hahaha3hahaha has been GUESTED

[AAFitz]

I think its safe to say that haha posted a controversial subject...and that saying a fight against homosexuality was sufficient to provoke not only a pissing match and an emotional response, but also a flame fest, and was bound to disrupt the community.
again however, I do understand your reasoning... I simply think it is faulty..

Just because it happened to be a controversial subject doesn't mean he intended to provoke anything but an answer to his questions.

If all controversial subjects are trolling, I'll ask you again to look at the discussion threads regarding politics, and ask you again why they aren't trolling when OBVIOUSLY posting bad stuff about dems is gonna provoke a pissing match, flame fest, and emotional response and disrupt the community; equally, posting bad stuff about reps will provoke a pissing match, flame fest, and emotional response and disrupt the community.

Likewise, religion topics should be taboo because we've got enough religious wars in world history to prove those are controversial topics.

You're saying he's a troll because his topic itself is controversial; a worse troll because his mildly-stated opinion on it isn't popular; and a worst troll because the writing was "sloppy."
Controversial topics abound. Not all opinions will be popular. Not everyone can write as eloquently as others. Those things do not make "troll."

You're the one with faulty reasoning. It's just that your faulty reasoning happens to be popular with a few others.

My reasoning is not faulty, because I accept both possibilities exist. I believe he may not have been trolling, while I believe he was. You simply state he could not have been trolling, which is why your reasoning is faulty. You fail to acknowledge that he may very well have just been trolling, and that you somehow can prove it in some way. I fully accept that there is no way to prove he was trolling, but only suggest it is fair to assume he was. You seem to suggest it is wrong to make that assumption, when there is plenty of reasons for one to make that assumption. I certainly know there are plenty of reasons for your assumption that he was not trolling...while Im not even fully convinced you think he was not and are more just trying to defend his right to post what he did.

I agree with you where you say that just because it was controversial, it certainly does not mean it was intended to be trolling. I feel however that because of what he wrote, and how he wrote it, that it was trolling, and to argue that I cant make that assumption, is faulty reasoning on your part. I really only ever said I believe he was trolling based on what I saw. Further, I never said he was trolling because his topic was controversial. I even went on to say that you could have easily posted the same topic, and done so without trolling. Haha himself could have too.

However, based on what he wrote, and how he wrote it, I believe he was trolling. While I agree he may not have been, you disagree that he could have been, and that is why I feel your reasoning is faulty. But really... there is one thing that is unquestionable...and that is that to some degree this is a matter of opinion. Yours is clear, as is mine. I fully respect your opinion. I do think you are wrong, however.

I do hope you agree with me when I say this really is just a matter of opinion...and while we disagree... we are spending far too many words explaining the disagreement...especially since the disagreement...is hardly on polar ends of the argument itself.

[stahrgazer]

While I agree he may not have been, you

That's why your reasoning is faulty.

If you agree he may not have been, then he is not CLEARLY trolling. Even if I agree he could have been, he's still not CLEARLY trolling; if it's arguable, which you've admitted it is, then it's not CLEARLY and thus, he shouldn't be penalized. He should be given the benefit of the doubt. Which is also why I said that 1 instance isn't trolling...several would make it CLEAR and thus, would be trolling (like the rules say, topics plural.)

[hahaha3hahaha]

I've come to realize that AAfitz is just out here to get me due to an old feud, if you can call it that, from a while ago. I foed him for repeatedly joining my games used for medal hunting, he had a hissy fit in a separate thread. He is now just trolling this topic- proving he is the lesser man, and I've given up reading his repetitive spam. I have, however, read through everyone else's posts, and it seems that people who have the quality to view things from other people's perspective, have agreed with me; and it seems that people who are only capable from seeing things from one angle, have posted against me. Anyway, I'm finding myself putting AAfitz, yet again, on foe- this will save me approximately 15 minutes per page in the usual scrolling time it takes me to get past his overdrawn, one-minded trash. Your attempt to belittle people with your huge essays simply is not working. Perhaps, rather than wasting over 6.5k posts worth of CC forum space, that could be used for USEFUL input, you could write a story book or something- maybe it could be about an ogre or a dragon, or better yet...a story about a troll

[elfish_lad]

Here's what I don't really get Ha. Why is this an issue for folk? Why has this thread gone on so long? I mean really. You did your thing. You said your bit. You spun some plates... and you played MSN solitaire for 24 hours. I have followed this whole damn drama. I don't think you have a beef do you? I mean hell, we've all been around on the Bill Gates Nets. We get it. We push it. We sit out the second half.

