Enjoy the trolls, folks

[_Lemmie]

P.S. that last quote belongs to RI and I agree that hashing that out can be constructive

Oops, sorry. -thanks for the heads-up, I corrected it.

Yep, it was me. I'm always fine with talking. I think my post count is evidence of that.

Sorry about that! And I agree, also--hence my use of your excellent quote, with proper attribution, of course.

[_Res Ipsa]

P.S. that last quote belongs to RI and I agree that hashing that out can be constructive

Oops, sorry. -thanks for the heads-up, I corrected it.

Yep, it was me. I'm always fine with talking. I think my post count is evidence of that.

Sorry about that! And I agree, also--hence my use of your excellent quote, with proper attribution, of course.

[_mentalgymnast]

...to complain that this place is an "echo chamber" while you continue to post--far too often trolling and derailing--is absurd...

Hi Runtu,

I think there is the danger of this board becoming an echo chamber of sorts if free expression of ideas isn't tolerated. Periodically if I see that this seems to be occurring I will jump into a thread and provide what I believe to be an alternative way of viewing things. It shouldn't surprise anyone that my views may at times run in opposition to the prevailing views being expressed and/or 'high fived' by others. I don't see that as trolling.

Recently I said this in regards to the issues that came up with one of the posters who left:

I have created a DMZ for myself which I will not cross. I don't have anyone on ignore, including the poster who made these comments. But I will not in any way, shape, or form have anything to do with or have anything to say to this poster from here on out. Directly or indirectly. That is a commitment which I make for all to see and understand. I do feel bad that this situation escalated to where it has. For me, the best thing to do is create a personal space between myself and this poster. I don't think he will have any concerns in regards to having to engage in further 'warfare'.

That's not where I want to go.

And

I'm...putting the poster I've referred to on notice that I am unwilling to participate and will not participate in any kind of perceived "warfare" from here on out. I felt like his thread and the declared "war" needed to be addressed on my part.

And I have committed to not make comments on his thread...

I said this on a Wednesday.

It was soon thereafter...Thursday or Friday, I think...that this poster left. I was and would have been the one to end the confrontation. Maybe he didn't want it to end? I don't know.

It's a result of that poster having left...on his own volition after a solution having been put in place by me...that there have been continued complaints and furthering of whatever issues there were. It could have been over.

Around the end of October I said this:

Recently, after having what I believed to be a productive/enjoyable conversation with Rep Ipsa, I became interested in the concept of "priming".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priming_(psychology)

I think priming is directly connected with the practice of creating/promoting a 'brand' of propaganda which results in a sort of meme that spreads throughout a community. This is what I've observed happen here over a period of time.

I believe that this has occurred.

I then said:

Granted, I don't see the perceived "problem" as being something other than a bunch of propaganda used to 'prime the pump' in order to create a standardized meme that has spread like a virus throughout parts/segments of this community.

Not that at times I couldn't have done better to squelch the fire...although, truth be told,I tried to do so and the flames would typically continue to be fed...but once the propaganda was repeatedly shouted and the audience was primed and the meme was created...it was almost a fruitless enterprise to try and extinguish what I could see was going on.

And if my own words are used against me...out of context...and I don't want to go back and repeatedly place those words in the context of a larger conversation and/or point that I was making...I am doomed, in way, because words out of their place in contextual application can be used to 'create' meaning that the creator determines fits their interpretation and/or agenda.

Be that as it may, [b]I believe that the decision that I made and committed to on Wednesday has...or would have had...every potential/possibility of having succeeded. But it was after that, that the poster in question decided to leave.[/b]

My underlined statement above IS an admission that I could have done more at times to squelch the fire. My commitment to not further feed the flame with the poster in question would have put out that fire.

And here we are.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

If A expresses disagreement with B, then all B needs to do is call A a "troll"...

This bears repeating.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

If you stick to your substantive posting as opposed to your meta-analysis of the board it would be easier for people to back you up. RI questioned you quite pointedly the last time we had a thread like this about what you contribute to this atmosphere. Think about his questions when you want to post something like that.

Point taken.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

MG can kiss all of our collective arses

No thanks.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

... he hasn't violated Shades' condition for staying out of the queue...

Yep.

Regards,
MG

[_Res Ipsa]

Here's the problem you're not seeing, MG. You took the concept of priming and completely bastardized it in a way that allowed you to escape responsibility for your own actions. Oh, you throw in a weak mea culpa now and then, but everything else you post throws the blame on everyone else. I was on the fence on the whole queueing issue until you invented this whole priming excuse. After that, privately threw my 2 cents in with the Mods and told them I thought they were going to have to put you on the queue. Once you started in with the priming nonsense, I was convinced that you lacked the self awareness necessary to keep your nose clean. I mean, it's not that you didn't do enough to squelch the fire: you often started it and almost always fanned the flames. If you can't see that and admit it, you're screwed here.

You also gave the mods no reason to believe that you would voluntarily keep your word. Do we really need to go through thread after thread where you said you would do one thing, only to break your word a few posts later? Too little. Too late. No reason to trust you. That's entirely of your making.

[_Jersey Girl]

Yeah, he's his own worst enemy. And he made me lose a bet with myself. I bet myself he'd be on the queue within a week of Shades' decision based on what I perceived as a lack of self-awareness and an unwillingness to take responsibility for his own actions. His post here makes me think I should have just gone for a longer period of time. Maybe I convince myself to go double or nothing on a month...

Are you missing the fact that grindael departed prior to the decision? The main target of MG's trolling had already left. It wasn't likely that he'd misbehave and be put on the queue.

I'm defending him at this point simply because he hasn't violated Shades' condition for staying out of the queue.

I, at least, haven't said that he violated Shades' conditional ruling. I actually haven't read a post by even one poster on this thread who stated that was the case.

I don't care whether he makes it easy or hard to defend him -- I'm doing it because I think it's the right thing to do. I thought everyone had at least grudgingly accepted Shades' decision. Mak's signature line said he had MG on ignore. MG posted a non-trolling, non-derailing post in a thread Mak started. Mak posted as if he didn't even read the post. So what, exactly, has happened that merits Shades changing his decision?

Who here (besides sock) has asked Shades to change his decision? Stick to the facts of the case and not what you imagine them to be.

What you are missing is the obvious reason why Mak left. Instead of acknowledging WHY Mak threw up his hands and departed the scene, you are challenging assertions that no one has made.

[_mentalgymnast]

...it's not that you didn't do enough to squelch the fire: you often started it and almost always fanned the flames. If you can't see that and admit it, you're screwed here...

I can see that. I played my part in some of the conflagrations. It's what folks do sometimes in the 'heat of the moment'. I admitted my tendency to at times feed the flames. I also made it clear that I did not want to see it continue and offered up a solution that would have put out the flames.

Enough said. As far as I'm concerned anyway.

And now people want to keep the flames going by adding more fuel.

What's up with that?

Regards,
MG