... sublimely absurd, even.

I suggest that Shofercia's report and its follow ups in this thread are a failed attempt to flamebait. Having failed to provoke any flaming, Shofercia has returned after more than a month to see if the secondary objective of using mods as weapons could still be achieved.

That being said, Necroghastia's report was probably missed as a result of Shofercia's report:

Not outright calling me dumb, but...

Spoilered to prevent Forsher from making any edits.

First, the issue Forsher takes with my request isn't that he hijacked another thread to bait and get me warned over a personal vendetta, but rather prefers to talk about the totality of destruction, which is completely irrelevant to moderation. I think that Forsher's anti-Shofercia state of mind is clear to all here, and that's relevant to moderation.

Second, I had this thing called real life happen, and an online forum is secondary to real life. I should note that the last post in that thread, before my post today, was made on August 13th, so it's not even remotely a dead thread, but I can see why Forsher would say that... in order to ask a mod to lock said thread. Responding to a two week old thread is not gravedigging. If it's a month old, that's a different story, but the last post was August 13th and a month has 30 days.

Third, the reason I tend to use the posters' names a lot, is because I don't want to accidentally misgender anyone and receive a warning for that, so rather than filling up my memory with pronounds, I just use the posters' names. I'm only saying this because Forsher also accused me of malicious intent in this regard:

Shofercia does this weird thing where he sticks people's names into the conversation he's having with them. It's extremely patronising and passive aggressive, which is probably why Shofercia does it.

That's in yet another thread. Anything to get me warned and banned from NSG, Forsher is even calling my request for a moderation ruling as "flamebaiting" in moderation! I'm the bad guy for you, Forsher, I get that, so just don't respond to me, but there's really no reason to chase me from thread to thread.

Fourth, here's the "I'm just saying" in context:

Don't mind Shofercia, his sole function is to make noises about his impartiality while pushing 'bothsame' bullshit for the sole purpose of dismissing and downplaying and insisting there's no reason to get worked up about anything Republicans/right wingers in general might be doing...

Myrensis strikes with an ad hominem that boldly defends Democrats as more and more Americans want a third party, what a shocker! Voter restrictions apply to all voters, Republican and Democrat...

Also, you didn't make an ad hominem.

Just sayin'

Ah, so saying that we shouldn't

mind Shofercia, Forsher, his sole function is to make noises about his impartiality knowledge of other countries while pushing 'bothsame' YouTube videos instead of naming a single city to back up his argument

isn't an Ad Hominem. Got it Forsher, thanks for the input!

Shortly after that, as well as the debate in the other thread, it magically became an ad hominem.

Fifth, I'm specifically asking for a ruling regarding Forsher's flamebait, rather than the entire thread. That hasn't been ruled on, as there were no moderation posts since I made the request. So I'm not even asking for a second opinion; I'm asking for a ruling.

[Forsher]

and the premise of my supposed motive for baiting Shofercia is even more ridiculous

[Forsher]

Spoilered to prevent Forsher from making any edits.

what the actual fuck

First, the issue Forsher takes with my request isn't that he hijacked another thread to bait and get me warned over a personal vendetta, but rather prefers to talk about the totality of destruction, which is completely irrelevant to moderation. I think that Forsher's anti-Shofercia state of mind is clear to all here, and that's relevant to moderation.

This is why people find talking to you so fucking tedious. You basically do nothing but lie about what other people have written even as you quote them doing, frequently, the exact opposite of what you claim. In this particular instance, you claim that I'm "anti-Shofercia" because I fixate on your attempt to use a moderation thread to assert that you were winning an argument in NSG (the mind boggles) in order to provide a motivation for your report. Or, you know, something I literally just commented on ("and the premise of my supposed motive for baiting Shofercia is even more ridiculous"). So, no, the issue isn't that you "talk about the totality of destruction" (which, if it is so irrelevant, why do you keep bringing it up?).