~shakes his head~

Join one of my 1v1's some time. Love to chat with ya.

E.

[hahaha3hahaha]

Here's what I don't really get Ha. Why is this an issue for folk? Why has this thread gone on so long? I mean really. You did your thing. You said your bit. You spun some plates... and you played MSN solitaire for 24 hours. I have followed this whole damn drama. I don't think you have a beef do you? I mean hell, we've all been around on the Bill Gates Nets. We get it. We push it. We sit out the second half.

~shakes his head~

Join one of my 1v1's some time. Love to chat with ya.

E.

I don't know, people love accusing others. I'm enjoying watch these wannabe-mods tell me I'm a troll, it gives me satisfaction seeing them whinge over nothing, trying to prove they're good CC citizens in public. Anyway, I'll set one up and invite you.

[AAFitz]

Here's what I don't really get Ha. Why is this an issue for folk? Why has this thread gone on so long? I mean really. You did your thing. You said your bit. You spun some plates... and you played MSN solitaire for 24 hours. I have followed this whole damn drama. I don't think you have a beef do you? I mean hell, we've all been around on the Bill Gates Nets. We get it. We push it. We sit out the second half.

~shakes his head~

Join one of my 1v1's some time. Love to chat with ya.

E.

I don't know, people love accusing others. I'm enjoying watch these wannabe-mods tell me I'm a troll, it gives me satisfaction seeing them whinge over nothing, trying to prove they're good CC citizens in public. Anyway, I'll set one up and invite you.

Well, at the same time, you were complaining about not being able to use a swastika... Im sure it gives them satisfaction to see you whinge over not posting for a few days as well.

I mean.. they are posting for what they think is: a fight against your right to post homophobic and possibly racist trolling. All you are complaining about is that you got busted for it... for what.. a day or two?

Oh, and also some perceived right to discuss such things as well, which in and of itself, is a perfectly valid cause. If I believed you weren't trolling in the first place, I for one would fully respect it too.

[Woodruff]

but I do fail to see how you dont realize why others do think it was trolling...but I suppose thats a matter of opinion too.

I believe others think it was trolling simply because they don't like what he said. But that's not trolling.

I don't like what he said. But that's not at all why I think it was trolling.

[stahrgazer]

Well, at the same time, you were complaining about not being able to use a swastika... Im sure it gives satisfaction to see you whinge over not posting for a few days as well.

That's CLEARLY baiting, Fitz, aka trolling. Are you going to receive a warning?

Posting that a fight against homosexuality is 'fair' isn't the same as homophobia. It's an opinion. It's not even inflammatory or nasty unless he starts backing twisted methods that some groups have used in their 'fight.'

There's another thread where someone complained about a user nick that could be interpreted as either an animal or an offensive racist slang. In that thread, someone mentioned a user nick "Third Reich" that was allowed. If the Third Reich is allowed, it's a bit inconsistent of CC to disallow a swastika.

Personally, I don't want to see swastikas. But just because I don't wish to see them because some of their history resonates evil, doesn't mean their entire meaning and history is bad. "Third Reich" on the other hand has really only one history, one resonance, that of its creator, Hitler and that surely wasn't good. It happens to be the same history that began the distortion of a swastika from something honorable and good into something twisted, representative of the Third Reich, its evil deeds in WWII, and the hatists fests who took that once-honorable symbol and used it as a banner to spawn further evil.

Point? Lack of consistency, folks.

[AAFitz]

And now.. since I have put so much time into this...I will offer one more opinion. It is something that nearly any reasonable person has figured out, or already knew before reading this thread.

All haha ever had to do, to convince people he was not trolling, was post something like this.

