Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Slapdash

***Official PSF Moderation Thread***

Recommended Posts

There's a reason the forum needs moderation. People get worked up when they talk about politics.  It's hard to fathom that someone else really and truly looks at the exact same information and believes something that's diametrically opposed to what you believe, and it's even more frustrating when they try to change the laws to fit their world view when it's the exact opposite of yours. 

It's also hard to discuss these things with the same crowd, day after day, and not try to use humor.  But it's hard to hear "humor" from the other side and not feel insulted. 

I listened to a conservative explain why it was totally ok for a guy who said trump couldn't be guilty of obstruction to be appointed by trump, declare that trump was innocent, then hand the investigation of trump to trump to decide what should be redacted, and then quote trump's misquote of that report as "TOTAL EXONERATION"... and my honest response was just laughter.  I just don't see how an intelligent adult who follows this stuff thinks that is ok. 

But i also think it's ok for right wingers to celebrate the apparent victory that the mueller report will not lead to further indictments, and to laugh at people who thought it was going to lead to the president getting charged for treason.  

I hope that there's more of us between those two extremes than either side would like to admit. 

I don't think anyone on the left really wanted to admit right away that they got out maneuvered on this, but the more concerning thing was the thought that the whole thing might have been a lie.  I don't think you'll find many lefties who say it right now but the first thing most of them thought was oh no, what if i've been duped. 

And the righties probably had the opposite experience.  I think most of them were high fiving excitedly when barr's summary first came out. I think that elation would die down a bit when they realize the potential that this was just more corruption.  Nobody on the right is going to lead with it in an internet message board debate but i hope people saying that trump was exonerated are really saying "i'm happy that trump isn't going to face charges from the Mueller report and that the left was embarrassed, but i hope that he really was exonerated and i hope if the information ever becomes public it confirms what i believe". 

Those are pretty compatible positions. Both sides want things to work out favorably for their best interests and both sides act more confident in their beliefs than they really are (or should be).

I don't think it's trolling to say "TOTAL EXONERATION" or for someone to respond to that with a lmao. That's normal adult conversation. I don't even think it's that bad to make fun of someone a little. 

People clicking report over minor stuff are annoying to the mods and nobody else. Whining about the lmao smiley as a grown up is embarrassing and demanding justice for it deserves to be mocked.  Stop it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2019 at 3:11 PM, [scooter] said:

What conservative posters are complaining about is the fact that Tanner's multiple accounts are allowed to exist at all.

(They don't seem to have the same complaints about alias accounts associated with conservative posters, however.)

I started this conversation about tanner and I will say for me the bold is correct. I got an alias clipped because Epic Problem likely reported it(which I think is a limp ditka alias but I am not positive, irony there if true). I say he probably reported it because he called it out in a thread and then 10 minutes later poof. Although I am sure it could have been any number of other prolific report button users. Tanner is the easiest to point out because he has so many of them and he doesn't exactly hide the fact that they are him and that he gets suspended. Pretty easy to see which ones are his by reading a couple pages in GMTAN. 

So if my account gets clipped because Epic Problem whined, then I want to know why other people are allowed to do it. The explanations given so far are junk. I dont think tanner's "main account" is even around anymore so it is easy cover for the mods. 

I would rather they just say it is our board and we decide who can post and have alias accounts and who can't. Tanner probably creates lots of traffic for them because he is a popular poster with many and also disliked by many and he has like 474,000,323 posts. So he is probably good for business. I can live in that world. Kind of like when your boss just tells you to do something and you have to do it.  

I would have never cared about tanners accounts if mine wasn't clipped. I have never liked tanner, but never complained a peep about his accounts until now. The fact that his accounts exist is clearly preferential treatment. I just would prefer they admit it as such. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, KCitons said:

I would like a board ruling on whether or not telling other posters to stop quoting a poster is whining? 

