Blame Social Justice Warriors for Donald Trump

[Valsuelm]

Splitting threads is generally worse than closing them, and closing a thread should just about never happen (if there's really a too many pages bug, jesus @)#$ did Obsidian buy the worst forum software I've ever seen). At best, interruption and confusion generally results from both.

 

This thread has been effectively hijacked the last few pages, and... well, so what? If someone was intentionally trying to hijack it, repeatedly, then some moderation should probably be done. However, a thread goes off topic just due to the normal course of conversation, there's nothing really wrong with that.

 

As for the Trump problem..... lol.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

I have Bruce in ignore list as well but I will fight to death to let him derail whatever he wish

 

 

That's ass-backwards logic. "The right of a person to ruin a discussion is more valuable than the desire of others to see the discussion un-ruined" is putting the cart before the horse.

 

 

 

The principle is what it always is- there's a right (or 'right' since the forums are private property) to freedom of expression within certain rules. If the rules aren't infringed then if you don't like what the other person is saying you need to build a bridge and get over it or buy a pack of cards and deal with it. 

 

 

If the rules don't facilitate constructive discussion, I'd argue the rules are at fault, and saying "well he didn't break any rules" misses the point entirely.

[Valsuelm]

 

 

...Quality something something Taylor Swift popularity something something...

True story: I consider 1989 to be the best pop album in over 20 years. So do many others who aren't the stereotypical teeny bopper fan..

 

Eh. I'm more of a Pink guy myself...

 

 

Pink's great! She's an amazingly talented artist. I especially like this video.

 

 

But see, I'm a Taylor Swift, Edvard Grieg, Iron Maiden, Slayer, Pink, Pink Floyd, Phish, Billy Joel, Grateful Dead, Alison Krausse, Alan Jackson, Talking Heads, Birthday Massacre, Shakira, Dixie Chicks, Counting Crows, Van Halen, Bob Marley...... and the list goes on and on..... guy myself.

 

Good music is good music.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Honestly I don't get what the beef is here. I really only post in WoT these days but it's very rare I see a post that I'd consider insulting, or bullying, or an ad hominem attack on anyone. Yeah sure it can get a little heated and maybe a little mean on rare occasions but nothing to get in a twist over. 

 

If words written on the internet by someone you don't know and will likely never meet really upsets anyone I'd suggest growing a thicker skin.

 

We already had this discussion before.

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

I have Bruce in ignore list as well but I will fight to death to let him derail whatever he wish

 

 

That's ass-backwards logic. "The right of a person to ruin a discussion is more valuable than the desire of others to see the discussion un-ruined" is putting the cart before the horse.

 

 

 

The principle is what it always is- there's a right (or 'right' since the forums are private property) to freedom of expression within certain rules. If the rules aren't infringed then if you don't like what the other person is saying you need to build a bridge and get over it or buy a pack of cards and deal with it. 

 

 

If the rules don't facilitate constructive discussion, I'd argue the rules are at fault, and saying "well he didn't break any rules" misses the point entirely.

 

 

Someone running around crying 'zomg the rules here suck! Somebody safe space me!' isn't exactly facilitating constructive discussion.

 

Congrats on successfully derailing the thread.

 

Worry not though, I'll put it back on track or start another, as the subject matter is too oft amusing and of some import. SJW's are the modern gift that keep on giving.

 

 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

 

I have Bruce in ignore list as well but I will fight to death to let him derail whatever he wish

 

 

That's ass-backwards logic. "The right of a person to ruin a discussion is more valuable than the desire of others to see the discussion un-ruined" is putting the cart before the horse.

 

 

 

The principle is what it always is- there's a right (or 'right' since the forums are private property) to freedom of expression within certain rules. If the rules aren't infringed then if you don't like what the other person is saying you need to build a bridge and get over it or buy a pack of cards and deal with it. 

 

 

If the rules don't facilitate constructive discussion, I'd argue the rules are at fault, and saying "well he didn't break any rules" misses the point entirely.

