I just noticed that Baron Max has been given a lengthy ban for trolling. I never really considered Baron a troll, just cynical and having a tendency to criticise perceived flaws in the arguments of other posters. So I was wondering if it was possible that some examples of Baron's 'trolling' could be supplied. That way all members would know what constitutes trolling, and how to avoid engaging in it. Also, does the moderation consider it appropriate for a member to receive a ban from a moderator (err, administrator) he was debating an issue with immediately prior to said ban? This happened to S.A.M, and now it's happening to Baron (who is considered by some to be the other side of the same coin).
Trolling is in the eye of the beholder with the power to shut down your opinion. Apparently, we are all a social experiment and conformity is the key.
You.. You mean... You mean there's no favouritism? AMG! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I wonder, how long until Tiassa enters and screams out about how this ban is unfair and biased as he did previously with another member? I wonder if he is going to fight as valiantly for Baron as he did for another member? He has remained quite silent thus far in this thread..
The Baron is like peanut butter. You have to develop a taste for him. He always makes me laugh, but then I can see right through his contrary soul. What has always struck me about his arguments is that he is never wilfully malicious or unkind. I've never seen anything he's said that could constitute a bannable offense, as yet. But like my case, people who have a low tolerance for having their opinions questioned will find him hard to swallow because he doesn't let up and in many cases, what he presents is the real world view [which is not always rational or even easy to take]
More like vegemite. Who doesn't like peanut butter?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I have to admit, I laughed out loud at the irony of that statement! Not because of you, as such, but because of what went on while you were away. I now await his defense of by one of my former colleagues with bated breath. And Sam.. Welcome back!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yeah, but they're freaks!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Then again, so is my son when he sneaks into the pantry and eats the stuff with a spoon.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Blech. Now eating Nutella with a spoon, that's decadence. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ifs and buts and maybes and all that stupid shit Gee, maybe I've had a life this week? What? It's not impossible. To the other, the record is spotty. I'm torn between holding my associates to their claims of the scientific method, and my prior experience with the idea that one should just look and see what the other sees, and everything will be rosy. At present there's nothing to protest insofar as I don't know what post did it. Then again, as you're calling me to a similar defense, perhaps you could make establish that there is a similar offense on James' part. You know, just maybe.
I was quite amazed by that thread, to be honest. I haven't been paying all that much attention lately, but still it was eye opener to see how strange we've all become here at sciforums. Its like a microcosm of the real world, with illusion becoming the face of reality. Some of the things I was asked to clarify by email were even more bizarre, especially since none of my accusers could even put together a coherent argument of what constituted my offence besides the admission that it was there [waves arms vaguely in circular motions] somewhere. It was a lesson in the failure of comprehension. Apparently my superpowers extend from bending the laws of grammar to inducing people to lose the ability to comprehend what they read so much so that special unique and new rules have to be invented to deal with my major crimes. Quite sad really, to see what sciforums has sunk to.
The length of the ban is because Max has previously been banned for 1 day, 3 days and 7 days. The next step in the process is 14 days, which is his current suspension time. If he is banned again, next time will be 1 month. The time after that will be permanent. Click on his name and review his recent posts. In particular, note how many times he repeated points that had previously been debunked. Note also that I personally warned him not to troll in at least 3 separate threads. In my time zone, Baron's last post prior to being banned was at 5:12 am. My first post of the day was at 9:34 am. There was no debate immediately prior to the ban. Baron Max was offline when I banned him. In fact, our times online rarely coincide, since we are in different time zones. S.A.M. was given a full 24 hours to apologise for libel. She was not banned immediately after debating an issue with me, either. -- For a new member, mordea, you seem very concerned to inject yourself into arguments with moderators here all of a sudden. It's almost as if you've been here before under a different name. It's almost as if you're a sock puppet. If you were, of course, I would have noticed almost immediately you signed up. If I did, hypothetically, notice that you were a sock puppet, then just maybe I might have decided to tolerate you rather than immediately banning you (again), on the basis that perhaps you'd grown up a little since your last visit here. If, hypothetically, it were to turn out that you've decided to return to your old ways, then I couldn't see you lasting much longer here. Of course, all this is hypothetical. There's a lesson here, though, to potential users of sock puppets - don't stick your head up when you come back as a sock, or you risk being noticed. Best wishes, mordea.
How exciting for you! Quite the contrary. I, as your former associate, asked that you not be so biased. And your opportunity is here and now. One of the very people who questioned her ban is questioning his in a very similar manner. So where is your well worded defense? Surprising really, considering how such things are recorded. You have the inside track. I am not disagreeing with his ban. Just as I didn't disagree with the other ban. You're the one who annointed yourself the defender of the right and demanding fairness and no bias, because apparently he was biased in banning her. Tell me Tiassa, was he biased in banning him, in your opinion? Are you biased in not defending him? Oh wait, that's right.. This time it's Baron who has been banned..Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You ought to read the thread called "s.a.m." (For the record, I have never emailed SAM.) Do you wish to reopen the issue, SAM? If so, I urge you to discuss it with me by PM. Of course, we can rerun Tiassa's "s.a.m." thread if you wish. My advice to you is to let it go. Meh.
That is so bizarre a conclusion that I can only assume that you are also developing the disease by which you can only see the words that pop into your consciousness while reading big words and long sentences. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
We can't always agree on everything, Sam. Just because we don't agree on everything does not mean that we are dishonest as a result.
we...are...dishonest Well I'm glad we got that sorted out. Is that how its done?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
