james R still is trolling

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by spuriousmonkey, Oct 26, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    goodbye.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    That won't help your case my spuriously-enhanced primate.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Don't talk utter bollocks. All infractions prove is that someone decided to issue an infraction. They do not indicate that they were justified in so doing. They do not indicate that the infraction, if valid, was motivated by lack of emotional control. Frankly, a statement such as yours dragon, which is an affront to logical thinking, is far more deserving of an infraction than an inappropriate use of a swear word.
    (And while we are at it, Spurious's question 'Do you love Jesus' was an elegant put down of a somewhat self indulgent post and therfore wholly on topic and appropriate. JamesR's failure to recognise this can be forgiven, but remains disappointing to any one with half a brain. To those of us who have full brains it is merely simultaneously bizarre and mundane.)
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    Ophiolite...since you are defending Spuriousmonkey...check the latest edits within the encyclopedia made by Spuriousmonkey.
     
  8. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    ''And while we are at it, Spurious's question 'Do you love Jesus' was an elegant put down of a somewhat self indulgent post and therfore wholly on topic and appropriate. JamesR's failure to recognise this can be forgiven.''

    I also made more or less the same post.

    However, it doesn't excuse Spuriousmonkeys attitude on select occassions.
     
  9. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Let me be clear. I was not defending Spurious Moneky: I was attacking you, or rather your logic, or even more precisely your lack of logic in the foregoing post. I was also attacking the poorly conceived infraction for Spurious's post about Jesus.
    Spurious's use of swear words is inappropriate. His excessive use of a single swear word in this thread is, in my view, ill judged. That, however, is incidental to my point, which is that the moderation on the forum frequently appears to me to be biased. Some individuals get away with ad hominems and trolling and bad language and no infraction ever descends upon them. Others appear to be hounded. And this these individuals then think WTF, I might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb, then the moderator's views become self fullfilling prophecies.
     
  10. Ripley Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,411
    ^ It's all in the clandestine, incompatible relationship certain members have exclusively with certain mods.
     
  11. Oniw17 ascetic, sage, diogenes, bum? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,423
    Wtf? Do you love Jesus? Were you drunk James?
     
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,974
    Sorry for tacking a post on to the end of this thread, but seeing as it was started purely as an attack on me, I think I need to respond.

    In fact, spuriousmonkey is far from the only poster to have received an infraction for that word from me in the past 24 hours. A number of other posters could easily attest to getting infractions for the same thing.

    If anybody is in doubt as to the appropriateness of that word on sciforums, please consider that young people may read posts on sciforums. I would like to encourage that. sciforums is supposed to be a site for intelligent discussion, not potty-mouthed idiots who cannot find better ways to express themselves.

    It should also be clear that spuriousmonkey has been upping the ante over the last week or so, trying to provoke a reaction from moderators so he will have an excuse to throw his next hissy fit, which he has now done. When the inevitable reaction comes to his childish attention-seeking, instead of examining himself and his behaviour, he instead tries to divert attention to the moderators.

    Let's also be clear about this. The infraction was not for asking somebody if they love Jesus. Look at the context. spurious's question had no connection to the thread topic. It was put there purely to belittle and/or provoke the thread starter. Therefore, an infraction was given for trolling.

    People have to go looking for that in order to find it. They should not come across it by accident.

    My personal opinion is that that encylopedia entry, like many of the other puerile boys' game entries that are in the encylopedia, really has little reason for being there. The pissing on the encyclopedia by spurious and his little friends has followed the same pattern as the pissing on the rest of sciforums.

    The bottom line is that spurious wants to form a little boys club that has free reign to insult sciforums members. When he discovered that he would be blocked from doing that, he couldn't take no for an answer.

    This really requires no comment. Let the members judge for themselves.

    The usual drama-queen response to moderation. Throw a hissy fit, threaten to leave and never return, and then slink back to the forum after a day or two.

    ---

    Plazma, I hope you don't mind, but I'm reopening this thread for comments. It would be unfair of me to have the last word here and deny members their comments, especially those who posted earlier in the thread.

    I'd like to keep this thread will open for the next 4 days, unless it degenerates to the extent that no useful discussion is possible.

    I notice that spuriousmonkey has been banned for 3 days for exceeding 20 infraction points. We'll see if he is true to his word in 3 days time...
     
  13. mountainhare Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,287
    Couldn't resist having the last word, could you, James?
     
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,974
    It's not the last word, mountainhare.
     
  15. mountainhare Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,287
    Sure it is. You reopened the thread to reply to a member who has been banned and stated that they wouldn't be coming back.
     
  16. Plazma Inferno! Ding Ding Ding Ding Administrator

    Messages:
    4,610
    Ok. That sounds fair.

    Read the quote above.
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,974
    mountainhare:

    I was not responding to spuriousmonkey.

