Goddamnit, Aldebaran, Lynn Said No Such Thing

[Darkhold]

So we’re back to defining everything away.

He didn’t say “lovetaps” - he said more than lovetaps. I think it’s a safe bet that he’s talking about physically beating county about the body with an axe handle.

And I think it’s a safe bet Alde was talking about killing someone. I don’t see how this disproves my arguement.

I think you’re confusing the issue.

If you said, “If poster X is in my neighborhood he should just know I have a fully loaded gun here for him,” that is a direct threat. Period. End of story. There is zero ambiguity.

Really? I could have the gun as a present for him. I find it ironic that I’m the one confusing the issue. I’m not the one trying to single out every bit of syntax and define everything down to it’s most razor thin definition. If the board was ran that way every transgression would have to have the same exact words.

If you said, “If poster X comes to my house I’ll welcome him with exactly what he deserves,” that is also a threat - but it’s not a specific one. It’s not as direct as the first example, because one must imagine the exact method of attack.

So it it acceptable or not? Since this all comes down to your personal definition of degree I’m curious where the line is.

We’re talking about two different things here.

The transgression of Poster X is taken as a case separate from a transgression of Poster Y. Those two cases are taken individually - what Poster X does (and its consequences) is not especially relevant to what Poster Y does (and its consequences).

The past history of any poster, however, is not taken on a case by case basis. If I screw up one time, I get a warning. If I’ve been screwing up constantly - or have received multiple warnings - then I will suffer more dire consequences if I screw up again. If I’ve been a jerk for two months straight, then one further incident of jerkiness will be sufficient to have me banned. However, if I’ve been a model poster for two months straight, then one incident of jerkiness will earn me (likely) nothing more than a warning.

When did I ever claim that the history of one poster effects another? I pointed out a violation of the rules was applied in one way awhile back and if it was valid then it’s valid now. I never ever said that the history of poster X should effect poster Y. Your orginal statement that every transaction is taken case by case is still incorrect if personal history is taken into account then it’s not a case by case situation.

And where exactly does his history of mistakes fit Aldebaran? Perhaps that just maybe his long history of walking the line means he was drawn up short this time?

[dantheman]

Darkhold, you’re being awfully defensive here. Maybe if you took the time to read what’s being posted instead of simply reacting, you’d understand where I’m coming from.

@Darkhold

So we’re back to defining everything away.And I think it’s a safe bet Alde was talking about killing someone.

I’m not defining anything. I am pointing out the difference between offering to give someone a “lovetap” (a benign event) and giving them something that is “more than a lovetap.” I hope you can understand how the latter can be perceived as malevolent, while the former almost certainly would not.

Really? I could have the gun as a present for him. I find it ironic that I’m the one confusing the issue. I’m not the one trying to single out every bit of syntax and define everything down to it’s most razor thin definition. If the board was ran that way every transgression would have to have the same exact words.

Extremely unlikely that you’d have the gun as a present for him, unless you knew each other on a sufficiently intimate basis. But an anonymous person on a message board? Nope, sorry. I don’t buy that intention in the least.

Again, I’m not defining things. I am pointing out the difference between two statements, a difference that’s rather important. It’s a shame you don’t agree there, but there’s nothing I can do about that.

So it it acceptable or not? Since this all comes down to your personal definition of degree I’m curious where the line is.

I don’t really know. How about you say it to someone on here and see what the reaction is?

It doesn’t come down to any personal definitions, by the way. It comes down to common sense.

When did I ever claim that the history of one poster effects another? I pointed out a violation of the rules was applied in one way awhile back and if it was valid then it’s valid now. I never ever said that the history of poster X should effect poster Y.

You’re misunderstanding. At no point did I claim you claimed that. This isn’t all about you, in case you hadn’t noticed. I am trying to explain my position. You, on the other hand, seem intent on making this a “he said/he said” deal. Whatever entertains you.

