Seeking expert guidance: How to write a proper defense?

That is straight-up spamming. It isn’t just a rule on this forum; it’s basic netiquette—something anyone claiming to have internet access should probably master before they even bother typing a single word anywhere online.

hiddenpuma75 said:I don't know if you'll believe me, but I have actually never read the forum rules.
Instead, I learned them through experience. If I hadn't been following the spirit of this place, neither the forum nor I would still be happily married after 20 years.😁

For instance, it took me a whole month to realize that Anderson isn't just a username, but the owner's actual last name.😲

And it’s only now, after two decades, that I've finally seen what the man actually looks like.😲

It's also my first time in 20 years of "marriage" to this forum encountering a rule about not splitting one single thought into three separate posts just for the sake of formatting and readability.🤔

I truly believe that the motivation behind someone's actions is what really matters.

My reasoning for splitting my long posts into two or three parts is simply to make them easier and more pleasant for others to read.

I think that's pretty fair, honestly.🙂

Does it really bother you that much when I do that? 🤔

It does.
What you think makes things more readable actually makes it harder for me as a reader to follow along.

Plus, it's a pain to skip over someone's content when they drop five posts in a row; habit makes you scroll from post to post, not from one username to the next.😁

So, yeah, the answer is yes—it bothers me. Can you change how you do it?

rowdyangler said:It does.
What you think makes things more readable actually makes it harder for me as a reader to follow along.

Plus, it's a pain to skip over someone's content when they drop five posts in a row; habit makes you scroll from post to post, not from one username to the next.😁

So, yeah, the answer is yes—it bothers me. Can you change how you do it?

I suppose once you put someone on ignore, the whole argument about readability kind of loses its meaning. 😁

If someone is truly bothering you, you can just use the ignore tool. It’s as simple as that!

Why on earth would anyone need to put him on ignore? Just because someone finds the constant spamming annoying doesn't mean they aren't interested in the actual content being shared.
One simply needs to adhere to the basic standards of conduct for a public medium like this forum and stop flooding threads with repetitive posts. If you want a perfect example of how absolutely *not* to behave on a forum, hiddenpuma75 provided one right here in this thread.

Casey Bennett said:Why on earth would anyone need to put him on ignore? Just because someone finds the constant spamming annoying doesn't mean they aren't interested in the actual content being shared.
One simply needs to adhere to the basic standards of conduct for a public medium like this forum and stop flooding threads with repetitive posts. If you want a perfect example of how absolutely *not* to behave on a forum, hiddenpuma75 provided one right here in this thread.

Well, if you're already looking to get someone permanently banned from the site, I guess it only makes sense to try the ignore button first before taking such a radical step. I mean, if you actually care about what someone is contributing, then you should probably just deal with their specific style—no matter how much it bugs you—rather than demanding they be kicked out entirely.

As for the forum rules, it feels a bit silly to even bring them up when they seem to be applied so inconsistently anyway. Over the last couple of years, and especially in these last few months, I feel like this whole place has gone completely off the rails. There is just endless spamming, trolling, provocation, clone accounts, and rule-breaking happening everywhere you look. It seems like most of the moderators don't really care at all; they might keep an eye on a few big, popular threads, but everything else seems to be totally neglected.

The only threads that stay active are the ones where the same old crowd hangs out together. They almost act like a pack of hyenas, being incredibly territorial whenever someone new tries to join the conversation.

The forum has much bigger issues to deal with than just Parsifal. He isn't vulgar, and he isn't crude. Nor is he such a massive spammer or troll that he deserves to be silenced forever. In my opinion, the attacks against him feel very personal and ideologically driven, which seems pretty obvious to me.

Casey Bennett said:Why on earth would anyone need to put him on ignore? Just because someone finds the constant spamming annoying doesn't mean they aren't interested in the actual content being shared.
One simply needs to adhere to the basic standards of conduct for a public medium like this forum and stop flooding threads with repetitive posts. If you want a perfect example of how absolutely *not* to behave on a forum, hiddenpuma75 provided one right here in this thread.

