I Pit FinnAgain

[FinnAgain]

Interested by your very strange claim that the mods are the ultimate authority on certain matters of ontology, I noticed that you yourself, lissiner, have been called out for trolling by a mod on at least one occasion I could find with 30 seconds of searching. Not only did a mod call you out for trolling… but ~gasp!~ you disagreed. Does that mean you were “wrong”, and that you were often trolling Liberal?

Do I need to look through some mods trackers to find other instances of similar instances? If I can find a mod saying that you a hypocrite, does that mean you are? Why… then too you disagreed. Surely you were “wrong” then too, and you really are a hypocrite?

Is this belief in the mods’ utter infallibility new, or is it simply selectively applied?

Do I really need to say anything further?

[GIGObuster]

@FinnAgain

Several things. First off, in some cases the warnings were tangential, sevastopol getting a warning for trolling in the Pit, not the trolling he does in GD. Updike getting banned for a one-off instance that did not reflect a pattern of behavior.

Second, why do you place the mods’ judgment in the position you do? I’m honestly curious, as it seems like a bandwagon fallacy. I mean, so the mods don’t hold a certain view… so?

Their board, their rules. In the end it is their judgement (and the admins) that determins in this case if you are correct, it does not follow that I agree with them all the time.

Gigo, I have never claimed to be infallible. Neither is that debate at all germane to this thread.

Oh, really? It seems you forgot I concluded the Hamas charter was not relevant to the also ongoing secondary item of Gaza, but for a different reason. In any case, the results showed I was correct and you were wrong, and I have to mention that you showed the same kill the messenger attitude then.

Oh, I always consider all possibilities. However, simply on a factual note, no mods told me anything in that thread, and the evidence, a vast mountain of it, all supports my conclusions. Many people who disagreed, actually, explicitly stated that they knew little to nothing about the subject that was being trolled. If you don’t know about the facts, you can’t know if someone is lying in order to argue.

Moreover, just because many people don’t see something doesn’t mean that it’s not obvious, or that it’s wrong. There are all sorts of obvious things that aren’t believed. You’ll still find many people, for instance, who believe you’re supposed to treat a burn by putting butter on it. Obviously, butter does nothing to treat soft tissue damage. But if you happened to be in a room full of believers in that old wives’ tale, would you err on the side of believing that butter can help heal a burn?

I would no more hold a position because it is agreed with by many than abandon a position because it is opposed by many. Especially not if my views were arrived at by a rational observation of all available evidence.

Sorry, but the evidence showed that you failed in the discussion you had before with me, you still insisting you are rationally observing all available evidence is in doubt.

[FinnAgain]

@GIGObuster

Their board, their rules.

But there are limits to what their rules actually affect. They may believe, for instance, that someone is intentionally posting something to stir up shit. Does that mean that they’re right? If they don’t believe that someone is posting something to stir up shit, does that mean that there’s no possibility that they are?

I already gave the example that tom thinks that badchad is a troll, but the other mods don’t agree. Their board, their rules, but are they all right, at the same time? He’s Schrodinger’s Troll?

@GIGObuster

In the end it is their judgement (and the admins) that determins in this case if you are correct, it does not follow that I agree with them all the time.

Why not? If they determine what is correct, why disagree with them? If you have determined that their judgments are always correct, then why would you ever disagree with them, knowing by your own system of belief that they are right and you are wrong?

@GIGObuster

Oh, really? It seems you forgot I concluded the Hamas charter was not relevant to the also ongoing secondary item of Gaza, but for a different reason. In any case, the results showed I was correct and you were wrong, and I have to mention that you showed the same kill the messenger attitude then.

Not only do I not remember, I have no blessed idea what you’re talking about. I have no idea if your gloss is accurate or not, of if I’d agree with your interpretation of certain consequences of other events. I’m not sure if you’re honestly arguing that Hamas’ defining qualities aren’t relevant to how Hamas behaves, or what… but I am pretty sure that Hamas hasn’t called anybody a troll on the SDMB recently.