[quote"theoretically sincere person"]Hey, Im sorry for the way I phrased that. Obviously some did misunderstand it as homophobic, and really I just rushed through it. My goal really was to just discuss the many other uses of the swastika, and point out that not all of them are necessarily racist. If anyone was offended, I certainly apologize, but my intent was not to troll.[/quote]

Maybe its too sincere, or too fabricated, but it would at least give some plausible deniability. Instead, the argument was that, there is no way to perceive homophobia, or racism in that thread, and that everyone else must simply be wrong. That unfortunately denies any responsibility...and further leads many to assume it was genuine trolling in the first place.

Again, many could have made nearly an identical thread, with nearly the same meaning, and not crossed the line of trolling. In this case, either do to actual trolling, or just sloppy wording... it was trolling... and someone was not allowed to post for a little while over it.

[stahrgazer]

it was trolling... and someone was not allowed to post for a little while over it.

It was not trolling; you merely assumed it at worst case over some 'sloppy wording.'

[AAFitz]

Well, at the same time, you were complaining about not being able to use a swastika... Im sure it gives satisfaction to see you whinge over not posting for a few days as well.

That's CLEARLY baiting, Fitz, aka trolling. Are you going to receive a warning?

Why do you think it is baiting. I find it ironic that you spent page after page, explaining why something wasnt trolling...but now post that something is baiting, and dont spend two words explaining why...

In fact, it is CLEARLY just a response to his post, and a fair one. It is also given with the slight hope that he may even see the other side of it. I admit that goal is perhaps lofty, but a fair one.

Does it have some sarcasm, sure. Did I point out that he misspelled a word, absolutely. Did I call him an analytial prick? No.
Did I say he must be a homosexual? No. Did I say he must be jewish for posting in here? No. Did I post that he must support prostitution? No.

Hah, on the other hand, did all of these things in this thread. I dont see you complain about them once. All after just receiving a vacation for trolling.

I see you pointing out my very fair line however as baiting...with no explanation whatsoever. I then see you go on to talk about consistency. Now, if its against the rules to point this fact out so be it... but there it is. So, either you think my line actually is against the rules, or perhaps you are baiting me...or perhaps, you are actually the inconsistent one in the situation, and actually dont even realize it. In any case, its all a matter of opinion I suppose.

So, do you think that that post I made should be warned against as baiting? And anything like it, or close to it as well? And why? Or, did you just use it to try to make your argument?

[AAFitz]

it was trolling... and someone was not allowed to post for a little while over it.

It was not trolling; you merely assumed it at worst case over some 'sloppy wording.'

Again, you are possibly correct, but not necessarily.

[jefjef]

Here's the message for the people who asked:

"Congratulations on your first forum ban. It's a 24 hour special offer of absolutely no posting in the fora nor reading or sending private messages. You won this fine prize because you trolled in General Discussion.

viewtopic.php?p=2380214#p2380214

There's an explanation of the reasons there that you can read and think about.

From medefe"

This warning issued to hahaha3 is a bait and so full of flippant arrogance that it is obvious that the ban was issued for personal reasons.

If someone on the good ole boys list had made the same post I'm sure it would have been handled differently. Probably not handled at all.

[AAFitz]

Here's the message for the people who asked:

"Congratulations on your first forum ban. It's a 24 hour special offer of absolutely no posting in the fora nor reading or sending private messages. You won this fine prize because you trolled in General Discussion.

viewtopic.php?p=2380214#p2380214

There's an explanation of the reasons there that you can read and think about.

From medefe"

This warning issued to hahaha3 is a bait and so full of flippant arrogance that it is obvious that the ban was issued for personal reasons.

If someone on the good ole boys list had made the same post I'm sure it would have been handled differently. Probably not handled at all.

Well, perhaps there is a casual tone to the warning... but I hope CC would never, ever let me get away with posting what haha posted. But, you do always claim inconsistency, and claim the good ole boys post things and get away with it.

Report what you think should be vacationed. Give examples of a similar post by someone who didnt get a warning. That will be worth looking at. To just say it happens all the time is easy...but please... show me all the people posting about swastikas and a fight against homosexuality and prostitution...and getting away with it.

I myself had no idea so many were doing that.

If you want to show inconsistency... you have to show the inconsistency.. not just say its there.

Ive now been called a baiter, a troll, a flamer... let alone the things haha got away with calling me...but Im willing to accept responsibility for any guideline I break...but dont just say it happened...show the actual examples, and explain why they broke the guidelines...but again...you have to be consistent.

