…well no I’m not. This wasn’t the reason given for why Huey was banned. I’ve quoted Miller from the original thread, and while Miller cited the trolling rule, he offered a couple of creative interpretations of the trolling rule as the actual reason he was banned. Its one of the reasons why this thread exists. Its only in this thread that Miller now says Huey was doing it for the “lulz.”
How? Because over the course of an arbitrary period of time he mainly posted in the thread where he was pitted? Because he was responding to attacks from other people? That is normal behavior. Look outside of that arbitrary period we can see plenty of posts that aren’t just “fighting people”.
I spent a considerable amount of time in the making that case in the “while black” thread. You can’t tell me that the posts I just quoted came from someone who is “only here to fight people.” Someone “only here for the lulz.” He spent most of the last 3 months fighting with people: but he was being pitted. Did you not expect him to respond to attacks? What did you expect him to do?
With all due respect to Huey he wasn’t the smartest person here. He was easily distracted, he didn’t recognize “have you stopped beating your wife” for what it actually was, and he felt the need to respond when people attacked him. Thats why he chose to eventually only post in the pit. He told everyone this.
I think its clear that he wasn’t just here to fight people. I don’t think you guys looked hard enough.
“Fundamentally toxic personality” is one way to describe it. “Angry while black” is another. This messageboard is fundamentally underexposed to the anger and the fear that is out there in the black community right now. I’m not in the US. I’m not black. I listen to the voices of POC in other places, not here. Thats why for me I felt the “Living while black” thread was so important. Its why when it was suggested in that thread that it be abandoned “because it had grown toxic” I fought for people to instead open a separate pit thread for Huey and to let that thread continue with its original purpose.
Because opening a new “living while black” thread would have meant that a thread started by a black man to talk about the experience of black people would have been abandoned for a more “polished”, nicer, friendlier thread started by white people. I pushed back, I got a lot of people pissed off with me and a lot of people attacked me. That fucking hurt. But it got the thread back on track for a while. Then Huey started saying stupid stuff again, and he got piled on, and instead of hijacking the thread he got pitted, and Huey responded to that pitting, and thats how all of this is supposed to work.
But that isn’t how it works. The system is rigged. Huey walked into a trap. I didn’t have a problem with the pitting: Huey deserved it. But it meant he was dragged into a thread where his lack of self control meant he responded to every attack with an attack. It meant he was dragged into a pit thread that he absolutely deserved but that people like me who looked out for Huey left him to fend for himself. Responding to attacks isn’t against the rules. But in Huey’s case it was enough to get him banned. I trusted the system. But as we’ve found out over and over again that trust is misplaced.
The “pattern” is only a pattern because you arbitrarily chose a time-period where that pattern existed.
To be precise: 32% of them were attacking Huey.
“Engaging” is subjective. My subjective assessment (posted earlier) was that 47% of Elmore’s posts were **not **engaging. In contrast, from the analysis done by Heffalump and Roo, outside of the threads either started by Huey or the thread directly pitting him only 21% of his posts had the **potential ** to not be “invective-filled-screeds.” But “engaging” isn’t the standard here. And “antagonizing” shouldn’t be the standard either. You can antagonize people without the intent to “rile them up.”
You call that nuanced? Really? What is the context of that post? Who was he responding too? How was that part of the conversation?
One person’s “nuance” is another person’s “steaming pile of turd.” And its this subjective assessment of Huey’s post that is part of the problem. You just see the turds. I’m seeing the nuance.
You call it “elaboration.” I call it “repeating alt-right talking points.”
3 posts in cafe society. One of them consisted entirely of “Maybe not where you live.”
3 posts in the Louis CK thread. 3. I’ve found more than 3 of Huey’s posts that he made over the last 3 months that are as engaging as Elmore’s posts in that thread. So why weren’t they taken into account?
Using Ableist insults like “retarded.”
Everybody was discussing the Covington Catholic kids, including Huey. In that thread Elmore said " If Huey caught bubonic plague it’d immediately become the best thing about him." Is that the sort of discussion you were talking about? When Huey responded to that post was he wrong to do so?
How was it possible for Huey to respond to that “discussion point” without adding to the pattern that eventually saw him getting banned? You are seeing Huey’s pattern in isolation without acknowledging that it takes “two-to-tango.”
32% of his posts targeted Huey. A nearly a third of his total posts on this messageboard targeted a single poster. Then when that poster got banned, he dropped into AMTB to gloat, then he declared his intention to leave. That’s a clear and obvious pattern to me.
I think its perfectly apt.