 

 

Someone running around crying 'zomg the rules here suck! Somebody safe space me!' isn't exactly facilitating constructive discussion.

 

 

Which nobody was actually doing, but I guess intellectual dishonesty and hostile misrepresentation of viewpoints you disagree with do facilitate constructive discussion in your eyes. Which is... a strange viewpoint, but one you're undeniably entitled to.

[Valsuelm]

 

Honestly I don't get what the beef is here. I really only post in WoT these days but it's very rare I see a post that I'd consider insulting, or bullying, or an ad hominem attack on anyone. Yeah sure it can get a little heated and maybe a little mean on rare occasions but nothing to get in a twist over. 

 

If words written on the internet by someone you don't know and will likely never meet really upsets anyone I'd suggest growing a thicker skin.

 

We already had this discussion before.

 

 

Oh sweet sweet vampire metaphors.... wherefore art thou?

 

Flying over heads?

 

Of course, of course...

 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

You know, for someone who feels a seemingly irresistible need to constantly hammer on how he's intellectually superior and basically God's gift to humanity, compared to whom most people are "uninformed (...) unintelligent (...) idiots (...) wussies (and) children", you are really... not very good at getting a point across concisely.

 

Any point.

Edited May 4, 2016 by aluminiumtrioxid

[HoonDing]

"I have Bruce in ignore list as well but I will fight to death to let him derail whatever he wish"

 

SJW NAzi detected

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

 

 

I have Bruce in ignore list as well but I will fight to death to let him derail whatever he wish

 

 

That's ass-backwards logic. "The right of a person to ruin a discussion is more valuable than the desire of others to see the discussion un-ruined" is putting the cart before the horse.

 

 

 

The principle is what it always is- there's a right (or 'right' since the forums are private property) to freedom of expression within certain rules. If the rules aren't infringed then if you don't like what the other person is saying you need to build a bridge and get over it or buy a pack of cards and deal with it. 

 

 

If the rules don't facilitate constructive discussion, I'd argue the rules are at fault, and saying "well he didn't break any rules" misses the point entirely.

 

 

Someone running around crying 'zomg the rules here suck! Somebody safe space me!' isn't exactly facilitating constructive discussion.

 

 

Which nobody was actually doing, but I guess intellectual dishonesty and hostile misrepresentation of viewpoints you disagree with do facilitate constructive discussion in your eyes. Which is... a strange viewpoint, but one you're undeniably entitled to.

 

Do I really have to go through this thread and pull up all the times you and at least one other have complained about the rules here these last few pages? You started this conversation.

 

Yea... not gonna do that. But I'll link this search, where you make about a half dozen posts complaining about the rules.

 

Intellectual consistency and honesty are at the foundation of sanity. Dig yourself deeper underneath that foundation sir, I won't stop you.

 

But I will post on topic!!!

 

This one is for Volourn:

 

(warning, a few naughty words in the following vid)

Edited May 4, 2016 by Valsuelm

[Guard Dog]

You know, for someone who feels a seemingly irresistible need to constantly hammer on how he's intellectually superior and basically God's gift to humanity, compared to whom most people are "uninformed (...) unintelligent (...) idiots (...) wussies (and) children", you are really... not very good at getting a point across concisely.

 

Any point.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have Bruce in ignore list as well but I will fight to death to let him derail whatever he wish

 

 

That's ass-backwards logic. "The right of a person to ruin a discussion is more valuable than the desire of others to see the discussion un-ruined" is putting the cart before the horse.

 

 

 

The principle is what it always is- there's a right (or 'right' since the forums are private property) to freedom of expression within certain rules. If the rules aren't infringed then if you don't like what the other person is saying you need to build a bridge and get over it or buy a pack of cards and deal with it. 

 

 

If the rules don't facilitate constructive discussion, I'd argue the rules are at fault, and saying "well he didn't break any rules" misses the point entirely.