I think we’re looking at two different definitions of "spam."
Your definition seems more about technical rules, whereas mine is more about the actual substance.

To me, spamming means posting things that have nothing to do with the topic—just dropping short, repetitive posts of maybe 150 characters each. Snippets. Fragmented sentences.
The worst kind of spam is when someone jumps in immediately after another person just to interrupt them.

So, when I posted four times in a row, I did it purely for the sake of readability.
I wrote one very, very 😁 long response that followed a logical, chronological flow, and then I simply broke it down into three or four smaller sections.

My intention wasn't malicious; it was purely about the visual layout. 😉

Personally, I find it much easier and more enjoyable to read four separate entries of 500 characters rather than one massive wall of 2,000 characters with no paragraph breaks or chapters.

Besides, while I was doing it, I had no idea I was breaking any rules.
(I’d love for someone who is particularly devoted to the rulebook to point out exactly where it says I can't split an 1,800-character post into three 600-character ones.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Well, if you're already looking to get someone permanently banned from the site, I guess it only makes sense to try the ignore button first before taking such a radical step. I mean, if you actually care about what someone is contributing, then you should probably just deal with their specific style—no matter how much it bugs you—rather than demanding they be kicked out entirely.

As for the forum rules, it feels a bit silly to even bring them up when they seem to be applied so inconsistently anyway. Over the last couple of years, and especially in these last few months, I feel like this whole place has gone completely off the rails. There is just endless spamming, trolling, provocation, clone accounts, and rule-breaking happening everywhere you look. It seems like most of the moderators don't really care at all; they might keep an eye on a few big, popular threads, but everything else seems to be totally neglected.

The only threads that stay active are the ones where the same old crowd hangs out together. They almost act like a pack of hyenas, being incredibly territorial whenever someone new tries to join the conversation.

The forum has much bigger issues to deal with than just Parsifal. He isn't vulgar, and he isn't crude. Nor is he such a massive spammer or troll that he deserves to be silenced forever. In my opinion, the attacks against him feel very personal and ideologically driven, which seems pretty obvious to me.

The user who pointed out that hiddenpuma75 was spamming wasn't actually asking for his permanent ban. Quite the opposite, really.

Casey Bennett said:The user who pointed out that hiddenpuma75 was spamming wasn't actually asking for his permanent ban. Quite the opposite, really.

That one didn't, but there are certainly others who have. Or more accurately, they were just looking to get someone kicked off the PDF philosophy group.

Casey Bennett said:The user who pointed out that hiddenpuma75 was spamming wasn't actually asking for his permanent ban. Quite the opposite, really.

I wasn't just referring to that one specific person, though. There are others too. For instance, take this user who writes:

I would honestly love it if one of the moderators could just wipe all of Parsifal's posts from this thread—and maybe even from other threads as they relate to me—and just give him a PERMANENT BAN FROM PHILOSOPHY.
Please, I'm begging!

rowdyangler said:It does.
What you think makes things more readable actually makes it harder for me as a reader to follow along.

Plus, it's a pain to skip over someone's content when they drop five posts in a row; habit makes you scroll from post to post, not from one username to the next.😁

So, yeah, the answer is yes—it bothers me. Can you change how you do it?

I’ll try to keep my posts a bit shorter 😁, though not necessarily just to please you, but because I'm convinced people don't actually read long posts any more than I do😬

I'm genuinely curious if there's an actual rule stating you can't split an 1,800-character post into three 600-character chunks. This is the first time I've ever run into that.😲 Could someone please dig this up and provide a link or the specific wording? 😁

I'm still holding out hope that this falls into a gray area regarding how we interpret spam—basically, hoping there isn't an explicit rule against it somewhere.😲

Melissa Stewart6 said:That one didn't, but there are certainly others who have. Or more accurately, they were just looking to get someone kicked off the PDF philosophy group.

