Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    25 Aug '16 19:39
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I suspect, you would start with the person who targets her attacks at you and ignore those who are insulting others. If there is to be moderation it should be clear where the lines are drawn and fairly implemented. Currently the moderation is quite relaxed (non no-existent). If you want stricter rules, then I think you should make clear what those rules w ...[text shortened]... blem here is that she does start or engage in interesting topics that people do want to discuss.
    Are you really serious? We have one poster, just one, who writes dozens of vicious attack posts with little but insults every single week. This is virtually the only internet forum where such behavior would be tolerated.

    You complaining about this thread, which is nothing but a somewhat bemused response to such destructive behavior on this Forum, is amazing.
  2. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    25 Aug '16 19:51
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Although I generally agree that out and out insults should be kept to a minimum and that mechanisms should be in place to reduce such behaviour, it gets tricky deciding what is an insult and what is not. If someone lies, I want the right to point it out. If someone is a pathological liar, I want the right to point it out occasionally. I do think it unnece ...[text shortened]... suspect that that in itself is against the official forum rules, and if it isn't, it should be.
    twhitehead: This thread is an example of no1 starting a thread which is deliberately targeting a particular poster he dislikes.

    This is adopting Duchess' ridiculous viewpoint. Disliking anonymous usernames on an internet forum would be absurd.
  3. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    25 Aug '16 22:592 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead

    This thread is an example of no1 starting a thread which is deliberately targeting a particular poster he dislikes.
    Out of curiosity, did you similarly chastise Duchess when she started a thread attacking Freakykbh, for his chess match against his alleged clone? If not, please explain why you ignored Duchess previously doing the same thing you're criticizing no1 for.
  4. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35898
    25 Aug '16 23:26
    Originally posted by HandyAndy
    In a weightless environment?
    Well, yeah, of course.
  5. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    25 Aug '16 23:451 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    From the guidelines:
    Do not harass other members of the community. Harassment is any unwanted conduct including insults, jokes and any remarks affecting the dignity of another. Such conduct could relate to gender, race, nationality, sexuality, religion, disability or other similarly sensitive issues.


    I believe this thread violates that ...[text shortened]... hess. For example in anther recent thread you can find:
    You lying little bugger.
    Amazing, just amazing. For the record this thread was my restrained response to this post by Duchess (which is really just representative of hundreds of similar posts in the last few months alone):

    duchess: The pathological liar No1Marauder keeps lying as usual. It's amusing that No1Marauder
    seems eager for a trolling alliance with Robbie Carrobie, who rejects the theory of evolution.
    So what's the deal? If Robbie Carrobie keeps hurling more abuse and lies at me,
    will No1Marauder repay his favors by writing some posts supporting creationism?

    No1Marauder's lying about what he wrote in arguing with KazetNagorra and me about physics.
    Only extremely gullible fools (No1Marauder's target audience) would accept that the
    arrogant lawyer No1Marauder knows more than KazetNagorra about modern physics.

    "He/she ..."
    --No1Marauder

    Apparently, No1Marauder now retracts his earlier (grudging) acceptance that I am a woman.
    So does No1Marauder also insist I MUST BE WHITE, as he has claimed?

    WHEN CAN NO1MARAUDER CITE THE EVIDENCE THAT HE CLAIMS TO HAVE
    OBSERVED IN MY PRIOR POSTS THAT I MUST BE WHITE?

    NO1MARAUDER'S CLAIM THAT I MUST BE WHITE IS BASED ONLY ON HIS RACIAL PREJUDICE.


    This thread violates the TOS sufficiently that you feel like complaining about it but those types of posts (there's dozens more just like it on this Forum in the last few days alone) earn no condemnation from you?