In any case, I’m not sure where you’re getting this “kill the messenger” stuff, or why you think I’ve done anything like that in this situation.

Do you want to open another thread or something to discuss whatever issue this is from months ago that’s still bugging you?

@GIGObuster

Sorry, but the evidence showed that you failed in the discussion you had before with me, you still insisting you are rationally observing all available evidence is in doubt.

What, exactly, do you even mean by “failed”?

If, simply for argument’s sake, we are to postulate that I was wrong in a previous discussion, that certainly doesn’t mean I didn’t analyze all available data, or that I didn’t do so rationally.

[GIGObuster]

@FinnAgain

But there are limits to what their rules actually affect. They may believe, for instance, that someone is intentionally posting something to stir up shit. Does that mean that they’re right? If they don’t believe that someone is posting something to stir up shit, does that mean that there’s no possibility that they are?

I already gave the example that tom thinks that badchad is a troll, but the other mods don’t agree. Their board, their rules, but are they all right, at the same time? He’s Schrodinger’s Troll?

You are missing the point, it is not that they are correct or not, I’m looking at the judgments, just because you call someone a troll does not make them one. So Tom was wrong there, and you are wrong regarding RTF.

Why not? If they determine what is correct, why disagree with them? If you have determined that their judgments are always correct, then why would you ever disagree with them, knowing by your own system of belief that they are right and you are wrong?

I think the problem is clear, you pigeon hole others. I do think you don’t have a very rational mind if you see a big problem on people that accept the judgment of others (and that is implied when we join this gig) and at the same time the same people can and do protest or complain when they think it was an unfair decision, if many do agree it was unfair I have seen cases were decisions have been reverted, there is nothing wrong with that. I do see a problem when appeals to people that agreed with you before suddenly do not see it your way like in this case. Because it just so happens that judgments on Trollery are influenced by the reports of… other people that are reading this too.

what, exactly, do you even mean by “failed”?

AFAICR you told me in a past GD thread that I was wrong in my idea that Israel was overreaching in Lebanon and that not only world opinion would turn against Israel, but those actions would turn into a fiasco for Israel.

If, simply for argument’s sake, we are to postulate that I was wrong in a previous discussion, that certainly doesn’t mean I didn’t analyze all available data, or that I didn’t do so rationally.

Careful with the tap dancing, my focus is precisely in your say so here that “Nor have I been wrong yet”.

[FinnAgain]

@GIGObuster

You are missing the point, it is not that they are correct or not, I’m looking at the judgments, just because you call someone a troll does not make them one. So Tom was wrong there, and you are wrong regarding RTF.

That makes no sense. If you’re not talking about who is correct or not, you can’t talk about who is wrong or not. And as Tom’s judgement is the judgment of a mod… I’m not even sure what you’re getting it.

Further, I never claimed that just calling someone a troll made the one… what’s more I said exactly that opposite, that regardless of labels someone either is or isn’t a troll.

@GIGObuster

I think the problem is clear, you pigeon hole others.

What exactly do you mean by that?

@GIGObuster

I do think you don’t have a very rational mind if you see a big problem on people that accept the judgment of others

You’re mixing terms here. Accepting someone’s judgment is not the same as agreeing with it, or stating that it must be correct simply because a specific person made it.

Nor do we agree to accept the mods’ judgments, only to be governed by them.

Nor is trusting your own judgment irrational, or believing that someone else was wrong in a judgment call. I’m not sure why you think that it would be, honestly. You seem to be manufacturing a case for my "not very rational mind’ out of some mighty sparse building materials. I disagreed with you about military strategy this summer, and I don’t believe that mods are automatically right about whether people are or are not trolls… and this makes me irrational?