True, though not because of spamming.

hiddenpuma75, here you go.

Post flooding happens when a user drops several posts in a row—two or more, specifically—that are so short they really should have just been consolidated into one. We're talking about a window of maybe a few minutes; if you wait a few hours or a day, you've probably moved on to a completely different thought anyway.

Some users, mostly the newcomers, tend to dump every single sentence into a brand-new post, resulting in multiple consecutive online posts that actually need to be read as a single cohesive unit. Additionally, many forum members don't quite grasp how to use the multi-quote feature, so instead they quote one post with a tiny reply, then quote a second with another tiny reply, then a third... that qualifies as flooding too.

It isn't an issue if the posts are distinct or aren't directly linked (which is a bit tricky to explain; say, if a topic is complex and a user addresses various points over several sentences), but it becomes a total mess when someone writes every single sentence as a separate post that requires stitching together to make sense, or when we end up with a wall of quotes where every line of text is followed by a tiny response. It's especially egregious when someone quotes fifty lines of text just to reply to one tiny part (by the way, please only include the specific portion of the quote you are responding to, otherwise it's impossible to tell what your comment is even referring to amidst all that text).

Many subforums explicitly state in their rules that this shouldn't happen, requiring that anything intended to be written in one sitting—or within a few minutes—be kept in a single post. This prevents the page from being choked by endless quotes with minimal replies, or a stream of short, disconnected posts that look like they should have been one entry.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:I wasn't just referring to that one specific person, though. There are others too. For instance, take this user who writes:

I would honestly love it if one of the moderators could just wipe all of Parsifal's posts from this thread—and maybe even from other threads as they relate to me—and just give him a PERMANENT BAN FROM PHILOSOPHY.
Please, I'm begging!

But apparently, Sabovic's clone hiddenpuma75 didn't bother anyone, lol

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Well, if you're already looking to get someone permanently banned from the site, I guess it only makes sense to try the ignore button first before taking such a radical step. I mean, if you actually care about what someone is contributing, then you should probably just deal with their specific style—no matter how much it bugs you—rather than demanding they be kicked out entirely.

As for the forum rules, it feels a bit silly to even bring them up when they seem to be applied so inconsistently anyway. Over the last couple of years, and especially in these last few months, I feel like this whole place has gone completely off the rails. There is just endless spamming, trolling, provocation, clone accounts, and rule-breaking happening everywhere you look. It seems like most of the moderators don't really care at all; they might keep an eye on a few big, popular threads, but everything else seems to be totally neglected.

The only threads that stay active are the ones where the same old crowd hangs out together. They almost act like a pack of hyenas, being incredibly territorial whenever someone new tries to join the conversation.

The forum has much bigger issues to deal with than just Parsifal. He isn't vulgar, and he isn't crude. Nor is he such a massive spammer or troll that he deserves to be silenced forever. In my opinion, the attacks against him feel very personal and ideologically driven, which seems pretty obvious to me.

Trolls like you, you mean? I'll give you that.

Your whole "contribution" to this thread can basically be boiled down to suggesting an ignore, claiming Parsifal needs to be "driven out," and finally insisting the forum "has bigger problems."

With all three points, you didn't just miss the mark—you missed the entire stadium.
In the end, you actually managed to get under my skin enough to make me deal with your pathetic presence on this board.

My apologies to Parsifal for getting off track. But yeah, there are definitely users here who need a permanent ban much more than he does, if that makes you feel any better. 😁

Melissa Stewart6 said:But apparently, Sabovic's clone hiddenpuma75 didn't bother anyone, lol

And honestly, I think Jaran's dad is even more intense—he registered after Sabovic was banned from the forum, yet somehow, by some strange trick, he seems to know the entire history of everything Sabovic ever did😁

rowdyangler said:Trolls like you, you mean? I'll give you that.

