Oh hell yeah.
I'll freely and openly admit that I was viewed as a troll way back when I thought the "flame free forum" meant no gay people allowed.
And I still do have fun time and again.
But there's a certain common sense involved in partaking in topics. And his participation in that topic would've been one that my own personal ethics would've stopped me from doing. Regardless of how funny or amusing it was/is/might have been.
I think I see a trend here.
Babyshambles says something socially off balance and then someone verbally attacks him for it by saying something like "That was just WRONG! You bastard!", or something like that. Then, he gets pissed because he has to go on the defensive and explain how he had good intentions to a group that already sees him as being malicious.
He defends himself, angry that someone has misinterpreted his unskillful behavior with bad intentions, thus, turning this into a character attack, and says something even more inappropriate due to his hostility at having to defend himself.
Then, gossip goes on behind closed doors. People call him names in private and attack his character in anger instead of non-judgmentally explaining why what he did was inappropriate. So, babyshambles, not wanting anyone to have an unfavorable opinion of him, has no choice but to go out in public and state his case. He has a better chance of doing this in public because social ostracism and gossip only work in secrecy. He knows that if brought out in the open, people will criticize his criticizers and there might be a chance of him regaining a favorable position for himself.
Finally, when babyshambles regains his good position, he bounces back to scold his offenders. This makes them even more pissed because they can't attack him back after they've personally shown their actions are no better than shambles actions. So, they brew and harbor until the next time he says something out of line and it keeps getting worse and worse.
Obviously, Shambles is being manipulative but I think the reason why he's being manipulative is more interesting.
I think I see a trend here.
Babyshambles says something socially off balance and then someone verbally attacks him for it by saying something like "That was just WRONG! You bastard!", or something like that. Then, he gets pissed because he has to go on the defensive and explain how he had good intentions to a group that already sees him as being malicious.
He defends himself, angry that someone has misinterpreted his unskillful behavior with bad intentions, thus, turning this into a character attack, and says something even more inappropriate due to his hostility at having to defend himself.
Then, gossip goes on behind closed doors. People call him names in private and attack his character in anger instead of non-judgmentally explaining why what he did was inappropriate. So, babyshambles, not wanting anyone to have an unfavorable opinion of him, has no choice but to go out in public and state his case. He has a better chance of doing this in public because social ostracism and gossip only work in secrecy. He knows that if brought out in the open, people will criticize his criticizers and there might be a chance of him regaining a favorable position for himself.
Finally, when babyshambles regains his good position, he bounces back to scold his offenders. This makes them even more pissed because they can't attack him back after they've personally shown their actions are no better than shambles actions. So, they brew and harbor until the next time he says something out of line and it keeps getting worse and worse.
Obviously, Shambles is being manipulative but I think the reason why he's being manipulative is more interesting.
No, no, no.
I have suffered enough heartache of my own to know that it is NOT funny to laugh at someone else's misfortune or to kick them when they're down.
I wanted to post in that thread when I first saw it, but I thought better of it, but I felt I had an obligation to share my thoughts with the man as the thread wore on.
Even popular girls like Annie Hall get grief when they express an opinion which some people don't like.
Wait, you're saying the TMF is responsible for his trolling behavior? Really?
No, no, no.
I have suffered enough heartache of my own to know that it is NOT funny to laugh at someone else's misfortune or to kick them when they're down.
I wanted to post in that thread when I first saw it, but I thought better of it, but I felt I had an obligation to share my thoughts with the man as the thread wore on.
Just pay shipping and handling.
As sasaxrah noted, an opinion does not demand to be said simply by existing. If something will be hurtful or negative, it's probably best not to say it. Exercising this restraint goes a long way to keeping discussion calm and fruitful. As the rule notes, this doesn't tell us we can only say something positive. Sometimes a negative opinion exists. The key is to make it constructive. Let's take the post in Gothfreak's thread. Was it necessarily evil? Perhaps not. Was it constructive when placed against the purpose of the thread? No, and this is important. Gothfreak sought support and help; that post wasn't either. If what you say does not constructively add to and support the purpose of a thread, don't post it.If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all.
This doesn't mean that people can't disagree with other people, but it does mean that everyone who wishes to post here is required to go out of their way to make sure that they are being constructive and positive. We are a forum, a place for discussing ideas, and anything that doesn't contribute to the business of doing that is unproductive and unwelcome. Just because we have freedom of speech in the United States, doesn't mean that anyone can say anything they want while the Senate is in session.
The TMF requires a similar level of decorum from its users, and we are always in session. Intelligent disagreement and debate are encouraged and welcome. Simple negativity is not. For example, if you don't like a story, saying why is encouraged and welcome. Saying that it's "lame" is not.