Your orginal statement that every transaction is taken case by case is still incorrect if personal history is taken into account then it’s not a case by case situation.

Please reread what I said.

Every transaction is taken on a case by case basis. Always has been, and I assume always will be. That means - and please stop me if I am going too fast for you - that what one person was warned for in the past has no effect on whether another person is warned for doing something similar in the future. (Oh, I know, you’ll say you never said that. Don’t care. It’s not important.)

Do you understand that there are many shades of guilt, especially here? There’s a certain amount of subjectivity that absolutely must be employed regarding each case. Why is this so? Because the powers that be decided long ago that they weren’t going to write out explicit Rules and Regulations that we all must obey. They left themselves plenty of wiggle room so they can examine each issue on a case by case basis.

This is why the number one rule is so vague. There are always going to be many variables with each situation; no two situations will be exactly the same.

The only instance in which they will use past issues to decide on current issues is when both past and current issues involve the same person.

And where exactly does his history of mistakes fit Aldebaran? Perhaps that just maybe his long history of walking the line means he was drawn up short this time?

I am not arguing otherwise.

[gum]

Originally posted by London-Calling, answering jmizzou

I assume you’ll need someone better briefed in the rules of grammar than me if you want to determine whether something in quotation marks can constitute a direct threat of the contents of that quotation – perhaps you can take it to teacher as you seem to like bringing things to the attention of the grown ups*

My, you’re a sanctimonious old nitwit, aren’t you, London_calling? What kind of answer is that? He [or she] is right and you know it.

btw: Why all this fuss about Aldebaran? Is he our pet muslim? I’m going with Mehitabel on this one. There will be a real muslim on this board, in no time, to discuss and anwer our questions. Not some Belgian wannabe who runs away in a huff when he [she?] gets to answer serious shit.

[jmizzou]

gum - Thank you.

London_Calling - What in the world are you babbling about? Given that the current discussion is about previous posting histories and Aldebaran’s direct/indirect threat/not-a-threat, I’d say the quote is entirely relevant. If you take it as some veiled insult, or some nefarious scheme, then I think it’s time to take off the tin foil hat and put away the Secret Decoder Ring.

Now, you many not be an American, or you may not listen to many soundbites on the news, so I understand that you might not realize that the bit in quotes is actually something that Bush said about the Iraq war, and Aldebaran just loves to parrot it. However, the whole, “Don’t insult my parents, or else!” is a bit hard to miss.

[Darkhold]

Darkhold, you’re being awfully defensive here. Maybe if you took the time to read what’s being posted instead of simply reacting, you’d understand where I’m coming from.

I don’t see where I’m being defensive but on this case I’ll take your word for it. I’m sorry if I seem like I’m taking this personally. I swear to Og that I’m not. And I didn’t really have time to read every little bit this morning I was 20 mins late to where I was going to begin with. I thought I’d dash something out and read your response when I got home (we seem to be on at different times)

I’m not defining anything. I am pointing out the difference between offering to give someone a “lovetap” (a benign event) and giving them something that is “more than a lovetap.” I hope you can understand how the latter can be perceived as malevolent, while the former almost certainly would not.

So if I gave posterX a lovetap with an axe handle you’d think that was benign? I’m not trying to be dense here but I don’t understand your point. I think the inclusion of the weapon (you or another poster made that point already) would be the defining moment of difference more then the language of ‘more then’. I disagree because I don’t think threats need to be that specific but that is a point we could part on with no regrets.

Extremely unlikely that you’d have the gun as a present for him, unless you knew each other on a sufficiently intimate basis. But an anonymous person on a message board? Nope, sorry. I don’t buy that intention in the least.

Again, I’m not defining things. I am pointing out the difference between two statements, a difference that’s rather important. It’s a shame you don’t agree there, but there’s nothing I can do about that.