Your whole "contribution" to this thread can basically be boiled down to suggesting an ignore, claiming Parsifal needs to be "driven out," and finally insisting the forum "has bigger problems."

With all three points, you didn't just miss the mark—you missed the entire stadium.
In the end, you actually managed to get under my skin enough to make me deal with your pathetic presence on this board.

My apologies to Parsifal for getting off track. But yeah, there are definitely users here who need a permanent ban much more than he does, if that makes you feel any better. 😁

How lame. 😁

I was actually under the impression you were away on vacation; at least, that’s what hiddenpuma75 seemed to hint at in one of his posts over on Philosophy. 🤣

Kenneth Cruz67 said:And honestly, I think Jaran's dad is even more intense—he registered after Sabovic was banned from the forum, yet somehow, by some strange trick, he seems to know the entire history of everything Sabovic ever did😁

What I mean to say is, are you suggesting I was just arguing with myself?

Casey Bennett said:True, though not because of spamming.

hiddenpuma75, here you go.

Post flooding happens when a user drops several posts in a row—two or more, specifically—that are so short they really should have just been consolidated into one. We're talking about a window of maybe a few minutes; if you wait a few hours or a day, you've probably moved on to a completely different thought anyway.

Some users, mostly the newcomers, tend to dump every single sentence into a brand-new post, resulting in multiple consecutive online posts that actually need to be read as a single cohesive unit. Additionally, many forum members don't quite grasp how to use the multi-quote feature, so instead they quote one post with a tiny reply, then quote a second with another tiny reply, then a third... that qualifies as flooding too.

It isn't an issue if the posts are distinct or aren't directly linked (which is a bit tricky to explain; say, if a topic is complex and a user addresses various points over several sentences), but it becomes a total mess when someone writes every single sentence as a separate post that requires stitching together to make sense, or when we end up with a wall of quotes where every line of text is followed by a tiny response. It's especially egregious when someone quotes fifty lines of text just to reply to one tiny part (by the way, please only include the specific portion of the quote you are responding to, otherwise it's impossible to tell what your comment is even referring to amidst all that text).

Many subforums explicitly state in their rules that this shouldn't happen, requiring that anything intended to be written in one sitting—or within a few minutes—be kept in a single post. This prevents the page from being choked by endless quotes with minimal replies, or a stream of short, disconnected posts that look like they should have been one entry.

Thanks for looking into this.
👍
I’ve read through everything carefully, and honestly, I don't think I'm in the wrong here. My situation doesn't actually fall under Nicin's rule or how she interprets it.
😲
What Nice is mostly addressing are the beginners who spam multiple quotes within a single new post.

She's talking about people who blast out a series of tiny, one-sentence posts in a row.

In my case, my lack of experience just meant I took one loooong post and split it into, say, three slightly shorter ones.
But I wasn't out there posting ten separate, one-sentence snippets as individual entries.

In fact, Nice actually allows for this "Parsifal-style manipulation" right here:😁

Just look at what she says:

'It isn't an issue if your posts are more specific or aren't strictly tied to one another (which is a bit harder to explain; if a topic is complex and you find yourself touching on various points over more than two sentences), but it becomes unreadable if you start putting every single sentence into its own new post.'

Melissa Stewart6 said:What I mean to say is, are you suggesting I was just arguing with myself?

It’s either that, or maybe we're looking at one permanently banned clone reporting another permanently banned clone.👍

hiddenpuma75 said:Thanks for looking into this.
👍
I’ve read through everything carefully, and honestly, I don't think I'm in the wrong here. My situation doesn't actually fall under Nicin's rule or how she interprets it.
😲
What Nice is mostly addressing are the beginners who spam multiple quotes within a single new post.

She's talking about people who blast out a series of tiny, one-sentence posts in a row.

In my case, my lack of experience just meant I took one loooong post and split it into, say, three slightly shorter ones.
But I wasn't out there posting ten separate, one-sentence snippets as individual entries.