That and the "please dont feed the trolls" is the second worst schtick in the PSF and is actually trolling.  But it happens all the time and drags down a conversation in almost every single thread.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bostonfred said:

There's a reason the forum needs moderation. People get worked up when they talk about politics.  It's hard to fathom that someone else really and truly looks at the exact same information and believes something that's diametrically opposed to what you believe, and it's even more frustrating when they try to change the laws to fit their world view when it's the exact opposite of yours. 

It's also hard to discuss these things with the same crowd, day after day, and not try to use humor.  But it's hard to hear "humor" from the other side and not feel insulted. 

I listened to a conservative explain why it was totally ok for a guy who said trump couldn't be guilty of obstruction to be appointed by trump, declare that trump was innocent, then hand the investigation of trump to trump to decide what should be redacted, and then quote trump's misquote of that report as "TOTAL EXONERATION"... and my honest response was just laughter.  I just don't see how an intelligent adult who follows this stuff thinks that is ok. 

But i also think it's ok for right wingers to celebrate the apparent victory that the mueller report will not lead to further indictments, and to laugh at people who thought it was going to lead to the president getting charged for treason.  

I hope that there's more of us between those two extremes than either side would like to admit. 

I don't think anyone on the left really wanted to admit right away that they got out maneuvered on this, but the more concerning thing was the thought that the whole thing might have been a lie.  I don't think you'll find many lefties who say it right now but the first thing most of them thought was oh no, what if i've been duped. 

And the righties probably had the opposite experience.  I think most of them were high fiving excitedly when barr's summary first came out. I think that elation would die down a bit when they realize the potential that this was just more corruption.  Nobody on the right is going to lead with it in an internet message board debate but i hope people saying that trump was exonerated are really saying "i'm happy that trump isn't going to face charges from the Mueller report and that the left was embarrassed, but i hope that he really was exonerated and i hope if the information ever becomes public it confirms what i believe". 

Those are pretty compatible positions. Both sides want things to work out favorably for their best interests and both sides act more confident in their beliefs than they really are (or should be).

I don't think it's trolling to say "TOTAL EXONERATION" or for someone to respond to that with a lmao. That's normal adult conversation. I don't even think it's that bad to make fun of someone a little. 

People clicking report over minor stuff are annoying to the mods and nobody else. Whining about the lmao smiley as a grown up is embarrassing and demanding justice for it deserves to be mocked.  Stop it.

:goodposting: Especially the bold.  If there is a standard that is expected a political forum ought to be moderated or cut out all together.  Report button is silly.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sho nuff said:

The bolded...just makes me laugh.

To claim this ignores so many things that have happened on here.

It makes me laugh anyone here even disputes it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

It makes me laugh anyone here even disputes it.  

I often dispute untrue things.

Not long ago when a poster was suspended for 10 days for a comment about the NRA...did you even receive a warning for calling him a tool?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Da Guru said:

Why can`t some people receive messages?  Needed to let someone know something that was not quite appropriate for the general board.

I think it's something each person sets on their own. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

I often dispute untrue things.

Not long ago when a poster was suspended for 10 days for a comment about the NRA...did you even receive a warning for calling him a tool?

 

Again, don't get confused.

It wasn't just a "comment about the NRA". The poster claimed the NRA had a history of celebrating mass shootings. Than backpedaled when he got pushback. Just a tad more than "a comment." 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

I often dispute untrue things.

Not long ago when a poster was suspended for 10 days for a comment about the NRA...did you even receive a warning for calling him a tool?

 

I have seen you defend Dickies comment multiple times now and cry that Jon didn't get suspended for correctly calling him out.  Enough is enough.  Let the moderators do their job.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, parasaurolophus said:

I started this conversation about tanner and I will say for me the bold is correct. I got an alias clipped because Epic Problem likely reported it(which I think is a limp ditka alias but I am not positive, irony there if true). I say he probably reported it because he called it out in a thread and then 10 minutes later poof. Although I am sure it could have been any number of other prolific report button users. Tanner is the easiest to point out because he has so many of them and he doesn't exactly hide the fact that they are him and that he gets suspended. Pretty easy to see which ones are his by reading a couple pages in GMTAN. 

