I don’t know shit from Shinola about the whole Fenris v BrainGlutton obsession; but he isn’t wrong here. Call it blind squirrel/acorn syndrome, if you like.
BrainGlutton has determined that he can post in his “accustomed style” and anyone who doesn’t like it can “fuck off, eat shit, and suck his Scalia” (which is creepy on many levels). One would think other registered board members can post in the very same style regardless of popularity of message (or lack thereof).
Nah. You know it happens, I know it happens*, pretty much everyone here knows that many threads are spammed to shit by a few posters who post link after link after link regardless of the arbitrary number that’s “too much” by standard you’ve picked for today; so let’s not play that game.
*Maybe not 35 times, but 10 or more posts consisting of a one-liner and a link? easy. Or more if you ignore the occasional snarky one-liner.
First, there’s a difference between 10 and 35. It’s not unreasonable to put a threshold somewhere between the two.
Second, there’s a massive difference between “a one-liner and a link” and “a comment-free link”. It’s reasonable to draw a line between the two.
Third, although I’ve seen Brainglutton’s odd post here and there, I’m genuinely unfamiliar with his spamming a single thread with multiple such one-liner-and-link posts in a row. Does this really happen?
Try ten times in a row with not even a one-liner and I will consider whether you have a point, rather than posting more history that never was.
FTR I’m perfectly happy for the mods to tell BG or anyone else to knock it off when they go link-happy.
Yawn. No thanks. Not gonna play that game. You’re notorious for shifting goalposts (like demanding “no-one liners” above), tapdancing about whether you’re posting as a mod or not (see above–was that as a mod, in which case assume I just said “No thank you” or a poster?) and idiotically nit-picky digressions about non-relevant points to distract people from the fact that you’re losing arguments, so why bother wasting time on this board’s search engine? (Google won’t sort by forum, that’s why)
Again, if you’re posting as a mod but not labeling yourself as one, just replace this post with “No thanks”.
Consider this my one-liner.
Re-writing history, again, I see.
As noted, the “no one-liner” was part of the discussion. You appear to be the one who wants the goalposts moved.
I have never “tap-danced” about whether I was posting as a Mod or a poster.
And then you invent silly reasons why you simply can’t actually back up your invented history with examples.
So noted.
I’m not asking for ten. I’m asking for thirty five. Do you have an example of another poster making thirty five posts, in a row, to a single thread, consisting of nothing but a link? No? Then no, this isn’t something that “everyone knows” happens.
I’m not a fan of BrainGlutton or his posting style, but he’s been modded plenty of times and I don’t recall him ever coming close to shitting up a thread remotely to the extent that Haberdash did.
Yeah, Haberdash’s style is similar to him in the way Godzilla is similar to Lebron James.
This is tedious. Everyone knows that there are posters who spam threads with tons of posts that consist of nothing but a link and a single line of “The Pope favors my politician < link >” Since it seems like you’re not i interested in discussing the obvious and more general issue of “Spamming threads with a shit-ton of links is bad” and instead want to quibble about minutiae like “That was only 34 links in because he put the word “and” in between two links, so it’s not JUST a link any more”, I think I’ll finish this post and bow out of this thread
As an aside, Miller, I’m on your side with your ruling against Haberdash. I just wish you wouldn’t get so bogged down in the specific magical number that you just now decided upon and would act against posters who, say, take roughly 1/3d of the posts in a 100 post thread with nothing but a quick description and a link. Even if they break the string of posts up with a single sentence call for a “Cite!?” or take a one-line, non-linked cheap shot “I thought he’d be in jail right now, haw-haw”, the issue is spam posts polluting a thread, not that there were specifically 35 of them.
And with this, I’m out of this thread. Tom is doing his usual song and dance consisting of vapid, blanket denials and empty claims of victory, so he’s not worth the effort and either I’ve convinced other people or not and more arguing won’t do anything.
Finally, you’ve got something right.
Yeah, no fucking shit.
I agree, spamming threads with a shit-ton of links is bad. But “shit-ton” isn’t exactly a precise measurement. “Ten” is just as arbitrary a limit as “twenty” or “thirty-five.” Your angry because I’m not drawing my arbitrary line exactly where you draw your arbitrary line.
That’s actually almost precisely the opposite of how I’m approaching this. There isn’t a magical number that’s “too many.” Thirty-five isn’t a cut-off point, it’s something that’s so comically over the line that it ought to be beyond discussion that it needed to be moderated.
And yet here we are.
The Pit works best when moderated least. It usually takes something extreme to get me to intervene. And as much as possible, I try to avoid moderating for content. Haberdash was an easy call, because there was no content, and he took his antics to a ridiculous extreme. But I’m not going to moderate “I thought he’d be in jail right now, haw-haw,” as spam, just because the post is insufficiently clever.
Miller: I think you need to up that number a tad as Haberdash has added more essentially content-free posts in the thread just to tout more links.
Fenris always loses all perspective on questions like this when there is some pet obsession of posting history of his. The pretension that the annoying and the boring brainblutton has never been modded for minor comparative behavior is just stupid.
And has delved deeply into hate speech and obvious trolling.
Thanks for the heads up, but while Haberdash’s initial return to that thread was more of the same, in his subsequent posts he has started responding to other posters and making his own arguments again. Which puts this pretty firmly in the “be careful what you wish for” column, but he is in compliance with the instructions he’s received to date.
Not that posting a continuous series of links with no abiding commentary is ideal behavior, but it should be noted that others have made thinly-veiled references to the goose-steppers and insinuated that certain posters are aligned with their genocidal tendencies.
Which is not much better than “Don’t Shoot!”, if indeed more circumspect.
No, I think it’s a lot better actually. One is a direct insult at an individual which is permitted only in the pit. The other is hate speech based entirely on someone’s religion, as opposed to their openly displayed beliefs.
You can see that, right Stringbean? I mean if somebody exhibits prejudice based upon religion what do you call them? A: You call them a fellow member unless you are in the pit.
Well since he is refering to my posts…
Of course my comments about the language of the genocidaires was specific to the specific discourses of the individuals, like the hindu supramacist who used the same phrases as the extremists who have promoted massacres, and pointing that the language of hate and denial of freedom of a group share the same features : the same kinds of phrases used in the Bosnia as in the Rwanda as in other places. Cancers, they were originally of the Group X with the implication of the treachery, etc.
The correspondces of these hate speeches in their style and in the way they dehumanize - with some false fronting to try to disguise - are to me quite interesting and startling.
This is concrete and it is about that persons speech.
Of course like my lessons to him about the fantasy fox news ideas about the history of seculairsm it goes through the distorted mirror of bigotry.
It is 100% different than the gross hate speech that is passed in silence on, showing real sympathies under pretend sympathies.