^ That's a possibility, but it also seems in that thread that people are at least discussing things similar to what the regulars here might say.

11/29/2007 4:22:53 PM

The new rules are hardly worth it if they're going to be applied differently to people of different ideologies.

11/29/2007 6:01:57 PM

what does ideology have to do with any of the suspensions or non suspensions in the last few days since the new rules have been implemented?

please feel free to give an example instead of a blanket statement

11/29/2007 6:06:47 PM

If you have paid attention to any of what he and other posters have already said, then you know exactly what he is referring to.

11/29/2007 6:10:03 PM

Here's an example: the top three trolls in the section are you, Chance, and hooksaw.

The interesting thing about this is that people from all sorts of ideological leanings (right, left, religious, atheist, etc) have recognized that this is the case. A fair amount of liberals see it as the case, and a fair amount of conservatives see it as the case as well.

However, only the two who are identified as conservatives have been let off the hook time and time again. Chance has been banned, and you and hooksaw go free even though you blatantly troll. Hooksaw has been trolling and tossing out flame-bait since the new rules have been in place with impunity, while others have been getting punished (guess what: not a single person who's been punished under the new rules so far has been a conservative, and it certainly has nothing to do with conservatives not breaking the rules).

It's pretty obvious at this point that Duke has on rose-tinted glasses when it comes to you guys, and it's pretty aggravating. People are getting punished because we wanted a more neutral, flame-free place to discuss differing viewpoints. All of the efforts aimed at reform have just given us an environment where conservatives can flame and troll with impunity, while moderates or liberals who barely break the rules get shit-canned.

11/29/2007 6:13:25 PM

Quote :

"please feel free to give an example instead of a blanket statement"

what have i done in the last few days SINCE THE RULES WERE IMPLEMENTED that warrants suspension?

if you cant show me something then stfu about it

Quote :

"please feel free to give an example instead of a blanket statement"

11/29/2007 6:16:20 PM

this took me literally 30 seconds to find in the first thread i looked in:

TreeTwista10:

Quote :

"HUR thinks its normal to hit women on occasion that explains a lot about him and probably his troubled childhood"

[Edited on November 29, 2007 at 6:22 PM. Reason : user]

11/29/2007 6:21:24 PM

if you think that warrants suspension, i could find something on nearly every user that would warrant suspension

i mean HUR makes a comment about things that lots of people do hypocritically...drive drunk...scam insurance companies...etc...and he mentions physical violence against women which i don't tolerate

but i should be suspended for calling him out for it? i couldve said OMG YOURE A SICK MOTHERFUCKER but of course i chose not to

11/29/2007 6:24:07 PM

yes, but "troubled childhood"

when you clearly know nothing about his childhood, and you certainly aren't a certified psychiatrist, is most definitely troll bait.

11/29/2007 6:28:29 PM

if the rules were enforced that strictly then he wouldve been suspended as soon as he mentioned people hitting their wives since thats clearly trying to bait people into telling him that physical violence against women is wrong

course the rules arent enforced that strictly...i understand that but for some reason some of you dont

11/29/2007 6:32:04 PM

#1 I doubt he was seriously intending that, especially if you read his entire post.
#2 That isn't troll bait anyway. Your concept of troll bait is just terribly flawed.

Now, if he knew you had been accused of being a wife hitter and he said that, then yea, you could call that troll bait.

11/29/2007 6:45:29 PM

well you are the expert in what is and what isnt troll bait since you're such a big/good troll

oh no did i just call you something? hope i dont get suspende for it!

btw i did read his entire post...and i am not the only person who thought the wife beating part seemed out of place...and im not the only user who commented on that either

[Edited on November 29, 2007 at 6:50 PM. Reason : .]

11/29/2007 6:47:41 PM

If anything, hur fucked up because he isn't the sharpest tack in here. If you can't look at his entire post and realize that he didn't purposefully put it there to have you or anyone else comment on it as his sole purpose for that post, then you can't be helped.

11/29/2007 6:52:41 PM

i think if we continue to have this conversation, or any conversation in TSB in general, we might both get suspended, simply because its TreeTwista and Chance...so i'll leave this thread for the moment, although is clear that you're just trolling me when i obviously havent done anything to warrant a suspension since the new rules were implemented

11/29/2007 6:54:33 PM

AHA, Double T turns a discussion about his posts into a discussion about everybody else's posts...

Nice work, guys.

11/29/2007 7:42:54 PM

In fact this is one of the few cases where you and Chance have been talking things out that hasn't been ban-able. Then again, according to the point I made earlier, you're not in danger of getting banned either way. Duke has made it explicitly clear that time and time again he'll ignore the things you and hooksaw are doing under any circumstances.

I just don't understand what the fuck the explanation is. I want an explanation that doesn't insult my intelligence -- just something honest, Duke. We're not stupid. Plenty of people have observed this, and the vast majority of us are tired of the favoritism. What do you have to say about it?

11/29/2007 7:45:40 PM

haha, terpball is still suspended b/c he said hooksaw is a "fucking idiot"

it's obvious what's going on here - he loves hooksaw!

11/29/2007 7:50:41 PM

Well what terpball did is not a lot different from what hooksaw has been doing in the "liberal bias in the media" thread. terpball offered up a post that added nothing to the discussion, yet insulted hooksaw. What hooksaw has been doing in that thread (at the very least) has been exactly the same thing.

He's been refusing to engage in the debate, and has been lobbing insults and flame-bait at other people. He added nothing to the discussion, yet insulted others.