So if my account gets clipped because Epic Problem whined, then I want to know why other people are allowed to do it. The explanations given so far are junk. I dont think tanner's "main account" is even around anymore so it is easy cover for the mods. 

I would rather they just say it is our board and we decide who can post and have alias accounts and who can't. Tanner probably creates lots of traffic for them because he is a popular poster with many and also disliked by many and he has like 474,000,323 posts. So he is probably good for business. I can live in that world. Kind of like when your boss just tells you to do something and you have to do it.  

I would have never cared about tanners accounts if mine wasn't clipped. I have never liked tanner, but never complained a peep about his accounts until now. The fact that his accounts exist is clearly preferential treatment. I just would prefer they admit it as such. 

First off, "I wasn't going to complain about Tanner until I got in trouble" is just the worst kind of whining. Taking other people down with you is not cool.

Second, if you look at things from an objective point of view (instead of the "Why did I get banned?" point of view), then you'll see that there are plenty of conservative posters who have been allowed to use alias accounts. Just ask jon_mx and HellToupee. (Jon will probably respond with "But what about all the hypocrite liberal aliases?!", and HT will probably say "New Hampshire is lousy with alias fraud" before deleting his post. Ba-dum-dum.)

Anyway, you're probably never going to get an official explanation that satisfies you. But based on what I've seen over the past 15 years, aliases have been unofficially allowed to exist as long as they behave themselves. But if you troll or break the rules, you're going to get popped. So, I would humbly suggest that the reason your own alias got clipped is because you were engaging in the same behavior that got your original account in trouble in the first place.

Now, it looks like the endless complaints about Tanner will result in a big win for the MAGA crowd. Tanner and his aliases may get permabanned. But the endless supply of Trumper troll aliases will be allowed to pollute the board -- not because the mods have a deliberate double-standard, but because the mods simply won't be able to figure out if accounts like @Bishop (a brand new account that just happened to make its debut in the P(S)F) are aliases or not. So they are forced to give them the benefit of the doubt.

This board is at its best when nobody whines and non-offending aliases are allowed to exist. When those two benchmarks are removed, then this place will become worse than the Geek Club at FFT.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Joe Bryant said:

Again, don't get confused.

It wasn't just a "comment about the NRA". The poster claimed the NRA had a history of celebrating mass murder. Just a tad more than "a comment." 

Im not confused...I get that was over the line and have said as much.

But he had previously explained the NRA's motivations around shootings (and as we have now seen in several thread a playbook for how they handle them and its disgusting).

The point was more about Jon's reaction to a poster not saying a thing about him but about the NRA...was he disciplined?  Does that seem to show that moderation is not as uneven as he claims?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sho nuff said:

Im not confused...I get that was over the line and have said as much.

But he had previously explained the NRA's motivations around shootings (and as we have now seen in several thread a playbook for how they handle them and its disgusting).

The point was more about Jon's reaction to a poster not saying a thing about him but about the NRA...was he disciplined?  Does that seem to show that moderation is not as uneven as he claims?

 

Confused was giving you the benefit of the doubt. If you want to call it just a comment then you're getting into willfully misleading territory. Don't do that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Don't Noonan said:

I have seen you defend Dickies comment multiple times now and cry that Jon didn't get suspended for correctly calling him out.  Enough is enough.  Let the moderators do their job.

I didn't cry about Jon...Im pointing out the fact that Jon's post was scrubbed.  No don't...or things the mods do...just scrubbed.

Im showing that the moderators do their job and don't favor one side over him.  That his comments about left leaning posters getting leeway was false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Joe Bryant said:

Confused was giving you the benefit of the doubt. If you want to call it just a comment then you're getting into willfully misleading territory. Don't do that. 

Fair enough...that wasn't the point of my message though Joe.  Dickie's comment aside...it wasn't about a poster or anyone here but about an organization.  Even as bad as what he said was...it showed the moderation to be fair.  Thats what Im saying...Im actually defending you and your moderators here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sho nuff said:

Fair enough...that wasn't the point of my message though Joe.  Dickie's comment aside...it wasn't about a poster or anyone here but about an organization.  Even as bad as what he said was...it showed the moderation to be fair.  Thats what Im saying...Im actually defending you and your moderators here.