 

 

Someone running around crying 'zomg the rules here suck! Somebody safe space me!' isn't exactly facilitating constructive discussion.

 

 

Which nobody was actually doing, but I guess intellectual dishonesty and hostile misrepresentation of viewpoints you disagree with do facilitate constructive discussion in your eyes. Which is... a strange viewpoint, but one you're undeniably entitled to.

 

Do I really have to go through this thread and pull up all the times you and at least one other have complained about the rules here these last few pages? You started this conversation.

 

Yea... not gonna do that. But I'll link this search, there you make about a half dozen posts complaining about the rules.

 

 

Except I never said that "the rules suck", nor does the term "safe space" appear anywhere other than in your fevered imagination.

 

Either your reading comprehension isn't matching the monumental intellect you ascribe to yourself, or you're purposefully misconstruing the argument I was putting forth. Which is it?

Edited May 4, 2016 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Zoraptor]

I'm rather puzzled by the page bug being a thing, I thought these forums used xenforo and other forums using it don't have that problem (eg codex). I always presumed they got shut down as a way of keeping the discussion 'fresh' more than anything.

 

 

 

If the rules don't facilitate constructive discussion, I'd argue the rules are at fault, and saying "well he didn't break any rules" misses the point entirely.

 

 

If the people don't facilitate constructive discussion, I'd argue the people are at fault not the rules. Changing the rules should be the last resort.

 

More rules does not equal better discussion, even more specific existing rules doesn't either. The more rules there are the more they are abused and the greater the tendency is- as the opposite from encouraging actual discussion- to have personal feelings and personal opinion be paramount. Say there were a rigorously enforced "no cheering death" rule. Perfectly reasonable, on the face of it. Still open to wildly different interpretations though. Enforce it even handedly and you end up banning a bunch of people who celebrate Osama bin Laden's death, enforce it selectively and you just get rid of 'wrongthinkers' like Qistina or Oby who cheer the wrong deaths. Is having a Abrams vs T## argument cheering death because they've both used to kill people? Or you just end up not having any discussion at all because you can't be sure which edge of the rules you're skirting as there's an endless list of hypocritical to mutually contradictory precedents where nothing/ something happened previously.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Zoraptor

[Hiro Protagonist]

- Do not make attacks against other gamers. Challenging arguments and ideas is fine, but not attacking the people holding them. This includes attacks on an individual poster, or groups that any reasonable person would assume to plausibly include fellow forum members.

 

 

You know, for someone who feels a seemingly irresistible need to constantly hammer on how he's intellectually superior and basically God's gift to humanity, compared to whom most people are "uninformed (...) unintelligent (...) idiots (...) wussies (and) children", you are really... not very good at getting a point across concisely.

 

Any point.

 

 

Either your reading comprehension isn't matching the monumental intellect you ascribe to yourself, or you're purposefully misconstruing the argument I was putting forth. Which is it?

[Oerwinde]

You should see all the posts i spend significant time writing were I pedantically point out errors, attack fatuous logic and tell people off...which I then delete before posting them. I understand the need to vent. I vent all the time. I just don't end up posting the vent for everyone to see.

 

If you find yourself unable to not respond to another poster, I recommend really giving them what-for then hitting "cancel". Works great - there are people who think I'm level-headed enough to be a mod (thanks Malcador!).

 

I do this too.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

If the rules don't facilitate constructive discussion, I'd argue the rules are at fault, and saying "well he didn't break any rules" misses the point entirely.

 

 

If the people don't facilitate constructive discussion, I'd argue the people are at fault not the rules. Changing the rules should be the last resort.

 

More rules does not equal better discussion, even more specific existing rules doesn't either. The more rules there are the more they are abused and the greater the tendency is- as the opposite from encouraging actual discussion- to have personal feelings and personal opinion be paramount. Say there were a rigorously enforced "no cheering death" rule. Perfectly reasonable, on the face of it. Still open to wildly different interpretations though. Enforce it even handedly and you end up banning a bunch of people who celebrate Osama bin Laden's death, enforce it selectively and you just get rid of 'wrongthinkers' like Qistina or Oby who cheer the wrong deaths. Is having a Abrams vs T## argument cheering death because they've both used to kill people? Or you just end up not having any discussion at all because you can't be sure which edge of the rules you're skirting as there's an endless list of hypocritical to mutually contradictory precedents where nothing/ something happened previously.