Second, I had this thing called real life happen, and an online forum is secondary to real life. I should note that the last post in that thread, before my post today, was made on August 13th, so it's not even remotely a dead thread, but I can see why Forsher would say that... in order to ask a mod to lock said thread. Responding to a two week old thread is not gravedigging. If it's a month old, that's a different story, but the last post was August 13th and a month has 30 days.

I would agree with this but for several facts:

1. the thread has been dead for nearly three weeks
2. two weeks is fourteen, not eighteen, days long
3. threads are regularly locked for this long
4. you have been previously directed not to reply to me when you're unable to respond in a timely manner
5. it's an internet forum and you're replying to a post that's over a month old... maybe just, let it go?

Third, the reason I tend to use the posters' names a lot, is because I don't want to accidentally misgender anyone and receive a warning for that, so rather than filling up my memory with pronounds, I just use the posters' names. I'm only saying this because Forsher also accused me of malicious intent in this regard:

Why are you bringing this up? No-one mentioned names, at all.

Shofercia does this weird thing where he sticks people's names into the conversation he's having with them. It's extremely patronising and passive aggressive, which is probably why Shofercia does it.

That's in yet another thread. Anything to get me warned and banned from NSG, Forsher is even calling my request for a moderation ruling as "flamebaiting" in moderation! I'm the bad guy for you, Forsher, I get that, so just don't respond to me, but there's really no reason to chase me from thread to thread.

I would note (1) that I was replying to a question from Nana after Knask parodied Shofercia's use of names and (2) your request for a moderation ruling isn't being called flamebaiting, the way you are conducting this report is... your request after a month's inaction was called mods as weapons. As I said, lies.

Also, since I'm now being accused of following Shofercia around. The threads run:

• 1 July - 16 July
• 14 July - now
• 21 July - 13 August + today's gravedig

And that in this supposedly additional thread I was, let's see... fourteenth poster and Shofercia doesn't show up until the sixth page.

And, incidentally, using names in that fashion is passive aggressive and patronising so, like, maybe, just use "they" if you're so concerned about misgendering people. Not that I tend to find much need for a pronoun other than "you" and its variants when talking to people. When I'm talking about people...

Fourth, here's the "I'm just saying" in context:

You've already provided the context. You might have forgotten since it's been a month but this is a thread about these posts you are now re-reporting?

Also, that reminds me... one of your earlier attempts to establish context:

And here's him confirming that it wasn't an attack on the poster, prior to reporting it:

That is correct. They are not assertions that we are incorrect because of our personal qualities.

Don't use fancy words you don't understand when you can just as easily... as you often do... call it a personal attack.

Reporting Forsher for Flamebaiting.

i.e. you are claiming that I am confirming something wasn't a personal attack by quoting me literally calling that same thing... a personal attack (as opposed to an ad hominem).

Now, I've often wondered/complained about the appropriateness of the word "liar" in NSG. So I will put it in no uncertain terms and see what happens:

Shofercia is a liar and a fundamentally dishonest poster that appears to be trying to use the moderation process to exact some measure of revenge for (1) being called out by at least four different posters in July and early August... these being Myrensis, Knask, Forsher and Gim, (2) having his illusions of the course of a conversation he was taking very seriously (as evidenced by returning to it after more than a month, albeit claiming this was when he finally had some free time) by Duvniask, and (3) getting a warning for flamebaiting when, utterly unprompted, Shofercia turned around and imitated the form of a statement that he (as far as anyone else can tell) took a great deal of personal offence to on another poster

Shortly after that, as well as the debate in the other thread, it magically became an ad hominem.

Honest people are capable of changing their minds. You created a situation where I found my position untenable... so I changed it.

