Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-20-2019 6:36 AM
23 online now:
kjsimons, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), vimesey (3 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,858 Year: 4,895/19,786 Month: 1,017/873 Week: 373/376 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
29NextFF
Author Topic:   Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 136 of 424 (567178)
06-29-2010 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 8:36 PM


crashfrog writes:

I thought that was pretty reasonable at the time, and I still do. If NJ had really been interested in making and participating in arguments about moral relativism, he would have modified his language to remove the offense, which was acting as a significant obstacle to debate. Just out of self-interest.

Instead he doubled-down on that language. Because he wasn't interested in moral debate, he was interested in trolling homosexuals and their allies, like myself, Taz, and Dan.

I agree that the point you made to NJ was well argued, and seems reasonable. However, I do think his distaste for moral relativism was genuine, and that his religion was very important to him.

As for trolling, there's a point about NJ's experience on this site that maybe should be mentioned. He used to get attacked, slagged off and insulted all the time. Those of us who pretty much disagreed with him on just about everything might argue that he asked for it, but we should admit that he was on the receiving end of far more insults than he gave out.

Looking through his posts, I came across a reply to one by a character called "bluegenes" which said something like "only superstitious fools would base their morality on texts from a semi-barbaric bronze age culture."

That's really just like saying "you're a superstitious fool, mate", and is arguably treading on the board's guidelines.

So, when you look at his posts, read some of the replies from many different people. The guy took a lot more stick than he gave, I think, and perhaps that puts what appears to you to be trolling into context.

I'm not sure about people participating on this board claiming a right not to be offended. I don't claim it. I've been told that I'm going to hell, and I think it's fine for people to express that opinion on this board, or anything else they believe, and I wouldn't dream of complaining to the mods about such things.

I'm well aware that the religious people here can be very offended by the views of people like myself, but I don't think they have a right not to be offended. Offence is inevitable here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 8:36 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 11:42 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1735 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 137 of 424 (567180)
06-29-2010 11:38 PM


Is a discussion about the inconsistency of moderation off topic?
Quite humorous to have a discussion about the effective application of the moderation on this site, with modulous claiming that it is one thing to have a vague discussion about homosexuality being morally equivalent to bestiality (or as wholesome or as thoroughly enjoyable or as likely to being happening simultaneously or who knows what they are saying) but it is another to DIRECTLY reference the stunted monkey like inability of a PARTICULAR individual to dissect a phallic-like fruit.

I think the offense taken is somewhat understandable.

And yet the hypocrisy abounds:

AzPaul3 writes:

Your view of this whole thing is bogus. I guess it isn't easy being green.

Why are you here, Frog?

Have you come back to sling shit at Percy for some perceived injury to your ego? Is this some cathartic exercise for your wounded psyche? Have you changed from “Crash Frog” to “Troll Frog” or maybe “Trash Frog”? Does this whole thing still hurt your sensitive ego?

Suck it up, grow a pair, and get on with life, man. You're not 16 anymore.

If you want to come back and play with the rest of us in Percy's Sandbox then welcome back, Crash Frog. But if you're here to be Trash Frog, throw sand and crap at everyone then just pick up your bucket of bullshit and leave.

You see members, let it be known, personal insults simply will not be tolerated.

So just suck it up, grow a pair, and take your bullshit elsewhere you overly sensitive, adolescent, screwed up psyche sensitives trolls! Take you sand bucket and play elsewhere if you can't take us not allowing insults, you shit throwing little kids!!!!~!


Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 11:44 PM Bolder-dash has responded
 Message 142 by AZPaul3, posted 06-30-2010 1:05 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 424 (567182)
06-29-2010 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by bluegenes
06-29-2010 11:02 PM


Those of us who pretty much disagreed with him on just about everything might argue that he asked for it, but we should admit that he was on the receiving end of far more insults than he gave out.

Yeah but that would be true of any one of us, just by the numbers.