In fact, Nice actually allows for this "Parsifal-style manipulation" right here:😁

Just look at what she says:

'It isn't an issue if your posts are more specific or aren't strictly tied to one another (which is a bit harder to explain; if a topic is complex and you find yourself touching on various points over more than two sentences), but it becomes unreadable if you start putting every single sentence into its own new post.'

Yeah, you were splitting your posts up for no reason. You used to do that all the time with those lists of ten or more items—writing 1, 2, 3 in one post, then 4, 5 in the next, and 6, 7, 8 in another... just making things way more complicated than they needed to be.
That’s a direct violation of the rules. And look, I'll say it again: if you’ve been a member of this forum for twenty years and you still haven't bothered to adopt the basic standards of being a member here, then I really have to wonder—why haven't you?

And here we go again. Every time the moderator lays down a rule, you just claim it doesn't apply to you, acting like we shouldn't follow the rules or the law like some bunch of drunks. 🤦

I notice it too, and despite all that nonsense, I’m not saying you should be banned from the forum.
Look, your behavior is making it impossible for me to defend you. After hearing the same thing over and over again, I’m starting to wonder if you actually want a solution to this at all.

Do you actually see any issue with how you carry yourself on this forum, or anything that would bother the other members here? Aside from your obvious grudge against Josip Broz Marshall, obviously.

rowdyangler said:Trolls like you, you mean? I'll give you that.

Your whole "contribution" to this thread can basically be boiled down to suggesting an ignore, claiming Parsifal needs to be "driven out," and finally insisting the forum "has bigger problems."

With all three points, you didn't just miss the mark—you missed the entire stadium.
In the end, you actually managed to get under my skin enough to make me deal with your pathetic presence on this board.

My apologies to Parsifal for getting off track. But yeah, there are definitely users here who need a permanent ban much more than he does, if that makes you feel any better. 😁

I want everyone to know this.

In all my twenty years on this forum, I haven't felt the need to put a single person on my ignore list.😲

I have never once gone out of my way to report someone or actively push for anyone to be banned from this forum. Honestly, the idea just feels wrong to me. 😲

I was only ever complaining about the moderators' conduct during standard procedures—or, if we’re talking about a clash of perspectives, I was addressing the ideas being thrown around by other members when they misinterpreted my own thoughts and actions.

4) I’ve honestly never been one to go around clicking that little red warning triangle to report posts.
I honestly wasn't quite sure how this all worked, where it was heading, or even what I actually needed to get out of it. 🤔

In my twenty years on this forum, I have never encountered behavior quite as frustrating as what we’ve seen from Adis Sabovic lately. Over the last two or three months, he has been absolutely spiraling, popping up under all sorts of different usernames just to spout his frantic nonsense across various threads. It's honestly been some of the most exhausting behavior I've had to witness here.

It’s actually quite easy to see how I might have even come across as friendly toward him. In fact, I was practically coaching him to lean into that "villain" persona—telling him he needs to play the part just as much as we all have to put up with him.

Honestly, the guy is just completely unhinged. He’s been going after the women he used to date with this totally unpredictable, aggressive style—using everything from verbal attacks to outright threats. It's wild. 😲 It’s the kind of behavior that psychiatry students just can't help but notice. My colleague Neo actually found Adis Sabovic's behavior quite charming, and she wasn't shy about saying so out loud. 😲

That kind of guy didn't bother our Nice, and Voltaire just kept his mouth shut. 😉

It’s just more proof that, at the end of the day, we’re about 80% emotional or even just plain irrational beings.

If someone truly loves you, they’ll find a way to rationalize about 80% of your shadows and all your mess.

11. If someone just happens to rub them the wrong way—take hiddenpuma75, for instance—they’ll end up dismissing about 80% of his work on philosophy as nothing more than spam. Or, they'll go full Neo and try to claim there's some kind of pornography hidden in it.