And, by the way, Shofercia, this report had fuck all to do with you. It's about this thread and DLN's fucked up "ruling" or, rather, failure to make a ruling. Setting aside that that thread is always at the forefront of my mind, especially when unfortunate enough to come across dissemblers like Shofercia, I'd last been complaining about it and my inability to have the OSRS changed to better prevent situations like that from eventuating as recently as just a month earlier. Where, you'll note, Nilokeras made some points about how the flamebaiting rule that Fris directed the thread specifically to in response to my suggestions. Oh, shoot, exactly what happened here. Including, again, my diatribe about the necessity of being able to call people like Shofercia liars when they lie.

[Shofercia]

Spoilered to prevent Forsher from making any edits.

what the actual fuck

First, the issue Forsher takes with my request isn't that he hijacked another thread to bait and get me warned over a personal vendetta, but rather prefers to talk about the totality of destruction, which is completely irrelevant to moderation. I think that Forsher's anti-Shofercia state of mind is clear to all here, and that's relevant to moderation.

This is why people find talking to you so fucking tedious. You basically do nothing but lie about what other people have written even as you quote them doing, frequently, the exact opposite of what you claim. In this particular instance, you claim that I'm "anti-Shofercia" because I fixate on your attempt to use a moderation thread to assert that you were winning an argument in NSG (the mind boggles) in order to provide a motivation for your report. Or, you know, something I literally just commented on ("and the premise of my supposed motive for baiting Shofercia is even more ridiculous"). So, no, the issue isn't that you "talk about the totality of destruction" (which, if it is so irrelevant, why do you keep bringing it up?).

You're not people. You're just you. After losing an argument in another thread, you walked into a separate thread, baited me, then reported the very post you didn't claim to be an ad hominem, as an ad hominem, all the while pretending you're some innocent third party here. You've been on NSG long enough to know how heated political threads can get, Forsher. Most NSG veterans know how to bait others in political threads, I just choose not to throw baits in heated political threads and then report my opponents to moderation.

As for the argument, I asked you to name a single city to back up your point, and you chose to write walls of text instead of naming a single city, only to accuse me of wasting your time, while claiming to spend hours on it. That's a defeat in my book, and I'm only posting this paragraph to debunk your accusation of calling me a liar. The main point is in the paragraph above.

Second, I had this thing called real life happen, and an online forum is secondary to real life. I should note that the last post in that thread, before my post today, was made on August 13th, so it's not even remotely a dead thread, but I can see why Forsher would say that... in order to ask a mod to lock said thread. Responding to a two week old thread is not gravedigging. If it's a month old, that's a different story, but the last post was August 13th and a month has 30 days.

I would agree with this but for several facts:

1. the thread has been dead for nearly three weeks
2. two weeks is fourteen, not eighteen, days long
3. threads are regularly locked for this long
4. you have been previously directed not to reply to me when you're unable to respond in a timely manner
5. it's an internet forum and you're replying to a post that's over a month old... maybe just, let it go?

I don't take directions from online posters, and I don't consider threads that are two-three week old, as dead threads. I go by the last post in the thread, not by one I respond. Life happens.

Third, the reason I tend to use the posters' names a lot, is because I don't want to accidentally misgender anyone and receive a warning for that, so rather than filling up my memory with pronounds, I just use the posters' names. I'm only saying this because Forsher also accused me of malicious intent in this regard:

Why are you bringing this up? No-one mentioned names, at all.

To prevent you from claiming that I'm using your name to bait you, like you've done in the other thread I cited. I already explained this.

Shofercia does this weird thing where he sticks people's names into the conversation he's having with them. It's extremely patronising and passive aggressive, which is probably why Shofercia does it.

That's in yet another thread. Anything to get me warned and banned from NSG, Forsher is even calling my request for a moderation ruling as "flamebaiting" in moderation! I'm the bad guy for you, Forsher, I get that, so just don't respond to me, but there's really no reason to chase me from thread to thread.

I would note (1) that I was replying to a question from Nana after Knask parodied Shofercia's use of names and (2) your request for a moderation ruling isn't being called flamebaiting, the way you are conducting this report is... your request after a month's inaction was called mods as weapons. As I said, lies.