 

 

Well that would be a valid point if there was no correlation between people's behavior and the forum rules. But rules do change behavior, so I remain unconvinced.

 

As for your second point, I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. That having overly specific rules for every contingency is bad? Sure it is, but I wasn't advocating for them. What I was asking for is a/ mod intervention before things turn nasty, and b/ maybe having rules that give us a basis to ask for a/.

 

 

 

- Do not make attacks against other gamers. Challenging arguments and ideas is fine, but not attacking the people holding them. This includes attacks on an individual poster, or groups that any reasonable person would assume to plausibly include fellow forum members.

 

 

You know, for someone who feels a seemingly irresistible need to constantly hammer on how he's intellectually superior and basically God's gift to humanity, compared to whom most people are "uninformed (...) unintelligent (...) idiots (...) wussies (and) children", you are really... not very good at getting a point across concisely.

 

Any point.

 

 

Either your reading comprehension isn't matching the monumental intellect you ascribe to yourself, or you're purposefully misconstruing the argument I was putting forth. Which is it?

 

 

 

I guess this is supposed to illustrate hypocrisy, although I'm not exactly sure how. "You're not very good at getting your point across concisely" is hardly a personal attack. "You've either unwittingly or intentionally misinterpreted what I was writing; which is it?" isn't one either.

 

Considering I'm talking to a poster who all but called me insane, I think I'm being remarkably civil here.

Edited May 4, 2016 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Oerwinde]

I'm rather puzzled by the page bug being a thing, I thought these forums used xenforo and other forums using it don't have that problem (eg codex). I always presumed they got shut down as a way of keeping the discussion 'fresh' more than anything.

 

 

 

 

If the rules don't facilitate constructive discussion, I'd argue the rules are at fault, and saying "well he didn't break any rules" misses the point entirely.

 

If the people don't facilitate constructive discussion, I'd argue the people are at fault not the rules. Changing the rules should be the last resort.

 

More rules does not equal better discussion, even more specific existing rules doesn't either. The more rules there are the more they are abused and the greater the tendency is- as the opposite from encouraging actual discussion- to have personal feelings and personal opinion be paramount. Say there were a rigorously enforced "no cheering death" rule. Perfectly reasonable, on the face of it. Still open to wildly different interpretations though. Enforce it even handedly and you end up banning a bunch of people who celebrate Osama bin Laden's death, enforce it selectively and you just get rid of 'wrongthinkers' like Qistina or Oby who cheer the wrong deaths. Is having a Abrams vs T## argument cheering death because they've both used to kill people? Or you just end up not having any discussion at all because you can't be sure which edge of the rules you're skirting as there's an endless list of hypocritical to mutually contradictory precedents where nothing/ something happened previously.

This happened on the Althistory wikia. The head moderator was a guy who saw the wiki guidelines as that, guidelines. The community there was fantastic. Everyone helped each other and collaborated of tins of great content. He got burned out and wanted to pursue his law and writing careers and left one of the hardworking minor mods in charge. Turned out the guy was an absolute rules lawyer and enforced the exact wording of the guidelines rather than their spirit. Half the community left, including me, because it was a constant fight over what was and wasn't acceptable.

[Hiro Protagonist]

I guess this is supposed to illustrate hypocrisy, although I'm not exactly sure how. "You're not very good at getting your point across concisely" is hardly a personal attack. "You've either unwittingly or intentionally misinterpreted what I was writing; which is it?" isn't one either.

 

Considering I'm talking to a poster who all but called me insane, I think I'm being remarkably civil here.

 

If you expect others to follow rules which you ascribe to, then you should follow them to.