Right and it’s extremely unlikely that Alderbaran would be welcoming them in a friendly non-threatening manner. The reading of the context leaves little room for doubt. And yes you are the one that’s trying to define everything. Implied vs Direct. I think Zenster implied every bit as much as Alderbaran. And no for the life of me I don’t understand how you can draw that distinction from what was written. ‘Lovetaps’ (even more then ‘lovetaps’) is every bit as open for interpretation as ‘welcome’. The context of ‘welcome’ and ‘lovetaps’ however leaves no doubt. I’d rattle off another analogy of explaining to a cop the difference but you don’t seem to enjoy them as much as I do.

I don’t really know. How about you say it to someone on here and see what the reaction is?

I’m not the one saying that this is acceptable. I have no desire to violate the rules and get banned. And since you seem unwilling to do this yourself you obviously think there would be negative consequences. Perhaps because such threats are reasonable interpretation of the rules and has been applied before? Once in a banning and once in a severe warning.

It doesn’t come down to any personal definitions, by the way. It comes down to common sense.

And your common sense tells you that one is a direct threat where one is an implied threat? Strange common sense you have. Mine isn’t very concerned with how two phrases are similar or different. Mine tells me to put shoes on to go outside.

You’re misunderstanding. At no point did I claim you claimed that. This isn’t all about you, in case you hadn’t noticed. I am trying to explain my position. You, on the other hand, seem intent on making this a “he said/he said” deal. Whatever entertains you.

It’s not about me? Thanks for clarifying. All this time I thought Darkhold=Alderbaran’s violation of the rules. Anyway the first part of the statement “The transgression of Poster X is taken as a case separate from a transgression of Poster Y. Those two cases are taken individually - what Poster X does (and its consequences) is not especially relevant to what Poster Y does (and its consequences).” And I clarified that was never my position and it is not it seemed like you were charactering my argument that way though… Apologies if that came off as a he said/she said thing to you but it wasn’t.

Every transaction is taken on a case by case basis. Always has been, and I assume always will be. That means - and please stop me if I am going too fast for you - that what one person was warned for in the past has no effect on whether another person is warned for doing something similar in the future. (Oh, I know, you’ll say you never said that. Don’t care. It’s not important.)

Ok I will stop you. The way you phrase it makes it binary. Either it does or it doesn’t. This board is not a vacuum. Joke threads in the pit became taboo. Some people were warned for it. Others later were banned because they didn’t know about the ‘new’ rule. Lynn pointed back to her warnings as a cite. I actually disagreed with this and argued against it because it wasn’t in the pit rules and put an unreasonable demand on people knowing about every warning that existed. When someone is warned for a poorly defined rule or infraction it sets a precedent that is followed later. Just like say a court of law. There’s a weight of history on this board that can be applied to situations. Since all of this is true it cannot be true that every transaction is determined solely on it’s own merits or it would be just a bunch of whims by the moderators.

TDo you understand that there are many shades of guilt, especially here?

I fully understand shades of guilt. Do you understand zero tolerance? Even if you disagree with zero tolerance (and I do if that ‘threat’ was the sum of his behavior I’d say give him a pass but that’s not the point of the discussion) but I could understand why this board would use zero tolerance on threats.

There’s a certain amount of subjectivity that absolutely must be employed regarding each case. Why is this so? Because the powers that be decided long ago that they weren’t going to write out explicit Rules and Regulations that we all must obey. They left themselves plenty of wiggle room so they can examine each issue on a case by case basis.

This is why the number one rule is so vague. There are always going to be many variables with each situation; no two situations will be exactly the same.

The only instance in which they will use past issues to decide on current issues is when both past and current issues involve the same person.

heh what I just said a little bit ago from the other angle. We flat don’t see the world the same way do we? At least you were more concise then me. If you agree the rules are open to interpretation why do you disagree the mods should ‘interpret’ it the same as me that the two are similar enough to evoke the same rule with the same consequences?

I am not arguing otherwise.

Well at least there’s one point we can reach a consensus on.

[Darkhold]

the equation of the threat.