@GIGObuster

(and that is implied when we join this gig) and at the same time the same people can and do protest or complain when they think it was an unfair decision, if many do agree it was unfair I have seen cases were decisions have been reverted, there is nothing wrong with that.

So, it’s only irrational in your view to disagree with their judgment calls on trolling? What exactly are you getting at here?

@GIGObuster

I do see a problem when appeals to people that agreed with you before suddenly do not see it your way like in this case.

Why would that be a problem? Honestly… so people agree one some things, but not others.

@GIGObuster

Because it just so happens that judgments on Trollery are influenced by the reports of… other people that are reading this too.

Elaborate please.

@GIGObuster

AFAICR you told me in a past GD thread that I was wrong in my idea that Israel was overreaching in Lebanon and that not only world opinion would turn against Israel, but those actions would turn into a fiasco for Israel.

And, even assuming that you’re accurate, which I highly doubt, that has what to do with whether or not the mods are right in all of their judgment calls on trolling?

@GIGObuster

Careful with the tap dancing,

Pointing out that you were wrong in your claim that reaching a different prediction than you did meant that I was not analyzing all data rationally is… tap dancing?

@GIGObuster

my focus is precisely in your say so here that “Nor have I been wrong yet”.

Fallacy of equivocation. I did not say that I’ve never been wrong about anything, but that I haven’t been wrong when I’ve accused trolls of being trolls.

[GIGObuster]

Now that was pathetic, separating phrases to sound right. Being rational also requires taking things in context, separating them to make your points is dishonest. Or something worse.

The bottom line is that AFAIK management here does consider the reports and complaints of people like me in declaring someone a troll, (IOW, besides being and audience we are members and we do influence management in judgements and in the support or rejection of opinions) your sorry actions are beginning to tell me I should not report RTF, but that you are beginning to turn in the item you think are fighting.

[FinnAgain]

@GIGObuster

Now that was pathetic, separating phrases to sound right.

Devastating factual rebuttal.

@GIGObuster

Being rational also requires taking things in context, separating them to make your points is dishonest. Or something worse.

:rolleyes:
I took everything in context, I simply didn’t quote you in great big ugly blocks of text, color code your sentences, assertions, and individual ideas, and then respond to them with color coded sentences. Or have long rambling paragraphs in response to your assertions.

Can you actually cite anything whose meaning I changed by putting in in a quote box and responding to it with one sentence… rather than putting it all into one big quote box and then just responding with exactly the same text… except with more transitional phrases?

No, it’s certainly not “dishonest” to directly respond to each and every single claim you made. The “or something else” comment just makes you sound wacky.

@GIGObuster

The bottom line is that AFAIK management here does consider the reports and complaints of people like me in declaring someone a troll,

Cite? You really think that the mods use mob rule as part of making their decisions? That if they get enough reports and complaints they’ll ban someone?

@GIGObuster

your sorry actions are beginning to tell me I should not report RTF, but that you are beginning to turn in the item you think are fighting.

My sorry actions like… quoting you.
Yes yes, responding to all of your points, politely and thoroughly, shows that I am turning into a troll.

Good call.

[GIGObuster]

@FinnAgain

Can you actually cite anything whose meaning I changed by putting in in a quote box and responding to it with one sentence… rather than putting it all into one big quote box and then just responding with exactly the same text… except with more transitional phrases?

You are so pathetic I expected that from you.

@GIGObuster

I do think you don’t have a very rational mind if you see a big problem on people that accept the judgment of others

@FinnAgain

You’re mixing terms here. Accepting someone’s judgment is not the same as agreeing with it, or stating that it must be correct simply because a specific person made it.

Nor do we agree to accept the mods’ judgments, only to be governed by them.

Nor is trusting your own judgment irrational, or believing that someone else was wrong in a judgment call. I’m not sure why you think that it would be, honestly. You seem to be manufacturing a case for my "not very rational mind’ out of some mighty sparse building materials. I disagreed with you about military strategy this summer, and I don’t believe that mods are automatically right about whether people are or are not trolls… and this makes me irrational?

