Posts by casualharbor9

Alex Lopez5 said:well, kid 🙂
...
rather, I believe the rules strictly prohibit starting threads dedicated to specific forum members, so I’d suggest the moderators take that into account. That's all.

... you're just a shining example of what I was getting at in my first post (in the fine print, if you can call it that)...

Look, I really don't have an issue with you personally (based on the two or three posts of yours I've actually seen)—you're actually quite decent for a clone. And I'm certainly not some sensitive soul who gets wounded by lukewarm criticism—honestly, if I were moderating, I'd probably ban you myself just for such uninspired, weak trolling. But this goes deeper than that. It’s about creating a playground for manipulation, the kind of behavior that easily spills over into real life (even if the site admins explicitly disclaim any responsibility for it)...

steeleagle70 said:Under the current rules, everyone is free to run around with clones—hell, you can have hundreds if that’s what you feel like doing. But there is one catch: you aren't allowed to use 99 different accounts to bypass a ban while one of them is sitting out. Once the ban is served and everything is squared away, sure, you're back in the clear to post from all 100 accounts again. Simple enough, right?

I honestly think the rules need a serious overhaul here. As they stand, a dedicated troll could just farm up to 80 cards, jump to a fresh clone, hit 80 again, move to the next one, and so on. It’s an endless loop of trolling through clones, and if none of them actually trigger a ban, there’s nothing stopping the cycle. How is that supposed to work?

We really need to get some actual rules in place to manage this. It’s getting to a point where things just need some structure.

See, this is exactly what I’m talking about! That's one of the key issues right there. Sure, it’s technically possible for someone to log in using multiple different addresses, but let’s be real—those instances are pretty rare.

... I can't believe it... actually, yes I can; I just remembered that ridiculous "blinders" invention from back in the day...

@jesenija, here is my honest 😘

Alex Lopez5 said:...

... honestly, I'd tell you a whole lot more flattering things, but the forum rules won't let me...

... what on earth?

I was just trying to float some high-level thoughts regarding the logic behind this forum's rules—purely out of good faith and in a relaxed tone—but apparently, people are catching fish in a net I haven't even cast yet... I don't consider the aforementioned post to be a violation of any rules, nor do I find it offensive, and I’m certainly not trying to hijack the thread (even though that very post serves as a perfect illustration of the point being made here)... but let’s move past that for a moment...

@Lisa Hernandez3, weren't you the one who once passionately defended the idea that a user sometimes simply can't detach themselves from the topic they are representing, on the very subforum you now moderate? (Do I really need to dig up the link?) You say "technically speaking"... and at the same time, you position yourself as such an expert on the human psyche that you can judge what constitutes truth versus lies, or a joke versus reality?
Let me tell you what's actually bothering me: a mountain of common-sense nonsense threads being kicked off in the Psychology section (and elsewhere, since you're pulling my leg here...), started by users with exactly zero posts who rarely ever move beyond that number, all while attempting to project an air of profound seriousness. And heaven forbid anyone questions them if it doesn't fit the "vibe" of the subforum... for instance: our esteemed colleague @Alex Lopez5 expressed doubt regarding the motives of a certain thread starter (whether argued or not—I'd say not), but when I (not that I mind, this is just an illustration of the illogic) write the exact same thing in another thread, my comment is deleted without a single word of explanation... Is @Alex Lopez5 your clone? Are you someone's clone? If so, why?

So, my question for the entity shaping this forum is this: what is the purpose of forum rules that pro forma prohibit disrupting serious discussions (so-called trolling or spamming), when the system simultaneously allows or even encourages the disruption of entire subforums by letting people open short-lived profiles to babble whatever they want?

To be clear, I’m not against new users opening threads—it's hard to gauge authenticity, after all—but when someone who has established themselves on this forum with hundreds or thousands of posts creates a brand-new account that acts as their diametric opposite, and that account receives various interactions, shouldn't we question the motive? What is the point of registering at all if cloning is perfectly acceptable? Do I really need to start citing specific examples?
Are we going to open a new user account for every single subforum and thread??

Or is the trick this: that I can essentially bypass the rules however I please, and when I get too close to a ban, I simply open a pristine, virgin profile and carry on with the same behavior... indefinitely? And then, "beautifully," it all shows up in the site statistics, making the forum look like the most visited or most registered site in the entire universe?

Please, enlighten me... I just need to know what I'm wasting electricity on, and how I should proceed... someone else, please...

I honestly think you’re the star of the show tonight. Even on a thread dedicated entirely to yourself, you’ve managed to attract two or three sycophants who just sit there showering you with praise, obsessing over your "sharp wit" or how cool your username is. I get the impression this whole persona is designed specifically to feed that ego—you use this specific tone just to keep the spotlight on you. I’m not quite sure what everyone is so worked up about, though; from where I’m sitting, you just post about the usual daily political nonsense (aka spam). Sorry, I haven't read every single one of your posts—do I need to resign from being a user now?

http://www.example-us-forum.com/showthread.php?t=540915&page=4

... @Alex Lopez5, registered since November 2008, only eight total posts (I've only seen one), yet suddenly they feel the need to weigh in on this specific user—someone they haven't even acknowledged in a year and a half. Does anyone else think it's time for a reality check regarding the forum rules on sockpuppet accounts? Or are we just supposed to register a new clone for every single comment? Isn't that a little pathetic? Or is it all just about the numbers? (The US forums always seem to have the highest traffic, the most reading, the most endless bickering, blah blah blah...)

Can someone please tell the clueless average Joe how things actually work here, so we don't waste electricity and paid data on nothing...

... there are a million clearer examples out there if I really need to go digging...