 

You are attacking Valsuelm in regards to "intellectually superior and basically God's gift to humanity" and not what's in his posts. Where did he say he was "intellectually superior and basically God's gift to humanity"? You're attacking the person.

 

And here's a false dichotomy insult with this you said to him:

"Either your reading comprehension isn't matching the monumental intellect you ascribe to yourself, or you're purposefully misconstruing the argument I was putting forth. Which is it?"

 

So you're either attacking his ability with reading comprehension (personal insult) or that's he's doing it on purpose eg.trolling (another personal insult). Both are attacking the person instead of the topic.

 

I think that's what some people on this forum don't understand. You expect others not to attack with personal insults but you do the same. Just because someone calls you insane doesn't mean you can throw barbs and snark at them - if you ascribe to the rules that you posted. Attack what they say (argument) not the person if you really mean it.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Hiro Protagonist

[aluminiumtrioxid]

If you expect others to follow rules which you ascribe to, then you should follow them to.

 

 

This is a really cute view, but I'm not expecting anyone to follow rules that are not part of the forum's official rules and guidelines. That's kind of the point of having explicitly written rules on a forum.

 

Moreover: in an environment where people have amply demonstrated they find the very idea of said rules ridiculous, I especially don't feel any obligation to hold myself to a standard that the community considers to be unnecessary.

 

 

You are attacking Valsuelm in regards to "intellectually superior and basically God's gift to humanity" and not what's in his posts. Where did he say he was "intellectually superior and basically God's gift to humanity"?

 

 

I don't think I need to explain the concept of hyperbole.

 

And, well, if you don't think said hyperbole was deserved after this elitist turd of a post (which, by the way, is actually pretty representative of how Vals tends to view other people, based on his posts in other topics), I guess we'll have to respectfully disagree.

 

 

And here's a false dichotomy insult with this you said to him:

"Either your reading comprehension isn't matching the monumental intellect you ascribe to yourself, or you're purposefully misconstruing the argument I was putting forth. Which is it?"

 

So you're either attacking his ability with reading comprehension (personal insult) or you're calling him a troll (another personal insult).

 

 

"False dichotomy", eh? I guess that's technically true - there are possibilities other than "you've misunderstood what I was saying" and "you've purposefully misconstrued what I was saying". I mean, they're not very likely ("you actually understood what I was saying perfectly at the moment you were reading it, but then kinda forget about it and remembered wrong"?), but they exist.

 

In any case, considering the colossal intellectual arrogance that's just dripping from Vals' posts, I don't think "your reading comprehension isn't matching the monumental intellect you ascribe to yourself" is in any way a personal attack. I mean, let's be conservative and say he doesn't even think of himself as a Mensa-level intellect (which I'm pretty sure he does, but let's, for the sake of argument, assume he doesn't), merely as someone with an IQ of 125 - that means he'd be smarter than 95% of all people. If he's wrong about it, and his reading comprehension is instead on the level of someone with an IQ of 120 - well, he'd still be smarter than 90% of all people. I have a hard time construing "merely smarter than 90% of all people" - an outcome my alleged insult allows for - as "attacking someone's ability with reading comprehension".

 

As for calling someone a troll, well... first off, I didn't call anyone a troll; I raised the possibility of them "misconstruing an argument", an action that isn't the sole domain of trolls. But let's, for the sake of argument, assume that this makes someone a troll: in this case, if they engage in the outlined behavior, they are a troll. The label's not much of an insult if it fits. And, well, if they don't, the allegedly problematic half of the statement doesn't apply to them, so no insult was made.

[Hiro Protagonist]

This is a really cute view, but I'm not expecting anyone to follow rules that are not part of the forum's official rules and guidelines. That's kind of the point of having explicitly written rules on a forum.

 

Moreover: in an environment where people have amply demonstrated they find the very idea of said rules ridiculous, I especially don't feel any obligation to hold myself to a standard that the community considers to be unnecessary.

