Discussion Moderators: Until When?

[Night Strike]

TGD, 1 bases their threads on what is actually happening in the political environment while the other takes a random story and paints everybody they hate has violent racists, even when that group wasn't involved in the story. Calling someone a violent racist without proof is trolling.

[BigBallinStalin]

Quoting Obama as saying "Gay marriage is wrong" without proof can also be considered trolling--especially when the video totally fails to support the claim.

Why not ban PS for such threads? The proof is just as crappy as PD's.

[thegreekdog]

Quoting Obama as saying "Gay marriage is wrong" without proof can also be considered trolling--especially when the video totally fails to support the claim.

Why not ban PS for such threads? The proof is just as crappy as PD's.

And that's my point. Under NS's definition of trolling, PS's threads are trolling too.

[Night Strike]

Quoting Obama as saying "Gay marriage is wrong" without proof can also be considered trolling--especially when the video totally fails to support the claim.

Why not ban PS for such threads? The proof is just as crappy as PD's.

And that's my point. Under NS's definition of trolling, PS's threads are trolling too.

Excuse me? When Obama ran for state senate, he supported gay marriage. When he ran from US senate and president, he was against gay marriage. Yesterday, he decided he would support gay marriage for his re-election. These are facts. Unless you consider factual information as trolling.

[pimpdave]

It's rather exhausting having to explain things over and over again, so I'm going to ask you to do it for me. Explain the difference between pimpdave's Tea Party threads and Phatscotty's Obama threads. Shall we ban anyone who creates any political threads because they could be considered baiting?

To even try to claim that those threads are equivalent is bankrupt. Going around claiming anybody who disagrees with you is a violent racist and posting random stories that aren't even affiliated with the group he claims to be violent and racist is blatant trolling, yet it's protected (and encouraged). Yet you're equating that with links describing someone's policies that are expanding the power of government and stating that the person in question is a socialist (which can actually be demonstrated by growing the power of the government). If the one actually wanted to tie racism and violence to a group, he could post factual threads about Occupy Wall Street events. There's no need to make up the charges related to the Tea Party (who he hates because they want financial responsibility).

haha

[clapper011]

so, here is the main concern us (as globals) are having with this whole matter , IF we were to ban pimp dave for the whole "trolling" thing, then we would indeed have to ban soo many others for very similar posts. (and as much as these other members will argue...) they are in fact making almost exactly the same type or style of posts as pimp daves (albeit he is more colourful with his pictures...) but still when it comes right down to it..exactly the same posts.

SO with that being said..perhaps it is time to define trolling in a way that EVERY member is in agreement with its definition?

[clapper011]

oh..and lets keep the talks clean and stop baiting and flaming each other!

[Dukasaur]

so, here is the main concern us (as globals) are having with this whole matter , IF we were to ban pimp dave for the whole "trolling" thing, then we would indeed have to ban soo many others for very similar posts. (and as much as these other members will argue...) they are in fact making almost exactly the same type or style of posts as pimp daves (albeit he is more colourful with his pictures...) but still when it comes right down to it..exactly the same posts.

Not even close. Many posters display strong biases in their posts; granted. But almost all are at least trying to be sincere. Pimpdave is unique in knowingly and deliberately posting lies in every single thread, without even a pretence of backing up his slurs.

[Night Strike]

so, here is the main concern us (as globals) are having with this whole matter , IF we were to ban pimp dave for the whole "trolling" thing, then we would indeed have to ban soo many others for very similar posts. (and as much as these other members will argue...) they are in fact making almost exactly the same type or style of posts as pimp daves (albeit he is more colourful with his pictures...) but still when it comes right down to it..exactly the same posts.

SO with that being said..perhaps it is time to define trolling in a way that EVERY member is in agreement with its definition?

Making irrational claims about a group of people based on a random article that is completely unrelated is trolling. Tying together a story about government expansion to claim a person is socialist is not trolling. So no, the threads are nothing similar. And the majority of the people on this site recognize that pimpdave's threads are illegitimate. Except for the certain mods that protect him (and on a related note, the people who post bigotry against Christianity).

[nietzsche]

alright this is lame

of you mods



lack of balls and judgement.

i retire from the site.

[Night Strike]

so, here is the main concern us (as globals) are having with this whole matter , IF we were to ban pimp dave for the whole "trolling" thing, then we would indeed have to ban soo many others for very similar posts. (and as much as these other members will argue...) they are in fact making almost exactly the same type or style of posts as pimp daves (albeit he is more colourful with his pictures...) but still when it comes right down to it..exactly the same posts.

Not even close. Many posters display strong biases in their posts; granted. But almost all are at least trying to be sincere. Pimpdave is unique in knowingly and deliberately posting lies in every single thread, without even a pretence of backing up his slurs.

This.

Plus the fact that when the validity of one charge is challenged, he just posts a new thread to see if that accusation will stick without a challenge.

[pimpdave]

I never lie, I'm always sincere.

I am just as sincere as Night Strike is when he calls Obama a communist or whatever bullshit.

[Night Strike]

I never lie, I'm always sincere.

I am just as sincere as Night Strike is when he calls Obama a communist or whatever bullshit.