I'm not sure about people participating on this board claiming a right not to be offended. I don't claim it. I've been told that I'm going to hell, and I think it's fine for people to express that opinion on this board, or anything else they believe, and I wouldn't dream of complaining to the mods about such things.

That's fair, but maybe there are some subjects you would be offended about - perhaps, if we started calling your wife or mother a filthy whore? - and that you wouldn't consider neither an appropriate subject for debate nor consistent with the Forum Guideline about treating other people with respect.

I might indeed be making a very interesting, salient philosophical point with a post that began "now, suppose that bluegenes' filthy whore mother was right in front of you, with her suppurating herpes sores and ragged vagina, spread wide from dozens of her johns" and you might very reasonably say something like "dude, seriously, knock that shit off. It's really fucking offensive."

An adult would respond by changing his language, using different examples that weren't so personal or offensive. If NJ wanted to talk about moral relativism, and how moral relativists determine that one thing is right while another is wrong, there are dozens of innocuous examples he could have used. Why is Scrabble ok but murder is bad? Why is shoe shopping allowed but female genital mutilation verboten? He could have gone literally anywhere.

Instead he chose to return again and again to the example that he had been repeatedly told caused offense and distracted from his argument.

Why did he do that, if not to troll homosexuals and their allies?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by bluegenes, posted 06-29-2010 11:02 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 424 (567184)
06-29-2010 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Bolder-dash
06-29-2010 11:38 PM


Re: Is a discussion about the inconsistency of moderation off topic?
Yeah, it's a bit akin to arguing about angels on the head of a pin.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-29-2010 11:38 PM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-29-2010 11:57 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1735 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 140 of 424 (567185)
06-29-2010 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 11:44 PM


Re: Is a discussion about the inconsistency of moderation off topic?
I am quite sure I will be the one accused of subverting the rules.

"You see Bolder-dash, AZPaul3 was just making a social commentary about frogs shitting in sandboxes, but when you uttered the word fruit, that was off topic. I am suspending you for 24 hours. See you tomorrow. Percy"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 11:44 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3852
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 6.3


Message 141 of 424 (567190)
06-30-2010 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 2:34 PM


Fuck Constructive - Answer the Question
You didn't answer the question, Frog.

I think you'll find that I did, Paul. Please go back and read more carefully.

No, Frog, you did not answer the question. You gave me your excuse, your vehicle. You never answered to the motivation.

Why are you here, Frog?

To piss and moan over a three year old difference of opinion? Don't give us this crap about Rrhain and Mod's heated discussion. That's just your excuse.

Look Frog, the facts are these:

1. Some people got kicked out of the sandbox.

Frankly, I don't give a flying flip why it happened. It's all there in the archives for everyone to see. Everyone can form there own opinion. It's irrelevant.

2. In protest others said they wanted to get kicked out. They were obliged.

3. Still others, you included, took their toys and left the sandbox on your own as further protest.

4. Now three years later you storm back in here throwing sand at everyone.

You say you are not holding a grudge?

Sure as hell looks like you are.

I think we deserve to know why you are doing this, Frog.

It has got to be more than just NJ's attitude and his stalking; more than just Mod and the other moderators' judgement, that has so poisoned your attitude to such a caustic extent. Unless you're a petulant little child unable to control yourself, unable to let go. That might be your explanation.

I don't know because you have not yet answered the question.

So why are you here, Frog?

Do you have some deep-seated need, borne of petulance and ego, to rant and rave over your difference of opinion with the moderators stemming from a long cold, dead incident three years ago? Are you so insecure you needed to come back to show everyone that you were right; that your opinion is the only correct one to have about some long cold, dead incident from three years ago? Are you so immature you can't let go of your hatred toward Mod, Percy, this site and this community because it didn't collapse like you wanted it to three years ago?

Are you trolling? Just looking to stir up a fight? What?

Is there something else that happened that could justify your coming back here this late full of such bitterness and hatred?

We cannot know since you dodge and weave about evading the question.