@GIGObuster

(and that is implied when we join this gig) and at the same time the same people can and do protest or complain when they think it was an unfair decision, if many do agree it was unfair I have seen cases were decisions have been reverted, there is nothing wrong with that.

Really, that was the birth of a brand new fallacy, I would call it the idiotic useless adition, for when you say “You’re mixing terms here. Accepting someone’s judgment is not the same as agreeing with it,” I actually say the same thing in my separated second paragraph.

"You seem to be manufacturing a case for my “not very rational mind’ out of some mighty sparse building materials.”

Before that you may had been right, but after, you show that is the case.

[GIGObuster]

@FinnAgain

Cite? You really think that the mods use mob rule as part of making their decisions? That if they get enough reports and complaints they’ll ban someone?

Sure, tell the ones that were your allies in many other subjects that they are a mob.

As I said before, it is only a piece in the way to declare someone a Troll.

My sorry actions like… quoting you.
Yes yes, responding to all of your points, politely and thoroughly, shows that I am turning into a troll.

Good call.

Politely? By separating quotes to add useless points and attempt to make the quoted person sound unreasonable? :rolleyes:

As I see in the other thread you are willing to tell even a South African that he does not know enough to make a judgment on what apartheid could include. And many more that supported you before remain puzzled by your current ‘Tilting at windmills’, but yeah, calling them a mob will clear things up.

[FinnAgain]

@GIGObuster

Sure, tell the ones that were your allies in many other subjects that they are a mob.

Yes, even if they agree with me, making a decision based on what a mass of people tells you to do is mob rule.

I’m reasonably certain that most native English speakers wouldn’t be offended by that.

@GIGObuster

As I said before, it is only a piece in the way to declare someone a Troll.

Sure, now find one, single, solitary moderator who will say that rather than only taking the facts and their observations and interpretations into account, they will also look to see if a lot of posters don’t like that person and have complained about them.

@GIGObuster

Politely? By separating quotes to add useless points and attempt to make the quoted person sound unreasonable?

If one sentence of yours contradicts the next, whose fault is that? I asked for clarification on points of yours I didn’t understand, I did so politely rather than pointing out that you were spewing nonsense in many instances like blabbering about how I “pigeon hole” people.

@GIGObuster

As I see in the other thread you are willing to tell even a South African that he does not know enough to make a judgment on what apartheid could include.

I said nothing of the sort, and you know it. I said that just because he was a South African, that it didn’t exempt his argument from rational scrutiny, and that his background had zilch to do with whether or not his argument stood on its own merits. I said that because he was South African, that didn’t entitle him to claim that his background somehow made his argument correct, or his comparisons correct.

See, claiming that is the fallacy of appeal to authority.

@GIGObuster

You are so pathetic I expected that from you.

What, I was supposed to say that your fear that I was answering each and every single point you raised as an act of “dishonesty” was right… even though saying that would be a horrible, horrible lie?

Of course I refuted your slanderous charge. It’s not exactly pathetic to do so, nor does it take a prophet to realize that when you falsely accuse someone, they might just deny your accusation.

But it’s a nice catch 22 you’ve got set up.

@GIGObuster

Really, that was the birth of a brand new fallacy,

No Gigo, if you contradict yourself from one sentence to the next, it’s hardly my fault, nor a fallacy.

@GIGObuster

Accepting someone’s judgment is not the same as agreeing with it,” I actually say the same thing in my separated second paragraph.

Yes, which is why in context you were being irrational and self-contradictory. Either that, or you simply constructed a very poor sentence, which is why I asked in several different places what you meant, and what you were getting at.

You attempted to claim that I don’t have a “rational mind” because I don’t accept the judgment of others… even though it’s fine not to accept the judgment of others.
Your argument is flawed and internally incoherent. Instead of addressing that, you are blaming me, and quite frankly, behaving a bit like a loon.