[pimpdave]

clapper, you'll never be able to define trolling to be acceptable to all people, because the second the conservatives start posting what they heard on Sean Hannity the previous night, you'll have to ban them all the time. It's way better to just tell them to stop crying about it when someone posts an opposing view point.

Also, you should ban Night Strike for flaming people constantly.

[clapper011]

clapper, you'll never be able to define trolling to be acceptable to all people, because the second the conservatives start posting what they heard on Sean Hannity the previous night, you'll have to ban them all the time. It's way better to just tell them to stop crying about it when someone posts an opposing view point.

Also, you should ban Night Strike for flaming people constantly.

if I ban night stirke, then I will have to ban you, as you also make threads crying... and as soon as anyone has an opinion differing from yours... they are baiting/trolling/flaming you. or "crying about it" as you so neatly put it.

[pimpdave]

I don't report posts that express a political opinion, so you're completely wrong on that. But you do allow Night Strike to make personal insults directed at individuals constantly. That's something that's clearly and easily defined as against the rules. Posting about politics is just expressing a general opinion. Equating those two things is ridiculous.

[pimpdave]

So what it comes down to is this:

They're saying they should be allowed to post their political opinion, but no one else is.
I'm saying that since you already ban people for flaming, you should ban Night Strike when he does it too. Unless of course we're all allowed to flame away.

[BGtheBrain]

Why is Dave allowed to say the catholic church is based on a front for fucking young boys in the face and ass?

How is this not religion bashing under the bigotry rules?

It's been over 2 months since I reported it and I can't get an answer privately other than "it's being looked in to"

Either someone explain how it isn't religIon bashing?
How is this not baiting?
How is it not trolling?

I don't care who answers, I just want an explanation as to how it ok.
viewtopic.php?f=8&p=3666417#p3666417

[pimpdave]

Did you read the article I attached? If that's not okay, why is it okay for people to say that homosexuality is sinful, or that atheism leads to murder (then cite like, Stalin or something)? Is that bigotry? Because that's been allowed on this site forever.

Not to go completely off topic, but it'd be great if the Catholic church actually dealt with the child rape going on in their organization instead of being thoroughly complicit by covering it up. Are you telling me that you approve of the child rape going on in the Catholic church, BGtheBrain?

[BGtheBrain]

The catholic church is almost 2000 years old.
To say it is Based on a front to f*ck young boys is a lie.

You grab an article that at the most goes back what 30 years?

Your bigoted statement is a blatant lie.

[pimpdave]

It's not bigoted. I'm not saying all Catholics are child rapists, I'm saying the organization is fabricated in a way to maintain and keep a culture of child rape hidden for 2000 years, or, in other words, a front. The fact that the Catholic church can't just execute people as heretics for speaking out against the child rape anymore doesn't mean it wasn't going on for millennia.

[maxfaraday]

Interresting...

I got "Disciplinary Measures" because I said American Footballers are gay.

He said that catholic priests are pedophiles who like only boys (which makes them gay), and he gets away with it.

Someone explain me the logic there please, because I just don't understand.

Oh wait, this is CC...

[pimpdave]

I didn't say that max. You're putting words in my mouth. Read the article I linked to.

Also, I had nothing to do with you getting banned. I don't know why you're mad at me...

[Haggis_McMutton]

so, here is the main concern us (as globals) are having with this whole matter , IF we were to ban pimp dave for the whole "trolling" thing, then we would indeed have to ban soo many others for very similar posts. (and as much as these other members will argue...) they are in fact making almost exactly the same type or style of posts as pimp daves (albeit he is more colourful with his pictures...) but still when it comes right down to it..exactly the same posts.

SO with that being said..perhaps it is time to define trolling in a way that EVERY member is in agreement with its definition?

Making irrational claims about a group of people based on a random article that is completely unrelated is trolling. Tying together a story about government expansion to claim a person is socialist is not trolling. So no, the threads are nothing similar. And the majority of the people on this site recognize that pimpdave's threads are illegitimate. Except for the certain mods that protect him (and on a related note, the people who post bigotry against Christianity).

Legitimate and illegitimate are a matter of opinion.

For instance, scotty claims atheism comes from religious ignorance.
I show scotty a poll where you can clearly see that atheists know more about religion in general than any other religious group AND that they know more about christianity than christians as a whole, as well as protestants and catholics as a whole. Scotty then replies that atheists know less than Christian sect X and Christian Sect Y and therefore I'm cherry-picking.
Is this intentional trolling? Is he really unable to read a graph? Is it a misunderstanding? All of it is a matter of opinion.

In short, if dave can be banned for claiming the things he claims than you too can be banned for claiming people are voting for a convicted fellow rather than obama because obama is such a radical leftist.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Interresting...

I got "Disciplinary Measures" because I said American Footballers are gay.

He said that catholic priests are pedophiles who like only boys (which makes them gay), and he gets away with it.

Someone explain me the logic there please, because I just don't understand.

Oh wait, this is CC...

This one is pretty easy.

I assume you were not claiming that all american footballers are homosexuals but were using the term gay in a derogatory manner.
That's a big no-no here. I personally think banning someone for that is kind of silly, but thems the rules.