Are you afraid of something?

I don't care about your views of NJ and his attitude. I don't care about your warnings of disaster to the moderation team. I don't care about who should or should not have been stronger, weaker, more or less benevolent toward this one or that one.

I really don't care about any of your opinions on this ancient history at all, Frog.

What I want to know is why you feel justified in coming back in here and pissing on everybody?

What the hell are you doing back here, Frog?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 2:34 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by crashfrog, posted 06-30-2010 1:47 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3852
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 6.3


Message 142 of 424 (567191)
06-30-2010 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Bolder-dash
06-29-2010 11:38 PM


Re: Is a discussion about the inconsistency of moderation off topic?
So just suck it up, grow a pair, and take your bullshit elsewhere you overly sensitive, adolescent, screwed up psyche sensitives trolls! Take you sand bucket and play elsewhere if you can't take us not allowing insults, you shit throwing little kids!!!!~!

Very good, Bolder-dash! Now you're getting it!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-29-2010 11:38 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2706 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 143 of 424 (567195)
06-30-2010 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 7:03 PM


Re: Grammatical Perspective
Someone using imperfect grammar writes:

The problem, as I see it, is that its all or none for people like Crash, Taz, Berberry, or Dan. For some reason, they are incapable of distinguishing that, while I believe that Toronto sucks, they assume that I must somehow hate Torontonians for it.

Isn't it possible that you have misunderstood? I understand that you read the quote from NJ as insulting, but I also see it from a different way.

The problem, as I see it, is that its all or none for people like Crash, Taz, Berberry, or Dan. For some reason, they are incapable of distinguishing that, while I believe that homosexuality is a sin, they assume that I must somehow hate them for it.

Welcome back crashfrog, I hope you decide to stay for a while.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 7:03 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by crashfrog, posted 06-30-2010 1:50 AM Vacate has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 424 (567196)
06-30-2010 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by AZPaul3
06-30-2010 12:55 AM


Re: Fuck Constructive - Answer the Question
Why are you here, Frog?

Please, call me "Crash." And I told you why I was here.

Why are you here? In this thread, I mean?

Still others, you included, took their toys and left the sandbox on your own as further protest.

Er, no, that's not what happened at all. I never left as "further protest"; the events that I would have left in protest over happened after I had already left. As I said in A Few People Asked...

I thought I'd explain why I left EvC and what I've been up to, since.
It was just taking up too much of my time and attention, frankly. There was nothing more to it than that. I'd get into these furballs with Rrhain and Holmes and it just wasn't worth the attention and mindspace they were taking up. I don't think anybody cared (or even read the threads) but the three of us, frankly. So, one day I just put "evcfourm.net" in my router's blacklist and started pursuing other interests.

AZPaul, I don't expect everyone, or really anyone, to jump up and down and say "Crashfrog is back, hooray!" And that's fine. I was a divisive figure before and I fully expect to remain one, now.

But what you're saying are "facts" just aren't so. You're just making things up.

I don't care about your views of NJ and his attitude. I don't care about your warnings of disaster to the moderation team. I don't care about who should or should not have been stronger, weaker, more or less benevolent toward this one or that one.

Then I'm somewhat forced to wonder why you're so intent on participating in a thread that's about NJ and his attitude, my warnings of disaster to the moderation team, and who should or should not have been stronger/weaker/benevolent to this one or that one, since you've just said you don't care about any of those things.

Why are you here, Paul?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by AZPaul3, posted 06-30-2010 12:55 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by AZPaul3, posted 06-30-2010 1:54 AM crashfrog has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 145 of 424 (567197)
06-30-2010 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Vacate
06-30-2010 1:35 AM


Re: Grammatical Perspective
Isn't it possible that you have misunderstood?