 

Thanks. All good. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, [scooter] said:

First off, "I wasn't going to complain about Tanner until I got in trouble" is just the worst kind of whining. Taking other people down with you is not cool.

Second, if you look at things from an objective point of view (instead of the "Why did I get banned?" point of view), then you'll see that there are plenty of conservative posters who have been allowed to use alias accounts. Just ask jon_mx and HellToupee. (Jon will probably respond with "But what about all the hypocrite liberal aliases?!", and HT will probably say "New Hampshire is lousy with alias fraud" before deleting his post. Ba-dum-dum.)

Anyway, you're probably never going to get an official explanation that satisfies you. But based on what I've seen over the past 15 years, aliases have been unofficially allowed to exist as long as they behave themselves. But if you troll or break the rules, you're going to get popped. So, I would humbly suggest that the reason your own alias got clipped is because you were engaging in the same behavior that got your original account in trouble in the first place.

Now, it looks like the endless complaints about Tanner will result in a big win for the MAGA crowd. Tanner and his aliases may get permabanned. But the endless supply of Trumper troll aliases will be allowed to pollute the board -- not because the mods have a deliberate double-standard, but because the mods simply won't be able to figure out if accounts like @Bishop (a brand new account that just happened to make its debut in the P(S)F) are aliases or not. So they are forced to give them the benefit of the doubt.

This board is at its best when nobody whines and non-offending aliases are allowed to exist. When those two benchmarks are removed, then this place will become worse than the Geek Club at FFT. 

 

Bishop is from fftoday, been there a long time with a low post count. Similar to myself.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

I didn't cry about Jon...Im pointing out the fact that Jon's post was scrubbed.  No don't...or things the mods do...just scrubbed.

Im showing that the moderators do their job and don't favor one side over him.  That his comments about left leaning posters getting leeway was false.

Dickies has gotten away with several over the line posts so perhaps that was karma.  And Jon was correct.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Again, don't get confused.

It wasn't just a "comment about the NRA". The poster claimed the NRA had a history of celebrating mass shootings. Than backpedaled when he got pushback. Just a tad more than "a comment." 

Have you read some of the recent articles about the NRA just in the time since my comment?  I backpedaled on the "supporters" side of my comment, but feel like we are splitting hairs when it comes to the NRA itself.  They're a terrorist organization.

NRA officer enlisted a Sandy Hook truther to sow doubt about Parkland shooting, emails show

How to sell a massacre: NRA's playbook revealed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dickies said:

Have you read some of the recent articles about the NRA just in the time since my comment?  I backpedaled on the "supporters" side of my comment, but feel like we are splitting hairs when it comes to the NRA itself.  They're a terrorist organization.

NRA officer enlisted a Sandy Hook truther to sow doubt about Parkland shooting, emails show

How to sell a massacre: NRA's playbook revealed

No, I haven't read those. 

Do they support your statement that the NRA celebrates mass shootings? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Joe Bryant said:

No, I haven't read those. 

Do they support your statement that the NRA celebrates mass shootings? 

They walk a fine line, and I explained why in the other thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

Dickies has gotten away with several over the line posts so perhaps that was karma.  And Jon was correct.

I’m amazed at what some people get away with.  I’ve come to believe that there are large differences in how each moderator moderates.  It’s all a crapshoot.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jonessed said:

I’m amazed at what some people get away with.  I’ve come to believe that there are large differences in how each moderator moderates.  It’s all a crapshoot.

Definitely as all people are different.  

But to claim it’s all one way with what people get away with?  I think it’s nuts to claim that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

First off, "I wasn't going to complain about Tanner until I got in trouble" is just the worst kind of whining. Taking other people down with you is not cool.

Second, if you look at things from an objective point of view (instead of the "Why did I get banned?" point of view), then you'll see that there are plenty of conservative posters who have been allowed to use alias accounts. Just ask jon_mx and HellToupee. (Jon will probably respond with "But what about all the hypocrite liberal aliases?!", and HT will probably say "New Hampshire is lousy with alias fraud" before deleting his post. Ba-dum-dum.)