I mean stahrgazer just accused me of baiting with a rather benign post...but I dont see him complaining about me being called an arrogant prick, possibly homosexual, jewish etc. Now that is actual inconsistency.

But again, if you have examples... show them. Its really that easy.

[jefjef]

Here's the message for the people who asked:

"Congratulations on your first forum ban. It's a 24 hour special offer of absolutely no posting in the fora nor reading or sending private messages. You won this fine prize because you trolled in General Discussion.

viewtopic.php?p=2380214#p2380214

There's an explanation of the reasons there that you can read and think about.

From medefe"

This warning issued to hahaha3 is a bait and so full of flippant arrogance that it is obvious that the ban was issued for personal reasons.

If someone on the good ole boys list had made the same post I'm sure it would have been handled differently. Probably not handled at all.

Well, perhaps there is a casual tone to the warning... but I hope CC would never, ever let me get away with posting what haha posted. But, you do always claim inconsistency, and claim the good ole boys post things and get away with it.

Report what you think should be vacationed. Give examples of a similar post by someone who didnt get a warning. That will be worth looking at. To just say it happens all the time is easy...but please... show me all the people posting about swastikas and a fight against homosexuality and prostitution...and getting away with it.

I myself had no idea so many were doing that.

If you want to show inconsistency... you have to show the inconsistency.. not just say its there.

Ive now been called a baiter, a troll, a flamer... let alone the things haha got away with calling me...but Im willing to accept responsibility for any guideline I break...but dont just say it happened...show the actual examples, and explain why they broke the guidelines...but again...you have to be consistent.

I mean stahrgazer just accused me of baiting with a rather benign post...but I dont see him complaining about me being called an arrogant prick, possibly homosexual, jewish etc. Now that is actual inconsistency.

But again, if you have examples... show them. Its really that easy.

Nagerous posted a NAZI swastika earlier in THIS thread.

[AAFitz]

Here's the message for the people who asked:

"Congratulations on your first forum ban. It's a 24 hour special offer of absolutely no posting in the fora nor reading or sending private messages. You won this fine prize because you trolled in General Discussion.

viewtopic.php?p=2380214#p2380214

There's an explanation of the reasons there that you can read and think about.

From medefe"

This warning issued to hahaha3 is a bait and so full of flippant arrogance that it is obvious that the ban was issued for personal reasons.

If someone on the good ole boys list had made the same post I'm sure it would have been handled differently. Probably not handled at all.

Well, perhaps there is a casual tone to the warning... but I hope CC would never, ever let me get away with posting what haha posted. But, you do always claim inconsistency, and claim the good ole boys post things and get away with it.

Report what you think should be vacationed. Give examples of a similar post by someone who didnt get a warning. That will be worth looking at. To just say it happens all the time is easy...but please... show me all the people posting about swastikas and a fight against homosexuality and prostitution...and getting away with it.

I myself had no idea so many were doing that.

If you want to show inconsistency... you have to show the inconsistency.. not just say its there.

Ive now been called a baiter, a troll, a flamer... let alone the things haha got away with calling me...but Im willing to accept responsibility for any guideline I break...but dont just say it happened...show the actual examples, and explain why they broke the guidelines...but again...you have to be consistent.

I mean stahrgazer just accused me of baiting with a rather benign post...but I dont see him complaining about me being called an arrogant prick, possibly homosexual, jewish etc. Now that is actual inconsistency.

But again, if you have examples... show them. Its really that easy.

Nagerous posted a NAZI swastika earlier in THIS thread.

Oh, so youre saying you think nagerous should be warned or punished for his post? And more importantly, you think that, is equal or worse to hahas post?

[jefjef]

Here's the message for the people who asked:

"Congratulations on your first forum ban. It's a 24 hour special offer of absolutely no posting in the fora nor reading or sending private messages. You won this fine prize because you trolled in General Discussion.

viewtopic.php?p=2380214#p2380214

There's an explanation of the reasons there that you can read and think about.

From medefe"

This warning issued to hahaha3 is a bait and so full of flippant arrogance that it is obvious that the ban was issued for personal reasons.

If someone on the good ole boys list had made the same post I'm sure it would have been handled differently. Probably not handled at all.