It's possible, but I've already explained why it's unlikely, why the more charitable interpretation is flawed, and moreover a troll like NJ doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt. He had, and exhausted, the benefit of the doubt the first time he engaged in gay-baiting and was politely asked to stop.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Vacate, posted 06-30-2010 1:35 AM Vacate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-30-2010 10:21 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3852
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 6.3


Message 146 of 424 (567198)
06-30-2010 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by crashfrog
06-30-2010 1:47 AM


Re: Fuck Constructive - Answer the Question
the events that I would have left in protest over happened after I had already left.

Then I stand corrected.

Why are you here, Paul?

To find out why you feel justified in storming in here after a three-year absence pissing on everyone.

Care to answer the question now, Crash?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by crashfrog, posted 06-30-2010 1:47 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by crashfrog, posted 06-30-2010 2:12 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 400 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 147 of 424 (567199)
06-30-2010 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 7:03 PM


Re: Grammatical Perspective
crashfrog writes:

Do you just not understand how trolling works, Straggler? Do you understand that if I were to say something like:

hypo writes:

I'm really proud of my work with the mentally disabled, and I feel that I've really been able to make a difference in the lives of people like Straggler and Huntard.

that what sounds like something innocuous is really a not-so-thinly-veiled attempt to call you and Huntard "retarded"?


I wouldn't read it like that.

Perhaps I happen to have friends or family that are "retarded", and your work has made life easier for them. Perhaps I simply like the way you work with "retarded" people, and you have inspired me to be a good person as best I can. All this would fit in with what you said. I'm not one to immediately assume the worst when a person writes something like that.

Secondly, I couldn't give a flying fuck if you did call me retarded.

My response to something like that? (If I thought you were insulting me)

"I find it admirable that you take your time and spend it changing peoples diapers, because they can't do it anymore themselves."

And that's a mild one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 7:03 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by crashfrog, posted 06-30-2010 2:14 AM Huntard has responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 148 of 424 (567201)
06-30-2010 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by AZPaul3
06-30-2010 1:54 AM


Re: Fuck Constructive - Answer the Question
To find out why you feel justified in storming in here after a three-year absence pissing on everyone.

I wasn't absent. I've been lurking since I posted "A Few People Asked...".

When Rrhain brought up the GenDiscMod11 thread, and Modulous opened this thread to re-hash those issues, I decided to oblige him. Like I said before.

Care to answer the question now, Crash?

I had, and now I just did. Think you could answer mine, now? It's clear you're not interested in any part of this thread, so why are you in it? Just to call me names? Maybe you could put those in an email instead and save everybody the trouble of pointedly ignoring them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by AZPaul3, posted 06-30-2010 1:54 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by AZPaul3, posted 06-30-2010 2:50 AM crashfrog has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 149 of 424 (567202)
06-30-2010 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Huntard
06-30-2010 1:59 AM


Re: Grammatical Perspective
My response to something like that? (If I thought you were insulting me)

"I find it admirable that you take your time and spend it changing peoples diapers, because they can't do it anymore themselves."

And that's a mild one.

Not bad, and I trust that means you take my point.

Yes, a charitable reading of NJ's post is possible (as long as you completely ignore grammar and logic.) But NJ didn't deserve the charity. He'd long exhausted the benefit of the doubt.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Huntard, posted 06-30-2010 1:59 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Huntard, posted 06-30-2010 2:48 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 400 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 150 of 424 (567207)
06-30-2010 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by crashfrog
06-30-2010 2:14 AM


Re: Grammatical Perspective
crashfrog writes:

Not bad, and I trust that means you take my point.


Thank you. Well, like I said, if I thought you were insulting me, I'd say that. But then again, I wouldn't immediately assume you were.

Yes, a charitable reading of NJ's post is possible (as long as you completely ignore grammar and logic.) But NJ didn't deserve the charity. He'd long exhausted the benefit of the doubt.

Well, I wasn't there, and haven't had the "pleasure" of conversing with NJ really. So I guess I'm not informed enough to accuraterly asses the situation.

I will bow out of this thread. Thank you for the conversation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by crashfrog, posted 06-30-2010 2:14 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
29NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019