 

You're admitting your part of the problem? You don't feel the need to rise above the poo-slinging and will jump in with the chimps and throw poo as well?

[Valsuelm]

[Valsuelm]

#Trigglypuff mad! Friend makes demands on her behalf (presumably because she's too mad to do it herself?).

Edited May 5, 2016 by Valsuelm

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

This is a really cute view, but I'm not expecting anyone to follow rules that are not part of the forum's official rules and guidelines. That's kind of the point of having explicitly written rules on a forum.

 

Moreover: in an environment where people have amply demonstrated they find the very idea of said rules ridiculous, I especially don't feel any obligation to hold myself to a standard that the community considers to be unnecessary.

 

You're admitting your part of the problem? You don't feel the need to rise above the poo-slinging and will jump in with the chimps and throw poo as well?

 

 

Sure I am! Feeling mildly annoyed and compelled to retort after someone insults you isn't a sign of moral failure, it's human ****ing nature! Which is exactly why "you know this thing you feel right now? you need to not feel it, and then everything will work just peachy" is supremely unhelpful advice - telling people to not feel something is about as useful as telling them to not think of the pink elephant, and only likely to work out in the best of circumstances. Which, you may notice, is kind of a problem if you think about your own life: "best of circumstances" doesn't always happen to people, and usually when it does, it's not while they're posting on an internet forum about video games.

 

Moreover: while you're being mildly annoyed and feel compelled to retort, you're not in the best frame of mind to judge what's okay to post and what isn't. Add to this the fact that you can't judge tone over the internet and therefore everything posted will be taken in a far worse light than it was intended, and you'll have a pages-long thread on your hand that gets nastier and nastier as time goes on - without anybody necessarily being at fault there! And the problem isn't that this will "hurt people's feelings" or "takes away their safe space" or whatever the stupid meme du jour the argument is being equated to; the problem is that everybody feels like their barbs were completely justified and within reason, or, when things get out of hand, that it may not have been justified but it was totally an appropriate response to what the other guy was saying, and none of them is necessarily wrong because, again, annoyed people are judging their own **** as gentle ribbing at most, which might only disturb the most thin-skinned of individuals, while the others' reaction inevitably seems like a much weightier insult than it was intended as (because, again, it's impossible to determine tone and intent in an internet conversation) - but as the argument gets nastier and nastier, the more cognitive real estate gets spent on thinking up ever more creative zingers instead of actually moving the topic forward, and everything just gets clogged down in a quagmire of bruised egos, and the original subject becomes completely forgotten.

 

And the point is that this is pretty much unavoidable unless people are actively spending cognitive effort to combat the phenomena, which, well, good luck to get them to in a frame of mind that's super not conducive to it, especially without any assurances (ie. the goddamn rules) being in place that the other party will behave similarly instead of interpreting said effort as a sign of weakness and doubling down on the hostility.

Edited May 5, 2016 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Hiro Protagonist]

Okay. It sounds like you have trouble controlling your feelings and then giving a reason 'human nature' because of it. That's what it sounds like to me. From my experience, some people can't help but be emotive while others can be more logical or 'Spock like' or they're a mix in between. I can only go on anecdotal evidence and experience from different forums including the BIS forums.

 

I think there are several problems with this forum compared to the BIS forums (and other forums).

 

1. You have WoT containing everything that's not computer/game related. Everything is lumped into one sub forum. As Amentep pointed out, WWoT and Ye Olde were separated. And you had other sub forums like Music (Onkel was the mod from memory). Also with Amentep pointing out that you had the happy spammers in WWoT and usually the serious crowd who wanted serious discussions in Ye Olde.

 

2. Because you have everything lumped into one sub forum (WoT), you have a mix of spammers, trolls, serious internet dudes, etc. Trying to get an intelligent discussion going in a particular thread with others who populate this sub-forum, who are more flippant than serious, and jumping into these threads posting flippant remarks, memes and all sorts of stuff and not being as serious as the serious dudes isn't going to work imo.

