Question for Shades:

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
_Bach
_Emeritus
Posts: 1606
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 11:41 pm

Question for Shades:

Post by _Bach »

What is the definition of “trolling” for this board? Is there a rule against such undefined activity? And are “facts” not allowed here?
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: Question for Shades:

Post by _Res Ipsa »

if only Shades would, you know, post the rule of the forum somewhere.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
_Bach
_Emeritus
Posts: 1606
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 11:41 pm

Re: Question for Shades:

Post by _Bach »

Res Ipsa wrote:if only Shades would, you know, post the rule of the forum somewhere.


Not sure EA would agree w ya!!!
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: Question for Shades:

Post by _EAllusion »

I have not moderated any posts for trolling per se. I can say generally that in the case of needing to moderate posts in rapid succession, I tend to warn and explain why I take specific actions to that person. And if I did so in the case of someone who trolls, I would probably make it a point to specifically note to that person that it wasn't for trolling.

Terrestrial rules about blatant personal attacks, which in part is evidenced by patterns of behavior, apply to the Spirit Paradise forum, though. FYI.
_Bach
_Emeritus
Posts: 1606
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 11:41 pm

Re: Question for Shades:

Post by _Bach »

Ea, come on - just be a big boy forr once in your supposed authority and spell out why my facts I posts bothered you so much you became Juliann reincarnated? Still think you’re weak!!! But be strong enough to discuss w me!!!
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: Question for Shades:

Post by _EAllusion »

In keeping with the current board expectations, I cannot discuss the content of PM's. I will say that posts of yours have been moderated primarily for a pattern of blatant personal attacks, that you should refrain from doing that, and continuing to make that a predominant feature of your posting will likely result in being added to the moderator queue for preclearance of posts.

If anything, you've been given a wider latitude than would be typical because you make attacking moderators as a routine feature of this behavior. This probably produced more reluctance to respond than is warranted to avoid the possibility of bias. To others on the board I would apologize for that initial lapse in judgment. Erring on the side of caution is still erring.
_Bach
_Emeritus
Posts: 1606
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 11:41 pm

Re: Question for Shades:

Post by _Bach »

EAllusion wrote:In keeping with the current board expectations, I cannot discuss the content of PM's. I will say that posts of yours have been moderated primarily for a pattern of blatant personal attacks, that you should refrain from doing that, and continuing to make that a predominant feature of your posting will likely result in being added to the moderator queue for preclearance of posts.


Just define the rules, my king. When others are free with calling others “idiots” etc ... and so much more, are you there on equal terms? Would rather you let truth flow!!!
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: Question for Shades:

Post by _EAllusion »

Bach wrote:
EAllusion wrote:In keeping with the current board expectations, I cannot discuss the content of PM's. I will say that posts of yours have been moderated primarily for a pattern of blatant personal attacks, that you should refrain from doing that, and continuing to make that a predominant feature of your posting will likely result in being added to the moderator queue for preclearance of posts.


Just define the rules, my king. When others are free with calling others “idiots” etc ... and so much more, are you there on equal terms? Would rather you let truth flow!!!


The rule is no blatant or otherwise obvious personal attacks. This requires interpretation and traditionally has allowed people to occasionally insult one another, including calling someone an idiot from the time to time. Both the severity and frequency of the attacks are taken into consideration when deciding if a post needs to be moved. Generally speaking, routinely starting threads or entering them to make personally focused attacks will draw moderator attention.

Behavior that you were specifically warned about counts.
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

Re: Question for Shades:

Post by _Dr. Shades »

Bach wrote: Question for Shades:

That was actually three questions, but that's okay.

What is the definition of “trolling” for this board?

"Trolling" = Making posts not to add a fresh perspective or advance the dialogue but to anger or distract the readers. For example, posts about the number of posts other people make is classic trolling. As an aside, if names are named, then trolling can easily amount to a personal attack.

Is there a rule against such undefined activity?

Yes. Don't do it.

And are “facts” not allowed here?

That's correct. No facts are allowed here. Please don't post any.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"

--Louis Midgley
_subgenius
_Emeritus
Posts: 13326
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: Question for Shades:

Post by _subgenius »

Dr. Shades wrote:That's correct. No facts are allowed here. Please don't post any.

Image
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
Post Reply