Anyway, you're probably never going to get an official explanation that satisfies you. But based on what I've seen over the past 15 years, aliases have been unofficially allowed to exist as long as they behave themselves. But if you troll or break the rules, you're going to get popped. So, I would humbly suggest that the reason your own alias got clipped is because you were engaging in the same behavior that got your original account in trouble in the first place.

Now, it looks like the endless complaints about Tanner will result in a big win for the MAGA crowd. Tanner and his aliases may get permabanned. But the endless supply of Trumper troll aliases will be allowed to pollute the board -- not because the mods have a deliberate double-standard, but because the mods simply won't be able to figure out if accounts like @Bishop (a brand new account that just happened to make its debut in the P(S)F) are aliases or not. So they are forced to give them the benefit of the doubt.

This board is at its best when nobody whines and non-offending aliases are allowed to exist. When those two benchmarks are removed, then this place will become worse than the Geek Club at FFT.

Ummmm.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

Dickies has gotten away with several over the line posts so perhaps that was karma.  And Jon was correct.

I don't  know why you think I get away with stuff. 

I've been given TO's for:

  • Making crude jokes (all of which were deserved)
  • Describing politicians as lacking intelligence (don't think anyone should be given a TO for this if they can explain why)
  • Making emotional comments where I project the main point of my post too far, detracting from my main point (I'm willing to apologize and articulate what I meant and how it went wrong)
  • Misinterpretation of what my comment said (this is frustrating)

You can call me names and I'm not going to report you for that, but spare me the victim-hood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Definitely as all people are different.  

But to claim it’s all one way with what people get away with?  I think it’s nuts to claim that.

No it's not. As has been explained a million times.  At least once in this thread by Joe.  The board is 90% anti-Trump and the anti-Trump crowd reports posts more often than the other 10%.  It's simple math that the moderation leans heavily in one direction and one example you found doesn't explain that away.

Edited by tonydead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

Already shown to be a guy from FFToday.

Well sure, after you publicly called out the username, lol. I hadn't made it that far yet. Mostly was giving you crap for criticizing me for calling out tanner but then publicly bringing attention to somebody else.

And for the record here this isnt the same as getting caught for drugs and then saying oh yeah well tanner has some in his locker too. This is like getting caught for having marijuana in your locker and pointing to Tanner smoking marijuana in the teacher's lounge and saying hey, this isn't right. The behavior is already known. Which is why if you read back in this thread I didn't name tanner to start and EVERYBODY already knew who I was talking about.

Edited by parasaurolophus
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Dickies said:

I don't  know why you think I get away with stuff. 

I've been given TO's for:

  • Making crude jokes (all of which were deserved)
  • Describing politicians as lacking intelligence (don't think anyone should be given a TO for this if they can explain why)
  • Making emotional comments where I project the main point of my post too far, detracting from my main point (I'm willing to apologize and articulate what I meant and how it went wrong)
  • Misinterpretation of what my comment said (this is frustrating)

You can call me names and I'm not going to report you for that, but spare me the victim-hood

You've recently posted that everyone that supports Trump is a cultist and anyone that belongs to the NRA is a terrorist.  FBG Moderator giving you just a warning is getting away with stuff.

Edited by tonydead
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sho nuff said:

I often dispute untrue things.

Not long ago when a poster was suspended for 10 days for a comment about the NRA...did you even receive a warning for calling him a tool?

 

Yes...several days off.   Thanks for reporting it.   

Edited by jon_mx
  • Laughing 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, tonydead said:

You've recently posted that everyone that supports Trump is a cultist and anyone that belongs to the NRA is a terrorist.  FBG Moderator giving you just a warning is getting away with stuff.

Definition of a cult:

an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers:

I wasn't the one saying all Trump supporters are cultist, but offered an explanation on why it's not a ridiculous statement.  For the record I view participants in organized religion as cultists (my own parents and extended family included)

I think the NRA itself is a terrorist organization, but don't recall saying anyone that is a member is a terrorist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Yes...several days off.   Thanks for reporting it.   