How is it that he's not banned the same as terpball, other than there's a clear bias here? I want an actual explanation.

11/29/2007 8:07:37 PM

This shit's been derailed by the Twista-Chance fight. Duke, just lay the suspendhammer on the both of them so this thread can return to a constructive discussion.

11/30/2007 1:13:59 AM

Quote :

"Then again, according to the point I made earlier, you're not in danger of getting banned either way. Duke has made it explicitly clear that time and time again he'll ignore the things you and hooksaw are doing under any circumstances."

Hardly.

it's just that since i agreed to take this approach to moderation, they haven't done anything warranting suspension.

I'm not going to suspend anyone for making a snide remark or for making a weak argument/logical fallacy.

what i suspended people for was for personally insulting/trolling/stirring shit up with other users while not engaging in any sort of debate or discussion.

Quote :

"The new rules are hardly worth it if they're going to be applied differently to people of different ideologies."

Ideologies have nothing to do with it. Even if they did, i disagree with hooksaw all the time. maybe i'm not as politically opposed to him as i am Chance, but we're not really particularly aligned. as far as terpball and nastoute go, i don't even know where they fall on the political spectrum.

if anyone wants standards applied non-uniformly, it's those of you who want me to suspend treetwista and hooksaw simply because they either grate the shit out of your nerves or have a substantial history of trashing the forum. believe me, i have no aversion to suspending either of them, but i'm not going to do it simply because they aren't well liked, annoy people, pulled a bunch of bullshit in the past, make ill-conceived arguments, aren't polite in their discourse (a trait shared with most of us) or flip a thin-skinned bitch when people antagonize them.

If either of them antagonize/troll other users in a nut-riding simply for the sake of nut-riding way (as opposed to engaging in debate or discussion), I'll suspend him. (note that this is not a provision allowing, for example, extended treetwista vs hooksaw thread-trashing bitch-fests under a guise of quibbling over an issue).

Quote :

"(guess what: not a single person who's been punished under the new rules so far has been a conservative, and it certainly has nothing to do with conservatives not breaking the rules)."

if you see it, PM me (with specific issue, not just "____ is trolling. suspend.") furthermore, it's not like i'm way out there on the right wing, anyway. I'd say I lean substantially to the right fiscally, and a little to the left socially.

Quote :

" If you can't look at his entire post and realize that he didn't purposefully put it there to have you or anyone else comment on it as his sole purpose for that post, then you can't be helped"

THAT is a big part of why I haven't yet suspended hooksaw or treetwista, and why I have suspended some others.

Now, could someone direct me to this exchange between HUR and TreeTwista10

Quote :

"In fact this is one of the few cases where you and Chance have been talking things out that hasn't been ban-able"

Completely agree (and the fact that this thread is what it is instead of a regular issues-debate helps, too). Pulling chocks when he thought it was getting a little too deep between the two of them is certainly a welcome change, too.

that said, show me the exchange with hur.

11/30/2007 2:28:45 AM

Two clearly personal attacks:

Quote :

"I have a hard time understanding how this guy's anecdote proves anything. He did not site [sic] a single example from papers that he wrote but rather gave us a 'Gawsh y'all, they ain't nice to us conservatives here'. The dude was making all of these bad grades yet seemed to graduate a year early. Hmmm. 'Yet another Sand in the Vagina moment brought to you by hooksaw'"

HockeyRoman

Quote :

"'since I have five semesters' experience as a TA' Crap. How long are you planning to take getting a masters?"

Boone

And my response:

Quote :

"^^ Please stop the personal attack on me and trolling any thread that I post in. ^ That's none of your concern, and your post has nothing to do with the post at issue or the thread topic. Please stop the personal attack on me. BTW, I find it damned peculiar that some of you are willing to accept specific experience in a given area--such as Duke's experience with waterboarding--if you agree with the user's position on a particular issue. But if you disagree with a user's position, you view his experience as invalid or you somehow diminish that experience. Damned peculiar."

hooksaw

/message_topic.aspx?topic=495268&page=5

Okay, where's the outrage, folks? Let me guess: Many of you don't have a problem with these posts, right?

[Edited on November 30, 2007 at 12:56 PM. Reason : .]

11/30/2007 12:54:47 PM

Hockey's is not flaming you, he's saying you didn't have a point and went overboard.

Boone wasn't adding anything to the conversation but I don't think he was insulting you either, that's really a judgment call for Duke.

The fact that they didn't drag it on for 20 posts is pretty significant as well.

11/30/2007 12:57:47 PM

Quote :

"Yet another Sand in the Vagina moment brought to you by hooksaw"

Quote :

"Crap. How long are you planning to take getting a masters?"

^ You're being disingenuous and you know it. And your defense of this reveals much.

(1) Are these posts about me personally or not? Yes or no? And (2) what do they have to do with the post at issue or the thread topic?

11/30/2007 1:05:46 PM

Yes, they deal with you personally, but if you scan around the forum many people have said that we don't mind some personal sniping as long as it doesn't completely derail the thread for 20 posts like the Chance/TT shit tends to do.

Anyhow, I'm out for a few hours, got a job interview.

[Edited on November 30, 2007 at 1:09 PM. Reason : .]

11/30/2007 1:09:11 PM

/message_topic.aspx?topic=504316&page=1#10981907

what about that duke?

11/30/2007 2:17:57 PM

If I were to insult myself in a particularly off-topic and defamatory extravaganza of copious vulgarity would that land me in the box ?

I like this new suspension of trolls rule, its fun.

11/30/2007 11:40:55 PM