 

3. BIS had several sub-forums where certain types of people would go to most of the time. And this isn't anything new. I've seen this on other forums including this forum. You have some people who visit these forums and they only go to the PoE forum or others will go to other sub forums. BIS was mostly the same. A lot of spammers and trolls did stay out of Ye Olde and were happy in their own sub forum. However, you did have your trolls like 6'8 Italian Warlord creating his 'Consider This' threads and I would find it hard to believe anybody taking issue with his threads - even in Ye Olde . I found them more humorous than anything.

 

4. Social media. This was practically non-existent back during the BIS days. And this has changed the landscape today with how people act and react. Back in the BIS days, very rarely was a topic taboo in Ye Olde. The topics ranged from Israel vs Palestine (Dargoth vs Yrkoon debates), Religion vs Atheism, many other religious topics like Deism, Political Correctness, and I even recall one poster coming up with a topic about paedophilia and asking if this was natural in nature (which I found eye-opening), the Iraq war from the early 90s, Terrorism and so on. There were so many topics. Now for various reasons you couldn't do that on this forum. Too much triggering and being offended today.

 

5. Forums was the Facebook and Twitterverse of the time for gamers. A lot of gamers went to gaming forums like BIS to discuss a wide range of topics and social interaction. The Inns on WWoT were quite popular. There were roleplaying threads. Now it seems (to me) that a lot of people go on facebook and twitter or elsewhere to interact. They don't necessarily go to forums.

 

6. I'd consider people in Ye Olde would rather defer than get involved in debates for various reasons. Only once I entered one of Dargoth vs Yrkoon threads to ask a question about the Israel/Palestine conflict and my understanding relating to the Bible and some history behind it and both gave me answers which I was satisfied with. And they went back to debating. I didn't consider myself as knowledgeable as both of those guys on the subject so I stayed out of it. I found it interesting and informative how they debated. Two posters debating pages on end wasn't anything new. However, some people see two posters debating on this forum for pages on end, and for some reason they get all huffy and puffy, don't like it and then jump in and troll. We've already seen this recently in another thread on this forum.

 

tldr; If you want intelligent discussion from a group of people on a wide range of topics, this is not the best place for it.

[BruceVC]

 

 

I have Bruce in ignore list as well but I will fight to death to let him derail whatever he wish

 

 

That's ass-backwards logic. "The right of a person to ruin a discussion is more valuable than the desire of others to see the discussion un-ruined" is putting the cart before the horse.

 

 

 

The principle is what it always is- there's a right (or 'right' since the forums are private property) to freedom of expression within certain rules. If the rules aren't infringed then if you don't like what the other person is saying you need to build a bridge and get over it or buy a pack of cards and deal with it. However, there is neither a right to be listened to nor a right to be replied to. Don't do either and problem solved, one way or the other. [redacted] either replies to himself all the time until he gets bored, creates alts to talk to himself, stops doing immense quantities of the lowest effort posts possible to try and get people to reply or just leaves. Having said that it's not like [redacted] hasn't admitted outright to trolling- posting solely to get a response, especially from those who are ignoring him. Guess I could have reported him then, but snitches get stitches and that would damage my valuable self image of battling The Man in all his forms.

 

Really though, all the tools for dealing with problems exist, it just needs people agreeing there is a problem and actually using- and sticking to using- the tools available instead of complaining to mods/ admins about the unfairness of it all in an abstract form.

 

Most of this post is NOTHING but a lame attempt at  trolling me 

 

Zora makes  many false and defamatory points, for example he says I  "either replies to himself all the time until he gets bored, creates alts to talk to himself " 

 

I have never ever created another Alt on this forum..I have only ever used one account :  BruceVC.

 

And I have no issue if the Mods want to use some sort of IP tracking to prove this and report the results around who I say I am...I am more than prepared to do this because I will try anything to end Zora's  endless whining and " proof " that I  a troll and use Alts . He has even accused me of being Oby