I didn’t report it...and you were still posting after it happened IIRC.  But if so...fair enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dickies said:

Definition of a cult:

an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers:

I wasn't the one saying all Trump supporters are cultist, but offered an explanation on why it's not a ridiculous statement.  For the record I view participants in organized religion as cultists (my own parents and extended family included)

I think the NRA itself is a terrorist organization, but don't recall saying anyone that is a member is a terrorist.

I guess that depends on what your definition of the word is is. Nice try on playing word games though. Isis was a terrorist organization. A member of that organization was a terrorist. Period. You are saying the same thing about NRA members and you know it. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, [scooter] said:

First off, "I wasn't going to complain about Tanner until I got in trouble" is just the worst kind of whining. Taking other people down with you is not cool.

Second, if you look at things from an objective point of view (instead of the "Why did I get banned?" point of view), then you'll see that there are plenty of conservative posters who have been allowed to use alias accounts. Just ask jon_mx and HellToupee. (Jon will probably respond with "But what about all the hypocrite liberal aliases?!", and HT will probably say "New Hampshire is lousy with alias fraud" before deleting his post. Ba-dum-dum.)

Anyway, you're probably never going to get an official explanation that satisfies you. But based on what I've seen over the past 15 years, aliases have been unofficially allowed to exist as long as they behave themselves. But if you troll or break the rules, you're going to get popped. So, I would humbly suggest that the reason your own alias got clipped is because you were engaging in the same behavior that got your original account in trouble in the first place.

Now, it looks like the endless complaints about Tanner will result in a big win for the MAGA crowd. Tanner and his aliases may get permabanned. But the endless supply of Trumper troll aliases will be allowed to pollute the board -- not because the mods have a deliberate double-standard, but because the mods simply won't be able to figure out if accounts like @Bishop (a brand new account that just happened to make its debut in the P(S)F) are aliases or not. So they are forced to give them the benefit of the doubt.

This board is at its best when nobody whines and non-offending aliases are allowed to exist. When those two benchmarks are removed, then this place will become worse than the Geek Club at FFT.

I'm not an alias, have been here for sometime now, just rarely posted. HTH

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bishop said:

I'm not an alias, have been here for sometime now, just rarely posted. HTH

My point is that the moderators have no way of knowing that you're not an alias, so they are forced to give users like you the benefit of the doubt even when you display troll-like* behavior.

*if you randomly show up after a 6 year absence and make your very first new post in the Political Forum, then that qualifies as troll-like behavior.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, [scooter] said:

My point is that the moderators have no way of knowing that you're not an alias, so they are forced to give users like you the benefit of the doubt even when you display troll-like* behavior.

*if you randomly show up after a 6 year absence and make your very first new post in the Political Forum, then that qualifies as troll-like behavior.

 

Can you define "troll-like" behavior? Just curious.

Edit: sorry your definition was too light to read on my phone, just saw it.

Edited by Bishop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, [scooter] said:

My point is that the moderators have no way of knowing that you're not an alias, so they are forced to give users like you the benefit of the doubt even when you display troll-like* behavior.

*if you randomly show up after a 6 year absence and make your very first new post in the Political Forum, then that qualifies as troll-like behavior.

 

The board will remain stagnant if new posters aren’t given a chance to express their thoughts without being accused of being an alias

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bishop said:

Can you define "troll-like" behavior? Just curious.

If you just happen to show up on a Fantasy Football message board after a 6-year absence, and you just happen to make your very first post in the Political sub-Forum, and it just happens to be in a thread that just happens to be devoted to the moderation of that subforum, then you just might be a troll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ZEKEPA said:

I guess that depends on what your definition of the word is is. Nice try on playing word games though. Isis was a terrorist organization. A member of that organization was a terrorist. Period. You are saying the same thing about NRA members and you know it. 