Wait, you're saying the TMF is responsible for his trolling behavior? Really?
No, no, no.
I have suffered enough heartache of my own to know that it is NOT funny to laugh at someone else's misfortune or to kick them when they're down.
I wanted to post in that thread when I first saw it, but I thought better of it, but I felt I had an obligation to share my thoughts with the man as the thread wore on.
Since we seem to be circling that vortex, it might be a good time to remember the first rule of the TMF, the Golden Rule. I quote:
As sasaxrah noted, an opinion does not demand to be said simply by existing. If something will be hurtful or negative, it's probably best not to say it. Exercising this restraint goes a long way to keeping discussion calm and fruitful. As the rule notes, this doesn't tell us we can only say something positive. Sometimes a negative opinion exists. The key is to make it constructive. Let's take the post in Gothfreak's thread. Was it necessarily evil? Perhaps not. Was it constructive when placed against the purpose of the thread? No, and this is important. Gothfreak sought support and help; that post wasn't either. If what you say does not constructively add to and support the purpose of a thread, don't post it.
This goes for every member on the forum. And, I might add, responding to such a nonconstructive post with equal anger is just as wrong. Report the problems and, if not dealt with quickly, PM an online mod. We all don't receive all reports; the current mods might not have any idea something is amiss if it happens outside their sections. By attacking a bad post, you make our jobs harder and yourselves violate the GR, no matter how good your intentions.
If this thread was to turn against me again, these haters would come back out with their personal attacks on me, causing me to get defensive again.
These same haters seem to require persmission to insult me. They come out time and again when they see my chips are down to kick me in the balls.
I definitely find this a salient lesson in human behaviour, as much as anything else
I think I see a trend here.
Babyshambles says something socially off balance and then someone verbally attacks him for it by saying something like "That was just WRONG! You bastard!", or something like that. Then, he gets pissed because he has to go on the defensive and explain how he had good intentions to a group that already sees him as being malicious.
He defends himself, angry that someone has misinterpreted his unskillful behavior with bad intentions, thus, turning this into a character attack, and says something even more inappropriate due to his hostility at having to defend himself.
Then, gossip goes on behind closed doors. People call him names in private and attack his character in anger instead of non-judgmentally explaining why what he did was inappropriate. So, babyshambles, not wanting anyone to have an unfavorable opinion of him, has no choice but to go out in public and state his case. He has a better chance of doing this in public because social ostracism and gossip only work in secrecy. He knows that if brought out in the open, people will criticize his criticizers and there might be a chance of him regaining a favorable position for himself.
Finally, when babyshambles regains his good position, he bounces back to scold his offenders. This makes them even more pissed because they can't attack him back after they've personally shown their actions are no better than shambles actions. So, they brew and harbor until the next time he says something out of line and it keeps getting worse and worse.
Obviously, Shambles is being manipulative but I think the reason why he's being manipulative is more interesting.
Goth's girlfriend had a panic attack (or something, doesn't matter) and left him high and dry, causing him severe emotional and mental stress = Goth was down.
You then told him that maybe she left because she didn't really love him and had been plotting for some time to run away from him = you kicking Goth.
Now I might agree with ya here if I havent repeatedly pmed this man on several occasions to tell him what he was doing was not right...
I did not see any of this tonight but upon reading through the responses no one called him anything until he repeated the offense...then he "called out " the owner of the forum...
LOL wut? Sorry but your arguments hold no water here......
sorry to disagree ray, but i was called a troll and a shit stirrer by skip, and then when i reported this to a mod i got a mail from jeff calling me a sithead and then i publicly called jeff out
I disagree.
I really don't like your behavior, but I don't feel I've kicked you in the balls within this thread once.
Just because you're not hearing what you want to, doesn't mean that people automatically hate you.
They might hate you for a completely different reason.
You publicly called him out? Is that what this OP was about?
Isn't that stirring shit though?
Wasn't aforementioned shit being stirred?
Jesus Christ. What an asshole.
I see it now when you put it like that.
That is about as wrong as it gets.
Sorry.
This screams of sarcasm. If it is, you're making it even more difficult for me to believe your mea culpa a few minutes ago.
Actually, you've made it quite clear, probably about 7-10 times, that you reported me for calling you a shit stirrer and a troll. I think people have probably gotten the point by now. But just outta curiosity, can we expect you to dramatically reveal that you reported me for calling you a shit stirrer and a troll a few more times? Or is this it?i called him out AFTER he called me a shit head.
he called me a shithead when i reported SKIP privately for calling me a troll and a shit stirrer (which no one knew about until now)
he may have also reacted when i reported jeff's post to a mod in which he said some mildly insulting things about me.