If Nana asks Knask a question, Knask can answer it. Instead you saw an opportunity to trash me and jumped at the opportunity, which, again, shows your state of mind. This is similar to you following me into the thread where you baited me, even admitting: Look, I've only seized on this post to have something germane to the voting access conversation this thread...

Why would you say that, if your goal wasn't to enter the thread to bait me?

Also, since I'm now being accused of following Shofercia around. The threads run:

• 1 July - 16 July
• 14 July - now
• 21 July - 13 August + today's gravedig

And that in this supposedly additional thread I was, let's see... fourteenth poster and Shofercia doesn't show up until the sixth page.

Once again, I don't view a two-three week thread as a gravedig. As for the accusation, the post was cited.

And, incidentally, using names in that fashion is passive aggressive and patronising so, like, maybe, just use "they" if you're so concerned about misgendering people. Not that I tend to find much need for a pronoun other than "you" and its variants when talking to people. When I'm talking about people...

Some people might not be comfortable with the pronoun "they" and prefer he/him or she/her. Using names solves all problems.

Fourth, here's the "I'm just saying" in context:

You've already provided the context. You might have forgotten since it's been a month but this is a thread about these posts you are now re-reporting?

I'm asking for a ruling for a post that was missed, as mods are busy, and they might've missed it.

Also, that reminds me... one of your earlier attempts to establish context:

And here's him confirming that it wasn't an attack on the poster, prior to reporting it:



Reporting Forsher for Flamebaiting.

i.e. you are claiming that I am confirming something wasn't a personal attack by quoting me literally calling that same thing... a personal attack (as opposed to an ad hominem).

You've only made that post after I gave you something that you could report to moderation. Anyone can come up with an excuse.

Now, I've often wondered/complained about the appropriateness of the word "liar" in NSG. So I will put it in no uncertain terms and see what happens:

Shofercia is a liar and a fundamentally dishonest poster that appears to be trying to use the moderation process to exact some measure of revenge for (1) being called out by at least four different posters in July and early August... these being Myrensis, Knask, Forsher and Gim, (2) having his illusions of the course of a conversation he was taking very seriously (as evidenced by returning to it after more than a month, albeit claiming this was when he finally had some free time) by Duvniask, and (3) getting a warning for flamebaiting when, utterly unprompted, Shofercia turned around and imitated the form of a statement that he (as far as anyone else can tell) took a great deal of personal offence to on another poster

And now you're flaming in moderation. You're allowed to say "this is lying" but saying "my opponent is a liar" is the very definition of flaming. Speaking of lying, you claim that my bait, which was a sole and direct answer to your bait, was "utterly unprompted" even though it would not have existed without your bait. Calling it "utterly unprompted" is a bold faced lie.

And I can easily find posters who called you out, if anyone's been long enough on NSG and engaged in heated political debate, they're going to be in heated exchanges with at least four posters, if not more. That's just common sense.

Shortly after that, as well as the debate in the other thread, it magically became an ad hominem.

Honest people are capable of changing their minds. You created a situation where I found my position untenable... so I changed it.

You changed it after you had the ammunition to get me warned. That's like me coming up to two guys having a heated exchange in a bar and saying "hey, he slept with your wife" waiting for the fists to start flying, and then saying "changed my mind, wrong wife, wrong guy, sorry!"

And, by the way, Shofercia, this report had fuck all to do with you.

You reported me in the OP, I was warned as a result, over a post that wouldn't exist without your bait, and now you have the gall to say that it has nothing to do with me?!

It's about this thread and DLN's fucked up "ruling" or, rather, failure to make a ruling. Setting aside that that thread is always at the forefront of my mind, especially when unfortunate enough to come across dissemblers like Shofercia, I'd last been complaining about it and my inability to have the OSRS changed to better prevent situations like that from eventuating as recently as just a month earlier. Where, you'll note, Nilokeras made some points about how the flamebaiting rule that Fris directed the thread specifically to in response to my suggestions. Oh, shoot, exactly what happened here. Including, again, my diatribe about the necessity of being able to call people like Shofercia liars when they lie.