That’s why it’s more important to understand the reasoning behind something. ISIS and the NRA are very different and I’m not comparing someone who has their NRA dues set to monthly EFT to someone who travels across a continent to enlist as a suicide bomber. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bishop said:

Can you define "troll-like" behavior? Just curious.

As Senator Lindsey Graham said to Brett Kavanaugh 

 You came to the wrong town at the wrong time, my friend.

 

Welcome to FBG

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, [scooter] said:

If you just happen to show up on a Fantasy Football message board after a 6-year absence, and you just happen to make your very first post in the Political sub-Forum, and it just happens to be in a thread that just happens to be devoted to the moderation of that subforum, then you just might be a troll.

I’m sure Joe & Co want you driving away posters and potential customers. Good job

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, HellToupee said:
6 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

My point is that the moderators have no way of knowing that you're not an alias, so they are forced to give users like you the benefit of the doubt even when you display troll-like* behavior.

*if you randomly show up after a 6 year absence and make your very first new post in the Political Forum, then that qualifies as troll-like behavior.

 

The board will remain stagnant if new posters aren’t given a chance to express their thoughts without being accused of being an alias

A better solution is to require all new posters to first make contributions to the Shark Pool before getting access to the Free For All, and then require the same posters to contribute to the Free For All before getting access to the Political Forum.

Because the board will die if new trolls are allowed to go directly to the Political Forum.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dickies said:

That’s why it’s more important to understand the reasoning behind something. ISIS and the NRA are very different and I’m not comparing someone who has their NRA dues set to monthly EFT to someone who travels across a continent to enlist as a suicide bomber. 

Yes you are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

If you just happen to show up on a Fantasy Football message board after a 6-year absence, and you just happen to make your very first post in the Political sub-Forum, and it just happens to be in a thread that just happens to be devoted to the moderation of that subforum, then you just might be a troll.

Got it! So do not post in any political threads until an arbitrary amount of time has past. We're good now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, [scooter] said:

If you just happen to show up on a Fantasy Football message board after a 6-year absence, and you just happen to make your very first post in the Political sub-Forum, and it just happens to be in a thread that just happens to be devoted to the moderation of that subforum, then you just might be a troll.

Officer Pete took two years off after the election and none of us have to wonder.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ZEKEPA said:

Yes you are. 

Fine, I’m not saying they are the same. Better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

If you just happen to show up on a Fantasy Football message board after a 6-year absence, and you just happen to make your very first post in the Political sub-Forum, and it just happens to be in a thread that just happens to be devoted to the moderation of that subforum, then you just might be a troll.

Not true at all. He is right about the way new posters get treated. Sorry but I am too old to discuss AB's behavior or whether Lev Bell is an idiot. I read posts on football forums only for informational purposes. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dickies said:

Fine, I’m not saying they are the same. Better?

Actually you are. It's not better. It's disgusting. And you know it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

If you just happen to show up on a Fantasy Football message board after a 6-year absence, and you just happen to make your very first post in the Political sub-Forum, and it just happens to be in a thread that just happens to be devoted to the moderation of that subforum, then you just might be a troll.

 

5 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

A better solution is to require all new posters to first make contributions to the Shark Pool before getting access to the Free For All, and then require the same posters to contribute to the Free For All before getting access to the Political Forum.

Because the board will die if new trolls are allowed to go directly to the Political Forum.

None of that has much to do with being a troll.  You're confusing troll with alias.  Being a troll is highly dependent on what is actually posted, which you didn't even mention.

Edited by tonydead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bishop said:

Got it! So do not post in any political threads until an arbitrary amount of time has past. We're good now.

Exactly...the board hall monitors love top swoop in and belittle you because of your number of posts. Very strange. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

A better solution is to require all new posters to first make contributions to the Shark Pool before getting access to the Free For All, and then require the same posters to contribute to the Free For All before getting access to the Political Forum.

Because the board will die if new trolls are allowed to go directly to the Political Forum.

No a better solution is for you to let Joe run his company and board how he wants and stop driving customers away with your nonsense.  My 2 cents.  I know many that think you are a troll (myself included at times).  Do you want to be harassed and accused of that after you post?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.