Now, I went out of my way to be polite to you and attempt to fairly address each and every single point you made. I went out of my way to be polite to you, even when you were inventing tortured irrational constructs about how I didn’t have “rational mind”. After that, if you’d rather flip out, that’s certainly your call.

Evidently you are still nursing a hardon for me based on a thread from last summer that I don’t even remember anymore. Ah well, eh?

[GIGObuster]

@FinnAgain

Yes, even if they agree with me, making a decision based on what a mass of people tells you to do is mob rule.

I’m reasonably certain that most native English speakers wouldn’t be offended by that.

:rolleyes: yeah, no people that are fairer than other messaboards around, no sir.

Sure, now find one, single, solitary moderator who will say that rather than only taking the facts and their observations and interpretations into account, they will also look to see if a lot of posters don’t like that person and have complained about them.

And I did remember anyhow to mention several times it is not the main way the administration uses to ban people. And you know it.

If one sentence of yours contradicts the next, whose fault is that? I asked for clarification on points of yours I didn’t understand, I did so politely rather than pointing out that you were spewing nonsense in many instances like blabbering about how I “pigeon hole” people.

And I’m supposed to be the one with the English as a second language problems?

pigeonhole

1. A small compartment or recess, as in a desk, for holding papers; a cubbyhole.
2. A specific, often oversimplified category.
3. The small hole or holes in a pigeon loft for nesting.

I was remembering definition 2

I said nothing of the sort, and you know it. I said that just because he was a South African, that it didn’t exempt his argument from rational scrutiny, and that his background had zilch to do with whether or not his argument stood on its own merits. I said that because he was South African, that didn’t entitle him to claim that his background somehow made his argument correct, or his comparisons correct.

See, claiming that is the fallacy of appeal to authority.

IMHO you do indeed have good points, but the subject of the thread is convincing others RTF is a troll, There is a saying other doper once said that the longer a reply is, the more likely it is not accurate, useless padding or contains an insult.

So there is only a need to just say to the rest of your post that IMO you are closely getting into declaring democracy a stupid thing. Sure it is contradictory we accept the rule of others and at the same time we keep the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Not a problem.

Evidently you are still nursing a hardon for me based on a thread from last summer that I don’t even remember anymore. Ah well, eh?

Indeed, talking politely does not save one from being insulting, nice **december ** maneuver.

[FinnAgain]

@GIGObuster

And I did remember anyhow to mention several times it is not the main way the administration uses to ban people. And you know it.

Yes… I know it. And as I’ve stated several times, I highly doubt that it plays any part. Which means I directly responded to what you said. You still haven’t found even one mod to support your view have you?

@GIGObuster

I was remembering definition

Yes, I know what the word means, thank you. I also don’t actually do that. And, you’ll remember, I “dishonestly” asked you to clarifiy what the heck you were talking about, and you never responded. So even if you still want ot make that claim, you’ve given absolutely -no- evidence that your position is at all correct.

@GIGObuster

So there is only a need to just say to the rest of your post that IMO you are closely getting into declaring democracy a stupid thing.

You are aware that pure Athenian democracy is ridiculously rare in history? The US is a Republic, by the way, because our founding fathers thought that pure democracy was a shit idea.

And this has what to do with the OP’s premise?

@GIGObuster

Indeed, talking politely does not save one from being insulting, nice **december ** maneuver.

Gigo, you have now completely off the rails. Of course my last post wasn’t 100% polite, you’ve spent several posts being a total asshole to me, and I’m under no obligation to keep responding as if you deserved civility. Anyways, as you seem to be going a bit nuts over me and evidently you have no desire to discuss the OP, I’m going to stop responding to you unless you have something to say.

[GIGObuster]

@FinnAgain

You are aware that pure Athenian democracy is ridiculously rare in history? The US is a Republic, by the way, because our founding fathers thought that pure democracy was a shit idea.

