P.M. Infraction Policies - Page 3 - About the Forums

Gin 'n Tonic · 10-13-2011, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oski

You may also be missing a broader point: He claimed he had authority to infract me for trolling in those circumstances, and that there was ample precedent for such action. Yet, he refused to provide me the source of that precedent (and I had searched the forums on it) and he refused to explain how replying to a PM constitutes "trolling."

Hell, give me more infraction points. I don't care. I am not taking issue with that. I want to know about the policy. That is what this thread is for, no? I am not here to make this a personal issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oski

A written law is inanimate, this is why we have judges. We all understand the concept of a "law," but the legal system also includes a parallel system of equity or "fairness."

For example, California allows a judge considerable discretion to apply a fair result where the written law would render an unfair result....

If the written law is so important that we must merely cower in its omnipotent presence, why are judges afforded such discretion?

I think that one of the 'judges' of this forum (i.e. mods - the people who impose the 'fines') just decided to use his discretion to expand the forum policy so that the trolling rules can be applied to pm's.

You make such an eloquent case for allowing judges' discretion, but apparently don't like it when you're on the wrong end of it.

atakdog · 10-13-2011, 03:24 PM

OP seems to believe some combination of two things:

1. If one is only replying to PMs, not initiating new conversations, one cannot be trolling.

2. If one is sarcastically obsequious rather than overtly rude, one cannot be trolling.

These premises are false. Any persistent effort to annoy another user is trolling (which may or may not be infractible depending on degree and extent). If these persistent efforts to annoy are phrased sarcastically and are contained in messages replying to another's, that doesn't change their fundamental purpose, nor should it change moderators' ability to infract them.

Whether the mod who believes he is being trolled should be the one to infract should probably depend on the specific circumstances, but that doesn't seem to be OP's principal question.

**SGT RJ** · 10-13-2011, 03:29 PM

Bigger question - why did you wait over a month from the original infraction, and almost two weeks from the second infraction, to start these threads?

If I didn't know any better I'd say both of these threads were continued high level trolling attempts.

soah · 10-13-2011, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SGT RJ

Bigger question - why did you wait over a month from the original infraction, and almost two weeks from the second infraction, to start these threads?

If I didn't know any better I'd say both of these threads were continued high level trolling attempts.

two weeks isn't that long to wait to complain. I mean, it's not as bad as that other thread today where a guy is complaining about something that a mod posted in June.

**tuq** · 10-13-2011, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by killa

Im going to answer this simply , if you start "mouthing off" with aggressive or abusive PM to a mod they have the right to ban you.

1. Isn't this the equivalent of a ban out of forum? I don't see a moderator's name at the bottom of the PM listing. If they are getting all butt hurt they can kick it over to someone else for review and possible action. EZ game.

2. Even if someone has the "right" to do something it doesn't mean that they actually should or that it isn't dumb.

**Mat Sklansky** · 10-13-2011, 03:41 PM

Quote:

I am interested in the general policy issues as stated.

There is no general policy about this or most things.

PokerNations · 10-13-2011, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oski

Is it not fair for me to assume that the other poster is being disingenuous about "being trolled" when he actively initiates, participates, precipitates, perpetuates (after he contemplates, lifts some weights and does figure-8's) and resuscitates the conversation?

****ing genius imho

**killa** · 10-13-2011, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuq

1. Isn't this the equivalent of a ban out of forum? I don't see a moderator's name at the bottom of the PM listing. If they are getting all butt hurt they can kick it over to someone else for review and possible action. EZ game.

2. Even if someone has the "right" to do something it doesn't mean that they actually should or that it isn't dumb.

2) he asked a question i just gave a simple answer to, i didn't give an opinion on it mind you. can he be banned or interacted, the simple answer is yes, he could.

1)no, and you know this

**SGT RJ** · 10-13-2011, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soah

two weeks isn't that long to wait to complain. I mean, it's not as bad as that other thread today where a guy is complaining about something that a mod posted in June.

True. Six weeks is kinda long, though, but again not as long as the previous example.

kioshk · 10-13-2011, 04:03 PM

This Oski character is always stirring up trouble. I estimate that 70% of his posts are disingenuous.

elrey · 10-13-2011, 04:15 PM

this some zodiac ****

Oski · 10-13-2011, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anarchist

Jokes about how much your OPs suck.

Well, of course, it was all hypothetical.

I guess you have a pretty wild imagination after all.

Anarchist · 10-13-2011, 04:40 PM

So, did you get help with your imaginary problem or not?

Oski · 10-13-2011, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SGT RJ

I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that some of his PMs contained stuff like "I've already answered X question, I consider the matter closed". And you, rather than understanding that this meant, we're done, responding with another long, rambling, borderline incoherent PM.

How close did I get?

Not very close.

It was more like: "I don't like the tone of your replies; they are sarcastic and disrespectful, don't reply back or you will be infracted for trolling me."

From that point forward, he refused to answer the question: 1) how can trolling be present in responding to PM's? I did not send PM's, much less consecutive PM's.; 2) Under what rule can he infract me for trolling via PM Responses.

Please keep in mind that once the questions were posed, there were no "long rambling" posts. They were pretty straight forward. I also reminded him that just like I told him 10 Replies prior, that I will Reply to any PM sent to me as I am culterally predisposed to doing replying to messages. I told him that if he really felt like I was harassing him, then he should refrain from sending me more PM's.

Here's my guess. the mod had this discussed in the mod forum prior to getting the go ahead and give me an infraction. So, most of you are already aware of it. In any event, you need to get past all that because that is not what the thread is about.

After many more PM's, I couldn't take his claim that I was harassing him by replying to his PM's seriously because all he had to do was stop. Indeed, he finally stopped and I have not sent him further messages. Yet, as he finally exited the door after about 25 PM's, he left me with an infraction.

I am glad to have the infraction, but I am interested in the rule.

This thread is about if and where "trolling" is defined as continued replies to PM's. Let me know if any of you stumble upon the answer.

Oski · 10-13-2011, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anarchist

So, did you get help with your imaginary problem or not?

No, I'm still waiting for your imaginary girlfriend to finish me up so I don't have to type while reaching around her head.