If X does Y then Z (I wish I knew how to do logic symbols on my keyboard it would be funnier)
where X=a poster
P=Past history of the poster
H=history of the board (precedence and rules)
Y=Conditional statement
Z=some form of a threat carried out by the poster
B=Bannable offense
W=Warning.

when Y is >= an aggressive act and Z is >=a direct threat and P>H then and H cannot =0 Then P(X+Y+Z)=B

when Y<an agressive act OR Z<a direct threat OR P<H then P(X+Y+Z)=W

I hope someone gets a chuckle out of this. (yes I know the rules aren’t equations and yes I know that none of my fellow debaters are offering this. It just flashed in my mind and I thought it was cute)

[dantheman]

@Darkhold

So if I gave posterX a lovetap with an axe handle you’d think that was benign? I’m not trying to be dense here but I don’t understand your point. I think the inclusion of the weapon (you or another poster made that point already) would be the defining moment of difference more then the language of ‘more then’. I disagree because I don’t think threats need to be that specific but that is a point we could part on with no regrets.

Giving a lovetap, no matter what the means, is inherently benign - note the “love” portion of the word. It becomes malignant when more force is exerted than is exerted for a simple lovetap.

Right and it’s extremely unlikely that Alderbaran would be welcoming them in a friendly non-threatening manner. The reading of the context leaves little room for doubt. And yes you are the one that’s trying to define everything. Implied vs Direct. I think Zenster implied every bit as much as Alderbaran. And no for the life of me I don’t understand how you can draw that distinction from what was written.

Once again, I am not defining “implied” and “direct.” Again, I’ll say it - I am pointing out the difference between the two. I cannot fathom why you would think one is not more serious than the other. I can only conclude that you have no idea what a direct threat is.

‘Lovetaps’ (even more then ‘lovetaps’) is every bit as open for interpretation as ‘welcome’. The context of ‘welcome’ and ‘lovetaps’ however leaves no doubt. I’d rattle off another analogy of explaining to a cop the difference but you don’t seem to enjoy them as much as I do.

Now who’s defining?

So you’re saying the connotation of each word makes the meaning more plain the the denotation of each word? That’s an interesting (if somewhat unique) viewpoint.

And your common sense tells you that one is a direct threat where one is an implied threat? Strange common sense you have. Mine isn’t very concerned with how two phrases are similar or different. Mine tells me to put shoes on to go outside.

Surprisingly enough, common sense is employed in many facets of life and is not confined to sartorial choices.

My common sense tells me the difference between a direct threat and an implied one, but so does the dictionary. Apparently your common sense and your dictionary fail you on both counts.

Ok I will stop you. The way you phrase it makes it binary. Either it does or it doesn’t. This board is not a vacuum. Joke threads in the pit became taboo. Some people were warned for it. Others later were banned because they didn’t know about the ‘new’ rule. Lynn pointed back to her warnings as a cite. I actually disagreed with this and argued against it because it wasn’t in the pit rules and put an unreasonable demand on people knowing about every warning that existed. When someone is warned for a poorly defined rule or infraction it sets a precedent that is followed later. Just like say a court of law. There’s a weight of history on this board that can be applied to situations. Since all of this is true it cannot be true that every transaction is determined solely on it’s own merits or it would be just a bunch of whims by the moderators.

I’m not making it binary; on the contrary, since each case is dealt with on an individual basis, each with a new set of variables, there is no binary action involved whatsoever. That is, there is no definitive result or consequence that must follow every situation. Each one is different.

One mistake you’re making is in comparing anything that goes on here to a court of law. This is no court of law. If Lynn wanted to arbitrarily ban people, she absolutely could. She answers only to the CR, not to us. She is not beholden to the restrictions of the legal system, because this is a private message board.

The “weight of history” is another mistake you’re making. Although it’s true a person’s individual posting history comes into play if that person transgresses at some point, it is not true that the posting histories of everyone come into play. Some of the rules are intentionally vague so that the powers that be can be free to intrepret them differently according to each individual situation.