The only lies I'm seeing in this thread is you claiming that you baiting me and then reporting me has "fuck all" to do with me, you claiming that my direct response to you, which wouldn't have existed had you not taken advantage of a heated political debate, was "utterly unprompted" and you calling a fellow poster, a liar.

As for why it took me a month to respond in moderation. I left for a month due to RL issues. When I came back, I checked up on moderation, to see if there are any new rulings and rules that should be followed, and then I found this thread, so I asked for a ruling.

[Forsher]

I don't take directions from online posters, and I don't consider threads that are two-three week old, as dead threads. I go by the last post in the thread, not by one I respond. Life happens.

This makes no grammatical sense. Also, none of those were directions. They're reasons I disagree with your presentations of events.

To prevent you from claiming that I'm using your name to bait you, like you've done in the other thread I cited. I already explained this.

Yeah, but that didn't happen, did it?

If Nana asks Knask a question, Knask can answer it.

Or, instead, someone else can answer it like in literally any other example.

Instead you saw an opportunity to trash me and jumped at the opportunity, which, again, shows your state of mind. This is similar to you following me into the thread where you baited me, even admitting: Look, I've only seized on this post to have something germane to the voting access conversation this thread...

Why would you say that, if your goal wasn't to enter the thread to bait me?

n.b. that post was after you'd tried to start a fight for the second time about a post agreeing with you. As I have already explained, I was trying to exit a threadjack. As you alternatively suggested perhaps the goal was to hypocritically stop you from replying by saying doing so would be threadjacking. Neither explanation being, of course, baiting.

Once again, I don't view a two-three week thread as a gravedig

They always used to be. These days mods lock threads for gravedigging for less than two weeks, imo.

As for the accusation, the post was cited.

*lied about

And, incidentally, using names in that fashion is passive aggressive and patronising so, like, maybe, just use "they" if you're so concerned about misgendering people. Not that I tend to find much need for a pronoun other than "you" and its variants when talking to people. When I'm talking about people...

Some people might not be comfortable with the pronoun "they" and prefer he/him or she/her. Using names solves all problems.

read: creates an entirely new one because your fundamental misunderstanding of the misgendering rule causes you to believe that rather than showing the slightest respect for the humanity of your fellow posters, it's better to robotically refer to them by their name when you talk to them. You know, something that a well known sitcom literally suggests is just as dehumanising as not calling people by their name at all. I suggest you have absolutely no interest in understanding the meanest thing about people on this site but a great deal of interest in talking about them to third parties, thus necessitating an alternative to the third person pronouns you refuse to learn.

Frankly, I rather prefer the explanation where you are trying to needle people. At least that suggests you have some concern for fellow forumites on a personal level.

You've only made that post after I gave you something that you could report to moderation. Anyone can come up with an excuse.

Well, yes, I could only reply to your flamebaiting me to comment on how you flamebaited me after you decided to do so. Before you decided to flamebait me, this was not a possible endeavour.

Of course, the point is that you were trying to use that post to prove I didn't consider what I reported to be a personal attack, when I specifically called the comment a personal attack.

And now you're flaming in moderation. You're allowed to say "this is lying" but saying "my opponent is a liar" is the very definition of flaming. Speaking of lying, you claim that my bait, which was a sole and direct answer to your bait, was "utterly unprompted" even though it would not have existed without your bait. Calling it "utterly unprompted" is a bold faced lie.

Except saying something isn't an ad hominem isn't flamebaiting. At all.

Also, if calling someone a liar is inherently flaming, how is saying someone is lying not inherently flamebaiting? This is probably rules lawyering but that's exactly my point.

