I think he is very anti-Israel (which I don’t agree with) but I don’t recall him ever advocating bigotry against the Jews as a people.
There’s no evidence VCO3 and Two and a Half Inches of Fun are the same person. For one thing, 2.5 started posting here two months before VCO3 was banned.
Not sure, I use this ability I have to ignore things that annoy me, even when on a message board, instead of whining to moderators about how my shit is being stirred, and the scary bad man writing words (and not passively!) must be banished from my delicate sight.
The one big tipoff that he is simply a troll (and a jerk) is that he ALWAYS takes the controversial, contrarian, extreme position. In Cafe Society, the Game Room, no matter what, it’s the the position he knows people will bristle over and argue with him about. VCO3 at least contributed positively and coherently in Cafe Society threads.
Fine. Feel free to go join a message board where the likes of Two and a Half Inches of Fun are welcomed. Or stay here, knowing that this is not that type of message board. Whatever.
Awesome.
Ooh, he is a very clever troll!
I think that of 2.5 as well, but what’s the difference in staking out extreme positions to provoke a reaction versus doing the same and provoking a debate/discussion?
Is that something that needs to be delineated in a member’s OP? Full disclosure at the outset?
At any rate, he did provoke a little of both IMHO.
People have on occasion here taken devil’s advocate positions, and stated it them as such. I personally don’t see anything wrong with this. If, however, you are deliberately taking a position different or much more extreme than your own, I think it’s best to mention this at the outset for the sake of honesty.
If he was just interested in debate or discussion, there were much better ways available to him than the one he took.
I think the fact that he was merely interested in the reaction rather than the subject was well illustrated in his Ted Kennedy Pit thread vs the Jesse Helms thread that inspired it. Although 2.5’s Kennedy thread was supposedly a criticism of the Helms thread, he didn’t make one single post in the Helms thread (out of 151 posts) either before or after the Kennedy thread was closed. You would think that if he actually cared about the issue he would have said something about it in the original thread. He posted the Kennedy thread to attract attention to himself rather than to comment on the issue.
Actually I think 2.5 does that too, but not as much as VCO3 did. I did generally find VCO3 more interesting though. He could be pretty entertaining.
That’s rather broad, is it not? Couldn’t anything anyone says fall under this supposed rule in the opinion of anyone else?
I debated him as an intellectual exercise. It was interesting to see how rapidly he’d fall back on “it’s legal, therefore it’s moral” or “it’s immoral because it’s illegal” or some variation.
And it’s supposed to be.
No.
Not really. And it’s in the opinion of the moderation staff, rather than just “anyone.” We typically have extensive discussion in order to reach a consensus before taking as drastic an action as suspension or banning.
We really do give people a lot of leeway here (too much so, in the opinion of some people). Very very few members are suspended or banned in the course of a year here - probably on the order of magnitude of one in a thousand. You really have to be very persistently jerkish, ignore repeated warnings by the staff, and show no inclination to change, in order to get suspended.
It is broad, and one of the first things I read here was “this is not a democracy.” I guess it’s more of a benevolent dictatorship and maybe from time to time it’s not so benevolent but that’s what the Pit is for, and I don’t think the mods here get away with too much shit before being called out.
It’s true. Two and a Half Inches of Fun was branded a troll by some people from the minute he arrived, and he still lasted six months and 1800 posts before getting a suspension. The much-discussed VCO3 lasted almost three years and 3000+ posts. Having participated in some of these discussions, we give people leeway, then due process squared, and then still try not to ban them unless they’re being way over the top - and that’s even in cases where it’s obvious from the beginning that somebody is being a jerk.
OK then. Everybody likes to play Devil’s Advocate sometimes, and sarcasm is often lost through the intrawebz. So your position is that if in fact you’re deliberately trying to stir up shit in opposition to your own beliefs, you should at least own up to that.
Fair enough, thanks for the answer.
Brilliant 
The problem, you see, is that more often than not, the people that have extreme fringe opinions are also insuferable jerks. 
As for 2.5 Inches, IMHO he is a troll; all the proof I need is that someone that posts this and this is simply posting inflamatory shit for his own amusement.
Are you afraid you’d be considered too “fringe”? I’m not being sarcastic-I’m genuinely asking.