What's actually ridiculous, JJG, is for you to be repeatedly distraught that people "[..] definitely don't know enough about you to make such statements/claims..", while at the same time alleging that Octaft is disingenuous & imply that he could not possibly be 'coming from a place of higher knowledge..' when anyone of good cognizance who's been following his posting will definitely substantiate that he's one of the more erudite minds around here who don't get biased easily & are diligent in their intellectual approach.
I am NOT sure where how you are concluding that I am “distraught?” I merely made a statement that a person cannot really know you from your posts. I have made that same assertion in other contexts. Octaft and others sometimes attempt to conclude too much from the posts of others, and I have experienced that. It does NOT make me distraught, but sometimes, I would like to point out when a conclusion is going too far and is NOT based on facts or actuality.
I did suggest that Octaft is being disingenuous during times when he is reaching conclusions that are NOT based on the record. I did NOT suggest that he was NOT coming from a place of higher knowledge, but that it is insulting when he put on the hat as if he were suggesting that he is coming from a place of higher knowledge. Really, it is NOT possible to put on such a hat, if a poster does NOT know enough of the relevant facts and to assume knowledge of facts that are NOT on the table.
I see. Thanks for clarifying, it makes a tad more sense now, so I'll just pass the benefit of the doubt.. I just think the term 'disingenuous' per se doesn't apply for the meaning you intend to convey - perhaps something like 'uninformed' or even 'ignorant' would be far more accurate [does not/can not know the posters that well, from a distance].
+1 that judicious, discerning & productive moderation isn't easy or clear-cut at all, and that heavy moderation is digressive, censory & stupid.
I do NOT disagree with the above statement, and I believe the above statement is NOT inconsistent with anything that I said.
I'd like to believe that ; however, there's a problem :
[..]
Yes, I stated my opinion that the forum would be better with more policing and/or elimination of trolls. However, I do NOT really expect it to change anytime soon b/c there seems to be considerable tolerance for trolls in this forum. I will deal with the antagonism, but I remain unafraid to express my preference for better moderation.
Emphasis mine. Promoting more/better policing, moderation, elimination of what is to be classified as a 'troll' and 'trolling'. I think it's fair to say that the ^ above represents 'heavy moderation' which my statement qualified as being 'digressive, censory, stupid' ; a statement which you claimed to consistently agree with, when it's actually in dire contrast with what you've stated you'd prefer, before. =/
The reason it's generally a bad idea in the end to 'censor & police trolls' is because nobody knows what a troll is. It's so subjective, so ill-defined. There's no reasonable consensus on such definitions. Literally takes a Ph.D-level of sociological insight into behavioral psychology, cognitive biases, human nature & internet culture to make an enlightened, substantive, quality assessment of what's to be classified as trolling and what isn't.
Look at mah87's Ripplespam. The kid truly believes this stuff. Or at least does a damn good job fooling everyone that he's as dense as he appears. No matter the 'bear-with-me' efforts by none other than Blitz at confronting his madness w/ XRP-concerning facts. I think in all common sense almost everybody in this thread would agree there is virtually zero loss of any kind in the prospect of banning/censoring him, at least until he demonstrates convincing willingness to change his inane, devoid-of-substance, spammy ways.
And yet, I'm
pretty sure that's not the only 'troll', or level/obviousness of trolling/useless unwantedness, that you would see curtailed. People of your opinion, which the likes of Octaft & I are wary against, almost invariably mean 'extremely but
subjectively disruptive, annoying, controversial, unpopular, and/or politically incorrect views' in your definition of 'troll'.
See that's where the core of the problem lies. According to this broad, biased yet genuinely shared (among a vast majority of internet population) view of what quantifies as trolling, I'm a troll. Blitz is a troll. Mat is. Fonz & Jorge are. TERA is. Even WindJC & Risto have been admonished as such. Our perspectives are fresh, fringe, unpopular. We disrupt, annoy, raise controversy. We may even be politically incorrect. So, this is trolling..? Hmm? This is what we shove in the same basket as mah87 & chromosoma's irrational, fatuous, asinine repetitive garbage, the prima facie characterization of 'spam'..
?
Jay, my friend, you have an incredible knack for using a lot of words to say nothing.
+1 I had to ignore him for this.. not that anything he says or does particularly disturbs me..
but wall of text battles are just.. a big waste of time.
[..]
FTFY..? Or did you actually mean that you find the rather concise stuff I've put out in the last few weeks (as much as I could make it) to be a bunch of overwordy text-wall drivel..
And so, were implying, from the reference to who Jay was '..having wall of text battles with..' that I'm just a troll..? (Whatever the definition of..