    The supposed "harassment" of this thread would have been to turn vicious, attack posts into innocuous humorous ones. I can see why that is sooooooooooooooooooooooo outrageous but hundreds of incessant insulting posts targeting several dozen different contributors to this Forum are not.
  6. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    25 Aug '16 23:47
    If any Forum Mods still exist, go ahead and delete this thread.
  7. Standard memberSleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    Dustbin of history
    Joined
    13 Apr '07
    Moves
    12727
    26 Aug '16 02:252 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    If any Forum Mods still exist, go ahead and delete this thread.
    Or.... Just go ahead and ban Duchess64, the most prolific and hateful troll in the history of forever. Just sayin.
  8. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    26 Aug '16 07:02
    Originally posted by vivify
    Out of curiosity, did you similarly chastise Duchess when she started a thread attacking Freakykbh, for his chess match against his alleged clone? If not, please explain why you ignored Duchess previously doing the same thing you're criticizing no1 for.
    Partly because she was right, and partly because criticising Duchess is ineffective, and partly because I had no particular interest in that thread.
  9. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    26 Aug '16 07:04
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Amazing, just amazing. For the record this thread was my restrained response to this post by Duchess (which is really just representative of hundreds of similar posts in the last few months alone):
    Did you at some point claim Duchess was either white or male? If so, it violated the clause I quote earlier in the thread. And you appear to be upset that Duchess didn't like that.
  10. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    26 Aug '16 07:09
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Are you really serious? We have one poster, just one, who writes dozens of vicious attack posts with little but insults every single week.
    She is prolific, I'll give you that, but to claim that she is the only poster guilty of throwing around insults is false, and to claim that her posts have little but insults is false. In fact her posts generally have more real content than a significant number of other posters.

    I do actually agree that we should have rules against such behaviour and punish it to some degree, I disagree that she should be singled out for such punishment.
  11. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    57005
    26 Aug '16 07:53
    This whole thread makes me want to punch a tory.

    And that is me being nice.
  12. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    55725
    26 Aug '16 12:07
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    She is prolific, I'll give you that, but to claim that she is the only poster guilty of throwing around insults is false, and to claim that her posts have little but insults is false. In fact her posts generally have more real content than a significant number of other posters.

    I do actually agree that we should have rules against such behaviour and punish it to some degree, I disagree that she should be singled out for such punishment.
    Your belief system is comical. Whether she mixes content in her offensive comments is completely irrelevant. Furthermore, no1 inquiry into her color and gender is completely appropriate as she continually assumes gender and color and insults people based on her assumptions.
  13. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    26 Aug '16 12:31
    Originally posted by quackquack
    Your belief system is comical.
    I see you are not above insults for no apparent reason.

    Whether she mixes content in her offensive comments is completely irrelevant.
    It is relevant if no1 claimed her posts were little but insults.

    Furthermore, no1 inquiry into her color and gender is completely appropriate as she continually assumes gender and color and insults people based on her assumptions.
    Whether appropriate or not, it is clearly a violation of the forum guidelines. And I strongly suspect that he did not 'inquire into her colour' but rather accuse her of being a different colour than she is. Interesting behaviour given the recent discussion about race.
  14. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    55725
    26 Aug '16 13:14
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I see you are not above insults for no apparent reason.

    [b]Whether she mixes content in her offensive comments is completely irrelevant.

    It is relevant if no1 claimed her posts were little but insults.

    Furthermore, no1 inquiry into her color and gender is completely appropriate as she continually assumes gender and color and insults people b ...[text shortened]... ng a different colour than she is. Interesting behaviour given the recent discussion about race.
    There are degrees of violations which you refuse to recognize. We have one person who goes way over any line of appropriateness and they should be punished. I'm willing to listen about punishment of others who occasionally stray over a line from time to time but even you admit that you'd punish flagrant violators.
  15. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    26 Aug '16 13:27
    Originally posted by quackquack
    There are degrees of violations which you refuse to recognize.
    In what way have I refused to recognise them? The very fact that you feel you need to point out degrees of violations suggests you believe there should be a line in the sand beyond your own bad behaviour but before Duchess'. Why should you be let off the hook?

    We have one person who goes way over any line of appropriateness and they should be punished.
    I am not convinced that Duchess is unique in this regard.

    I'm willing to listen about punishment of others who occasionally stray over a line from time to time but even you admit that you'd punish flagrant violators.
    Yes, I do. I just think it should be fair. I also find the complainants hypocritical given that they are all guilty of bad behaviour.

    Seriously now:
    Your belief system is comical.

    Was that necessary? Is that what you consider reasonable discussion? If so, what is your problem with Duchess again?
Back to Top