As I have proven in a thread of mine about weasels, weasels are cute and lovable. Badchad gives weasels a bad name 
I too think he’s a troll, but, damnit, he’s OUR troll. I dont want to see him go.
If this was the werewolf thread, Badchad would be lynched. 
Ah, we can’t ban badchad. He’s like the drunk uncle that comes over every holiday. Yeah, he gets drunk, says a bunch of racist shit, hits on your girlfriend, runs around naked, always asks to borrow money, and God forbid you lend him a DVD 'cause you will never see that sucker again! Man I hate that fucking Uncle, always ruining my parties!!!
Crap, where was I going with this? Oh, yeah, ban that dumbass already!!
You know, this turn of events might just be the inspiration for another thread. How about something in, let’s see, maybe IMHO that solicits opinions on whether or not it’s a good thing/should or shouldn’t be allowable/jerkish behavior/whatever for a poster to basically ‘stalk’ another on the boards? Plus, for added fun, it can even be thrown in what y’all’s opinions are of the whole One Trick Pony thing for members who seem to only post on one subject. Teeming masses, whadaya say? And who’d be up for being the author? Of course we could leave it up to me, but that might mean fewer responses accompanied by the ubiquitous TLDR. I have no problem whatsoever deferring to those that can be less lengthy. 
No, it’s time to ban him now. He was warned several times and suspended for harrassing Polycarp. Now he is harrassing you. Now a certain amount of Mod harrassment for their actions as a Mod is acceptable, but not harrassment becuase of your beliefs. He is also harrassing Monty for Monty’s beleifs.
This has to stop. He should be Banned.
I am sick to death of One Trick Pony types. And it’s distressing to see people try in vain to engage them in any sort of meaningful way.
I’m not sure exactly how to carry it out, but perhaps some sort of ban on starting more than two threads per month on the same subject (per quarter? per year?). It’s clear that some posters’ sole reason to exist is to post controversial anti-somebody rants in such a way to rile up bunches of people. Which is troll behaviour, is it not?
I’m not a big fan of banning. I’m glad it’s used sparingly here. I do believe that badchad deserves to be banned for repeated violations of the jerk and troll rules. He has started 18 threads in his time here, 4 of them directed at Polycarp, 3 of them directed at Tomndebb. He’s a jerk, IMO, because he targets and stalks people here. He appears to need a nemesis. He’s a troll, again IMO, because he deliberately uses language in debates that is calculated to elicit emotional responses. Like “Jesus is a cunt” in Great Debates.
And I think he ought to decide whether Tom is a “weaselly motherfucker” or a hypocritical pussy . Maybe badchad would say both. I would say neither.
The thread is probably worth while, but I do not see a problem with one Trick Ponies. Just One Trick Ponies whose trick is harass other posters. If someone only posts about Biology, I doubt anyone would consider it bad. Even if they only post for a single TV show, more power to them. So I see no real problem with a one trick pony.
So, please start your thread and link it from here.
Jim
Shaddap. We’re getting us up a lynch mob here. Calm rational thinking ain’t helping.
What Exit has it right. Get rid of the harrassers, but there are plenty of innocent people who come here only for one thing. And under the suggestion I quoted, John Mace would not be able to post his weekly Lost thread in Cafe Society or any other poster would not be able to keep up legitimate recurring threads.
Now, as an individual restriction rather than general rule, that has precedent. One person whose name I don’t remember and don’t really care to would post about Bush and about nothing but Bush, to the point where he’d have two or three Bush-bashing threads up on the Pit’s front page. He was restricted to only one at a time, and I don’t think he was even able to keep to that, leading to an eventual banning.
Off-topic: I keep reading your name as Quifiddity. I don’t know why.
That really is a mis-characterization of the “jesus is a cunt” incident.
On a related note: Lord Ashtar, when is it going to sink into your skull that insulting a historical figure not “name-calling”, at least until Jesus Christ starts posting on the Dope. Actually, that post you linked seems pretty reasonable and a quick perusal of his other posts in that thread seem totally fine to me. I guess whenever badchad addresses a Polycarp point, all the stalker spotters go on high alert.
This depends on our definition of One Trick Pony. It is almost a red herring, if such a rule was instituted, all a Troll would really need to do is post a handful of Café style posts to keep from the appearance of a One Trick Pony. BadChad deserves banning for acting like a jerk and continuing to act like a jerk. The best thing for anyone who thinks he is acting as a jerk to do is report any posts to the Mods and Admins where you think he is acting like a jerk.
*::hangs head in shame:: * Sorry Oakminster
Jim
No. That would be a mischaracterization of his first foray into that expression, but it accurately describes his most recent excursion.
By no means is this a criticism of** tomndebb** (and definately not in support of badchad) but I was wondering why this is a rule. I know that fights can sometimes get dirty, but some of the most popular “news” shows are personal debate shows such as Hannity and Colmes. I don’t wade in GD much, only sometimes, but I think that a one on one debate (not fight) about an issue might be good reading for the board.
If those two people choose to engage each other, fine. For a third party to come in and try to sic them on each other – not fine.
That was the link that Lord Ashtar already gave. He didn’t specifically call Jesus a cunt there (it’s the same loophole people use to insult actual posters, by calling their comments idiotic, while not calling the poster an idiot) and he was clearly just playing up the earlier incident.
Sorry Jim, I don’t think we can report our own posts. Plus people with low self-esteem might get booted out!
Well technically, we have always been advised to just click the report a post above your own post and include the fact that your post needs attention. 
No, no, no. You were supposed to say:
“I hear that tommndeb is one weaselly mother-”
“Shut your mouth!”
[/isaac hayes]
I have stayed completely out of this, despite a lot of sympathy for the situation in which tomndebb finds himself, as there is no way I can remain unbiased. In fairness, the first time I offered an opinion and asked badchad’s response, he gave a fair answer. The second time, his first response was likewise, with a short interaction on what I’d meant by “respect.” His second response in that thread, though, reverted to type, complete with “wife-beating” style questions and his perennial favorite among my stupidest posts. That was enough for me, and I’ve withdrawn from further interaction.
However, let me explain, if I may, what tom is saying here. For me to challenge you to a debate (e.g., the value of Hannity and Colmes as journalism) is by no means forbidden. (And of course the other way around, too.) For you or me to suggest, e.g., that Oakminster and Bricker face off on due process law, on the other hand, has proven something used for trolling far more often than it’s produced any substantive positive results – and it’s prohibited as needlessly provocative.