... and yeah, why am I even writing this: trolling is technically against the rules, but as a user, I can apparently be Dr. Jekyll and Hyde across different threads? It seems completely pointless and unnecessary... or am I mistaken?

I'm currently working my way through "child 44." If you have any interest in how those kinds of societies function, I’d definitely recommend picking it up...

... Thnx, maybe some other time... we have our own nightmares to deal with here, and honestly, it feels like things might get even worse...
Regarding Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, I practically wrote that myself (I picked up certain ideas on Marxism from some poorly translated French texts)... yeah, I'm familiar with the whole Cambodia situation (there's actually a great movie about it: "The Killing Fields")... absolutely horrific...

One of the logical leaps they took was this: "all intellectuals are enemies of the people" (which was a total misinterpretation of Marxism) => "intellectuals read a lot, so they ruin their eyes and wear glasses" => "everyone wearing glasses is an enemy" => "if you don't wear glasses, you can't read"... the end result? Once they ran out of people with glasses, they started wiping out the illiterate "intellectuals" too... The Vietnamese did a service there... though I suppose it was meant to provide some sort of balance for the Americans in the region...

... Look, I’m telling you, they’ve twisted the whole concept into something perverse. It’s what happens when you take a misunderstood Marxist doctrine and mash it together with a warped version of traditional Eastern philosophy, all filtered through the mindset of a totally primitive, uneducated populace. The result? A mass nightmare...

edit: I’m talking about North Korea and similar regimes here. I’m not looking to start a debate about our own country, though I might actually find common ground with some of you on certain points...

This brings to mind some TV documentary from about 15 years ago; I think a BBC reporter was doing a semi-legal trek through some forbidden territories—places where people were teetering on the edge of starvation, and you could actually find human meat being sold under the table at a local city market... if I recall correctly, this was all still happening back while Kim Il-Sung was alive.
No regime has managed to cultivate such perverse levels of totalitarianism quite like certain Far East dictatorships. This North Korean situation feels eerily similar to what China went through during the Cultural Revolution... though one might argue the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia were actually worse (to them, even the Maoists—who used to force "deviant" party members to beat themselves with rulebooks until they passed out—were considered excessive).
And honestly, I find it hard to believe that Kim Jong-Il (is he still around?) ruled any better than his uncle did.
Things weren't exactly perfect here, but compared to them, we had it a little better...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-K9fv_oRvI

... obviously... clearly you haven't a clue...

... you didn't... you really didn't... you're just playing games... we were all exactly the same back then, just kids... but what ends up scarring a person? That stuff goes incredibly deep, and it stays with you forever...

... I wouldn't go that far... mine was actually serving time for sexual assault, specifically during his last few sentences...

... I'm not playing games here... if you really want to test me, go ahead... (though I have a feeling you won't)

... my brother has spent about three-quarters of his life behind bars... the only thing keeping him on the straight and narrow is the desperate hope he doesn't have to spend that final one-quarter back in a cell...

lonegardener said:The moment you label someone a troll, you’re essentially claiming to be some kind of expert psychologist.

To actually be a "troll," a person has to have the specific INTENT of provoking an emotional reaction. That raises the question: how can anyone—even a moderator—really know what a user's true "intent" is? It’s incredibly difficult to determine. We haven't exactly invented a mind-reading device yet.

It’s a logic problem similar to calling someone a liar. For something to be a "lie," the speaker has to KNOW they are stating a falsehood. If you say something untrue simply because you believe it to be true, you aren't lying; you're just mistaken. Lying requires conscious deception. So, when you tell someone they're "lying," you're implying you have insight into their private thoughts and beliefs. Most of the time, you don't. 😬 Sure, sometimes you might have hard evidence that someone knows they're being dishonest, but usually, you're just guessing. Despite that, certain people just love throwing the word "liar" around. 🙄

Edit: Case in point. This post isn't "trolling"; it's just me going off-topic. LOL. My goal here isn't to trigger an emotional outburst. 🤣

... though you can sometimes pick up on hints, or just look at the context of the thread itself (topics like "intolerance" or whatever else? please 🤣 )

The issue is pretty much the same as when you call someone a 'liar.' For something to qualify as a 'lie,' the person saying it has to KNOW it isn't true. It isn't really 'lying' if you state something false without realizing it's incorrect. No, lying is specifically the conscious act of stating a falsehood. So, when you tell someone they're 'lying,' you're essentially claiming to know exactly what that person thinks, knows, or believes. And more often than not, that assumption is wrong. 😬 In other words, occasionally it's true—maybe you actually have proof they know they're being dishonest—but most of the time, you don't. Despite that, certain people just love walking around calling everyone else liars. 🙄

... exactly; some people are 200% convinced of their own nonsense, which at least leaves some room for debate... when a topic is clearly trolling, the only appropriate response is either to ignore it or try to de-escalate it (within reasonable bounds, obviously)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d9UIbCOseQ

Lisa Hernandez3 said:No, we're just going to troll them, obviously!

There you go! Now you're the one trolling! Please, just give me a single hint! ... what kind of color are you actually into? hmpf!

Aaron Anderson72 said:I just meant if they're acting like trolls, then yeah, they should be worried!

Anyway, I'm gonna go troll someone else. I'm too scared of Lisa Hernandez3 to stay here! 🙂

? So what now? They're scared of a troll? Why aren't they scared of actually getting caught?

... so, are we really going to start drawing lines in the sand between the moderators and the regular users now? Or what?

Aaron Anderson72 said:Nah, I meant this one:

😂😂😂😂😂

wearyangler5, how can you say they aren't tense?
The Dupins aren't exactly from this country 😵 , they communicate spiritually (like telepathy) or whatever...
Yeah, they're way more advanced than humans!

... well, I suppose it's just a PDF alternative after all... 🤷