And I can easily find posters who called you out, if anyone's been long enough on NSG and engaged in heated political debate, they're going to be in heated exchanges with at least four posters, if not more. That's just common sense.

The difference is that you don't see me reporting Tarsonis, CTOAN, Nilokeras, yourself or, was it, Picairn? who cares, not getting a response and then following up on it. You and Tarsonis did get reported, of course, but that was unrelated.

You changed it after you had the ammunition to get me warned. That's like me coming up to two guys having a heated exchange in a bar and saying "hey, he slept with your wife" waiting for the fists to start flying, and then saying "changed my mind, wrong wife, wrong guy, sorry!"

The fuck is that analogy. What happened is more like if you said to one of the men, "Actually, that wasn't an ad hominem". You know, because that's what happened.

No, this is not at all the same. Because, you know, I changed my mind about it being an ad hominem, not about its being a personal attack. The whole point was that it was a personal attack not an ad hominem. But then it turned out Wikipedia says personal attacks are ad hominems (well, in the body of the article). Which, you know, you could've referred me to, but instead you decided to flamebait me.

And, by the way, Shofercia, this report had fuck all to do with you.

You reported me in the OP, I was warned as a result, over a post that wouldn't exist without your bait, and now you have the gall to say that it has nothing to do with me?!

It's not personal. There is nothing personal about reporting people for breaking rules.

I report me all the time. Including for what I think is flamebaiting. Sometimes it's for things I think might be against the rules. Other times it's like the liar thing above.. it's entirely deliberate.

The only lies I'm seeing in this thread is you claiming that you baiting me and then reporting me has "fuck all" to do with me, you claiming that my direct response to you, which wouldn't have existed had you not taken advantage of a heated political debate, was "utterly unprompted" and you calling a fellow poster, a liar.

Once again, saying something isn't an ad hominem isn't flamebaiting. This entire time you've failed to articulate any mechanism by which it baited you. How it was, in any way, provocative. You've spent rather a lot of time trying to claim that it must've been some cunning trap because I was trying to exact revenge on you after you wrote a series of mind bogglingly stupid and absurdly arrogant posts (which you have repeatedly described here as "destroying" me) in a different thread. People who are confident in their position and think they are winning debates very rarely have to tell people they are winning a debate, let alone seek out opportunities to tell people in other threads that they're winning. I'd go as far to say they never do so. You see, I simply don't believe you actually think you win debates on this forum... there are just too many lies, too many misrepresentations, too many instances where you go out of your way to avoid talking about the ostensible subject.

The hilarious thing is that I did say something that might actually be flamebaiting. I've even pointed it out in this thread. You don't care about it at all, however. The difference? You didn't respond to that by flamebaiting anyone.

As for why it took me a month to respond in moderation. I left for a month due to RL issues. When I came back, I checked up on moderation, to see if there are any new rulings and rules that should be followed, and then I found this thread, so I asked for a ruling.

You ask for people to treat you as a human being in the same breath you refuse to learn pronouns. You disgust me. That is personal.

[Frisbeeteria]

Locking this until some mod can take the time to parse this mess.

[Reploid Productions]

Apologies for the delay. The fact it took so long for one of us to actually slog through this mess should probably be a clue how obnoxiously petty the entire thing is.

Both of you, put one another on your Foe lists and stop trying to use the mods as your bludgeons. It is patently clear that neither of you can resist trying to scoot uncomfortably close to the line needling one another in hopes of finding something to make a banhammer stick. While I can't speak for the entire team, I for one don't appreciate having my time wasted on what amounts to a ton of mutual "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching yoooou!" borderline mods-as-weapons baiting. We get it, Shofercia doesn't like Forsher, and Forsher doesn't like Shoferica; so use your Foe lists so you each don't have to see the other's posts and save everyone future headaches.

As for Pre-Christian Persecuted People's reported post, he's currently on a one-day for more recent offenses, but I'll make a note of his flaming on his record as well.