Well, perhaps there is a casual tone to the warning... but I hope CC would never, ever let me get away with posting what haha posted. But, you do always claim inconsistency, and claim the good ole boys post things and get away with it.

Report what you think should be vacationed. Give examples of a similar post by someone who didnt get a warning. That will be worth looking at. To just say it happens all the time is easy...but please... show me all the people posting about swastikas and a fight against homosexuality and prostitution...and getting away with it.

I myself had no idea so many were doing that.

If you want to show inconsistency... you have to show the inconsistency.. not just say its there.

Ive now been called a baiter, a troll, a flamer... let alone the things haha got away with calling me...but Im willing to accept responsibility for any guideline I break...but dont just say it happened...show the actual examples, and explain why they broke the guidelines...but again...you have to be consistent.

I mean stahrgazer just accused me of baiting with a rather benign post...but I dont see him complaining about me being called an arrogant prick, possibly homosexual, jewish etc. Now that is actual inconsistency.

But again, if you have examples... show them. Its really that easy.

Nagerous posted a NAZI swastika earlier in THIS thread.

Oh, so youre saying you think nagerous should be warned or punished for his post? And more importantly, you think that, is equal or worse to hahas post?

I did not see any banned nazi swastikas in any of his posts.

[Woodruff]

Nagerous posted a NAZI swastika earlier in THIS thread.

You actually consider nagerous to be a member of "the good old boys club"? Seriously? Wow.

[jefjef]

Nagerous posted a NAZI swastika earlier in THIS thread.

You actually consider nagerous to be a member of "the good old boys club"? Seriously? Wow.

Seems to be part of the CC team via the newsletter woody. Where you been?

[AAFitz]

[I did not see any banned nazi swastikas in any of his posts.

So you dont think they should have been punished or warned? Do you have any examples of others posting something similar to haha and getting away with it? That, I agree would be very relevant, and show clear bias and impartiality.

But, you have to actually give the examples. You cant just say it happens all the time. Its as vague and unfair as what you are claiming any mod has ever done.

[jefjef]

[I did not see any banned nazi swastikas in any of his posts.

So you dont think they should have been punished or warned? Do you have any examples of others posting something similar to haha and getting away with it? That, I agree would be very relevant, and show clear bias and impartiality.

But, you have to actually give the examples. You cant just say it happens all the time. Its as vague and unfair as what you are claiming any mod has ever done.

Why. hahaha didn't have to post 2 threads.

If you are really concerned fitz you can find another in a closed C&A thread.

I'm done with this thread. Cya.

[AAFitz]

[I did not see any banned nazi swastikas in any of his posts.

So you dont think they should have been punished or warned? Do you have any examples of others posting something similar to haha and getting away with it? That, I agree would be very relevant, and show clear bias and impartiality.

But, you have to actually give the examples. You cant just say it happens all the time. Its as vague and unfair as what you are claiming any mod has ever done.

Why. hahaha didn't have to post 2 threads.

If you are really concerned fitz you can find another in a closed C&A thread.

I'm done with this thread. Cya.

You were the one that was concerned. You said that if someone else posted, theyd get away with it. All you have to do is show one example, and you prove you are right. Otherwise, its just a guess isnt it? Or a fabrication?

You just need one example to show you are right...to prove your allegation of unfairness. One thread similar to haha, where the person was not warned...

[jefjef]

Twist what you want. Defend what you want. Ignore what you want. Me thinks your trying to bait many of us. Good day.

[AAFitz]

Twist what you want. Defend what you want. Ignore what you want. Me thinks your trying to bait many of us. Good day.

I'm only asking for one example. One. You accuse the mods of being unfair, but you cant give one example?

I think asking for one example, is very fair. It certainly isn't baiting. If anything...accusing the mods of being unfair, without examples is baiting.

Im more giving you an opportunity to actually prove you are right.

Im not baiting anyone. People have accused the mods of being unfair on this. They say that haha was unfairly banned. Im just asking for one example that shows someone else getting away with what he did.

One post that is equal to what he wrote, that was deemed not trolling.

Just one.

This question is perhaps more relevant to the thread than any other post in the entire thread.

[jefjef]

What was the INTENT of this example from page 4 Mr. Fitz? What statement? Who is it aimed at? Why no mod edit of it? Now. Good day to you.

quote="nagerous"][/quote]