:rolleyes: That is what I’m saying also, to repeat, AFAICR the admin does not base their decisions on public input only, checks and balances and all that jass, but it does help.

And this has what to do with the OP’s premise?

Simply that you can be mistaken in assessing even the points of others. To be more precise, I do remember that removing the troll rule was by assuming we dopers could use it wisely, being trigger happy with it does not make you right.

[FinnAgain]

@GIGObuster

Simply that you can be mistaken in assessing even the points of others.

I have said, numerous times, that I am not infallible. I am simply correct in the accusations I have made.
Much like you haven’t’ claimed to be infallible, but you’d maintain that you’re currently typing on a computer and not a loaf of bread.

@GIGObuster

being trigger happy with it does not make you right.

Good thing I’m not trigger happy with its use then. Nor have I stated that using it a lot would make me right.

[GIGObuster]

Oh, and speaking of context, I have to say it is important to mention you got caught setting a straw man. I was talking about current democracies and even the way they decide things here.

Going back all the way to ancient Greece when historians mentioned already that Athenian democracy was very limited, and many city states remained tyrannies, just showed that 2500 year old straw is still attractive for some people.

[FinnAgain]

@GIGObuster

Oh, and speaking of context, I have to say it is important to mention you got caught setting a straw man.

Or, perhaps it’s important to mention that you’re only pretending that I was setting up a strawman?

@GIGObuster

I was talking about current democracies and even the way they decide things here.

@GIGObuster

So there is only a need to just say to the rest of your post that IMO you are closely getting into declaring democracy a stupid thing.

Funny… I see no adjectives. No "current’, no “SDMB style”, nothing. Pretending my responding to exactly what you say is a “strawman” should be beneath you, even in this current mood you seem to be in.

I’m not going to be drawn off on a discussion of forms of government, as, again, that has nothing to do with the OP and you seem more interested in picking a fight, about anything, than actually discussing the topic of this thread.

Pull it together man.

[GIGObuster]

@FinnAgain

I have said, numerous times, that I am not infallible. I am simply correct in the accusations I have made.

It remains a matter of opinion, and the context that you are missing (and this is mentioned because I sincerely do think you are better than this) is that others here do help or break the case in favor or against declaring someone a troll.

Much like you haven’t’ claimed to be infallible, but you’d maintain that you’re currently typing on a computer and not a loaf of bread.

Hey, that is a good excuse:

http://www.geeksbearinggifts.com/humor/humor.htm

Good thing I’m not trigger happy with its use then. Nor have I stated that using it a lot would make me right.

When I said you are trying to kill a fly with a bazooka I’m also saying that the fly can still get away and then the Armament, Munitions, and Chemical Command department will want to have a chat with you regardless if you are successful.

[GIGObuster]

@FinnAgain

Funny… I see no adjectives. No "current’, no “SDMB style”, nothing. Pretending my responding to exactly what you say is a “strawman” should be beneath you, even in this current mood you seem to be in.

::Shrug::

If you forget context is my way that is ok, It should be clear by now that you were wrong anyhow.

[jali]

@samm

Huh? Why and how did you even notice this? Are you the troll guardian guardian?

I happened to have remembered this gentleman calling someone else (besides the current pit post I was reading) a troll and decided to see if there were more than one or two accusations out there. In my opinion, the overuse of any word dilutes it’s strength.

Sould I have submitted my pit to certain regulars for approval before publishing? How and why does anyone notice anything they have a gripe about. If it’s not your cup of tea I apologize for wasting your time in the pit.

[FinnAgain]

@jali

In my opinion, the overuse of any word dilutes it’s strength.

@jali

Some of these may be legitimate claims but when was he been elected troll guardian of the boards?

If they’re legit, then they’re not being overused. If you don’t care if they’re legit or not, then you aren’t actually discussing whether or not the word is being used improperly.

Your objection seems to be simply due to the quantity of its use, not its accuracy.