    Every interaction I have had with him over the past week has involved him insulting me or calling me names like a 6 year old. Many such interactions are on the public record; some others were by PM. Meanwhile, I have been unfailing polite and courteous.

    Surely you realise that there's no point trying to have a discussion with a baby throwing a tantrum. Obviously, I'm far more interested in have a discussion with clear-thinking and unbiased members of the forum, such as yourself.

    I mean, maybe I really am biased and vindictive, and I just can't see it. If that's the case, I'd like to give people the opportunity to express that point of view, provided they can do so in a constructive way without insults. If the tide is completely against me on this, I'll have to take stock regarding my role here.
     
  18. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,964
    (Insert title here)

    James R

    I think you find yourself in a difficult position. (Okay, mods in general do, but you especially since this one seems to be about you.) I mean, come on, you know I like the Monkey of late, but I noticed something in the infraction messages he posted.

    I'm not going to disagree with your approach or your tone. Rather, I think it's strange that people don't want us to be too serious, but they flip out if we try to be casual.

    Also, why is it that people think the infractions are about the most idiot-simple context they can come up with? I mean, I admit I chuckled a bit when I saw the Jesus infraction. I even thought, "What the f@ck is James up to?"

    And then I clicked the link and read the topic, and looked again at the infraction, and it seems to me that the three-point infraction was merciful. There was, in fact, meaning to the offending post, but that meaning was ... er ... um ... demeaning.

    (Damn it!)

    Sorry. I just hate it when I suddenly sound all northern-Lutheran cutesy. (Make that a line for ... what was her name ... oh, Edie McClurg. "It had meaning. It was demeaning.")

    I would also like to take a moment to remind our members that rarely, if ever, are these arguments about infractions as simple as the complaint would have us believe.
     
  19. 2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    James R,
    So, the word became 'infractionable' in the last 24 hours. I typed it into Search and came up with 434 pages of posts in which it was used, many times by the moderators themselves. Do you have a list of newly infractionable words us members need to be aware of?
    Sciforums is being converted to a kiddy-forums then, correct? It seems you are calling anyone that may use a word you deem inappropriate for kiddies a 'potty-mouthed idiot'. Couldn't you find a more intelligent way of expressing yourself than calling members potty-mouthed idiots?
    heheh... just in this thread alone from two posts:
    I'd hate to read your posts when you weren't being polite and courteous.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    No, really James R, you and spurious have been going at it for awhile now. Both of you are guilty of provoking the other, ya'lls not-so-private pissing contest.
     
  20. redarmy11 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,658
    Hi James. Do better than this trite, boring shit, please. I for one am very disappointed in you.
     
  21. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Cogently, succinctly and accurately put. However, one might expect moderators to be moderate.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    JamesR, I have two problems with what's going on here:

    1. As 2Inquisitive points out, this sudden interest in cleaning up the language (an objective I support) appears to have come out of the blue. If we are changing the rules or the application of the rules then members deserve to be warned. An appropriate action would be to censor the word in the offending post along with an explanation for the action and a warning that future infringements would produce an infraction. Issuing one as you did seems singularily provocative. (I daresay I would describe it as showing all the intellectual vigour of stuffed armadillo, but I beleive that would come painfully close to not being polite and courteous, which we all agree is undesirable.) So, knowing Spurious's character and history, you carry out a provocative action with questionable authority (sensu lato). That carries the appearance of a provocative act wholly designed to elicit a response. It may be that this is wholly appearance. It may also be that appearance is not of concern to you. That, however, is how it stands.

    2. The infraction for "Does Jesus love you?" was in my view (which is of course subject to all the usual caveats about opinions) plain wrong. Spurious was replying to a post that had the appearance of considerable self indulgence. One routinely observes posters being bated with hostile, direct ad hominems. Spurious here used an elegant, one might almost call it sophisticated single sentence to higlight the character of the op. And this perceptive use of language and appreciation of context earned an infraction. Hmmm. Perhaps you didn't understand it. I am told that some people simply don't get irony. Perhaps it's a genetic thing.
     
  22. shorty_37 Go! Canada Go! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,140
    Ahhhhhhhh yes when Monkey throws a hissy fit, all come to defend. When others attempt to ask why they have been infracted....the members come out to call them whinney little crybabies and to shut up.

    Hey if Orleander got an infraction for saying Bitch.....I got one for saying ASS.......Why wouldn't Monkey get one for saying C!!!!

    I get called out for Trolling....you accuse draqon and other members for it too. What about this new found "I love Jesus" and "Jesus loves Sperm" and I love Sandy and she loves me LOL TROLLING
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2007
  23. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,964
    Well, people seem to love their Monkey.

    And, hell, I figured whining about James was sport around here.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page