If you agree the rules are open to interpretation why do you disagree the mods should ‘interpret’ it the same as me that the two are similar enough to evoke the same rule with the same consequences?

I don’t. They can - and do - interpret any way they wish.

But if they interpreted it that way, Aldebaran would not be here now.

(BTW, does anyone else hear “Robber Baron” when they read “Aldebaran”?)

[Darkhold]

note the “love” portion of the word. It becomes malignant when more force is exerted than is exerted for a simple lovetap.

Please forgive me while my eyes roll into the back of my head. So once again by this logic I can ‘lovetap’ someone with an axehandle and it would be ok? How about hide somewhere ungreased? Nothing inherently malevolent about hide either. Is this seriously part of your argument? How is ‘more then’ allowed to be a part of the context and the intent of the rest of the sentence is not?

Once again, I am not defining “implied” and “direct.” Again, I’ll say it - I am pointing out the difference between the two. I cannot fathom why you would think one is not more serious than the other. I can only conclude that you have no idea what a direct threat is.

Funny I had the same impression of you. Do X and I will kill you. Direct. Simple. Do X and I will do something vaguely threatening sounding. Implied. Love taps however in your mind is implied where more then love taps is direct? Sorry I don’t buy this line at all. Zenster saying “I will beat you bloody” is direct. Zenster implied Aldebaran implied.

Now who’s defining?

So you’re saying the connotation of each word makes the meaning more plain the the denotation of each word? That’s an interesting (if somewhat unique) viewpoint.

Odd I thought I was saying the context explains the meaning when things are being ‘implied’. After all if these were ‘direct’ threats we wouldn’t have to search for the meanings at all.

Surprisingly enough, common sense is employed in many facets of life and is not confined to sartorial choices.

My common sense tells me the difference between a direct threat and an implied one, but so does the dictionary. Apparently your common sense and your dictionary fail you on both counts.

Well it’s fairly clear you abuse both your common sense and your dictionary when you’re failing for a point. Now can we drop the insults? Not that I mind really but it’s sort of distracting.

I’m not making it binary; on the contrary, since each case is dealt with on an individual basis, each with a new set of variables, there is no binary action involved whatsoever. That is, there is no definitive result or consequence that must follow every situation. Each one is different.

well ok. I still disagree either something does or does not have an impact. I’m not talking about a binary result in the action being taken I’m talking about an impact at all in the decision making process. It’s not worth arguing about though.

One mistake you’re making is in comparing anything that goes on here to a court of law. This is no court of law. If Lynn wanted to arbitrarily ban people, she absolutely could. She answers only to the CR, not to us. She is not beholden to the restrictions of the legal system, because this is a private message board.

Ahh indeed she answers to someone other then herself. I doubt she would last long as a mod if she applied her personal rules and interpretations in a vacuum. In many ways I do feel this place acts as a courtroom. We of course are not the juries more like spectators. And just like a court a person’s past history is taken into account as well as any precedents set before in the rules or the actions. And whenever someone is banned in a ‘new’ way there’s arguments like this one and sometimes the rules are clarified if a need is seen sometimes they are not.

The “weight of history” is another mistake you’re making. Although it’s true a person’s individual posting history comes into play if that person transgresses at some point, it is not true that the posting histories of everyone come into play. Some of the rules are intentionally vague so that the powers that be can be free to interpret them differently according to each individual situation.

I don’t think it’s a mistake I think it’s a simple fact that mods learn from experience with past posters. Perhaps that is better phrasing.

I don’t. They can - and do - interpret any way they wish.

But if they interpreted it that way, Aldebaran would not be here now.

Somehow I think our very debate (in some form or another) is taking place with the mods.

(BTW, does anyone else hear “Robber Baron” when they read “Aldebaran”?)

No but I have to constantly fight the desire to spell it Alderbaran for some reason. That’s why I’ve tried to avoid using his name so much in the argument.