Release List Reviews Shop Join News DVD Giveaways Video Games Advertise
DVD Reviews | Theatrical Reviews | Price Search Buy Stuff Here
DVD Talk
DVD Reviews DVD Talk Headlines HD Reviews


Add to My Yahoo! - RSS 2.0 - RSS 2.0 - DVD Talk Podcast RSS -


Go Back   DVD Talk Forum > Feedback > Forum Feedback and Support

Forum Feedback and Support Post forum feedback and related problems, here.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-26-17, 06:02 PM   #1
DVD Talk Legend
 
Bacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: on somone's ignore list
Posts: 20,478
multi-quote limit?

there is a certain poster in politics who keeps abusing the multi-quote function
perhaps a limit of 5 multi-quote per member per thread thread?
 
Old 05-26-17, 07:36 PM   #2
DVD Talk Legend
 
Nick Danger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 19,656
Re: multi-quote limit?

Nope. Not when threads run above ten thousand posts.
__________________
Originally Posted by Troy Stiffler: Nick is the coolest!
 
Old 05-26-17, 09:03 PM   #3
Time Lord
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 53,226
Re: multi-quote limit?

A per-thread limit wouldn't work, but a per-post limit could be a reasonable compromise. Or maybe creek could stop spamming the multiquote and just report Lt. Ripley if he feels Ripley's posts are unreasonable.
__________________
Never stop punching fascists.
Stop employing thugs and murderers: Abolish police, abolish the military.
 
Old 05-26-17, 09:21 PM   #4
DVD Talk Legend
 
Nick Danger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 19,656
Re: multi-quote limit?

Should we replace single multiquote posts with multiple posts?

Whatever we think of their arguments, Creek and Ripley are following the rules.
__________________
Originally Posted by Troy Stiffler: Nick is the coolest!
 
Old 05-27-17, 05:23 AM   #5
DVD Talk Legend
 
creekdipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 17,970
Re: multi-quote limit?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacon View Post
there is a certain poster in politics who keeps abusing the multi-quote function
perhaps a limit of 5 multi-quote per member per thread thread?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supermallet View Post
A per-thread limit wouldn't work, but a per-post limit could be a reasonable compromise. Or maybe creek could stop spamming the multiquote and just report Lt. Ripley if he feels Ripley's posts are unreasonable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Danger View Post
Should we replace single multiquote posts with multiple posts?

Whatever we think of their arguments, Creek and Ripley are following the rules.
Bacon should just come out & say that he doesn't mind Lt. Ripley trying to intimidate other members by posting repeated implied threats (with encouragement to others) to go outside the board and contact other members' places of employment, private affiliations, etc.

That is a violation of one of the most basic forum rules, as any cursory glance of the forum rules will demonstrate. And it an appalling breach of privacy and civility.

For Supermallet's information, as soon as it became clear what Lt. Ripley was doing, his/her posts (iincluding the vulgar personal attacks) WERE being reported...DAYS ago. And the moderators did not respond, even when being generally reported and, in one case, reported via PM.

How many posters reported Lt. Ripley's multiple posts (sometimes in consecutive series of 4-5 posts consisting of virtually the same insult with one or two words changed)? It's not "spamming" for Lt. Ripley to violate forum rules with personal attacks upon other members...attacks which add ZERO to the conversation and violate the very reason for having a forum which invites other viewpoints...but it IS spamming to repeat those viewpoints?

It would seem that if Lt. Ripley's contributions to the threads are so valuable, posters would welcome seeing them again and again...in addition to the many times that Lt. Ripley reposted the same words.

Especially when Lt. Ripley proudly stated that he/she "just enjoys being a prick" toward other members (an approach apparently welcomed by others) and who has indicated that his/her sole purpose is to provoke other members into reactions. Oddly enough, one of the posters above nearly blew a gasket not so long ago while justifying profanity and personal attacks due to being "provoked" by the views of other posters. But when a member such as Lt. Ripley announces his/her intent to do that very thing, nothing is said...by other members or by the moderators.

That pretty much clears up any doubt about commitment to principles, doesn't it?

If forum members...and moderators...are so concerned with "rules" being followed, perhaps a good place to begin would be to address members making attacks and issuing threats toward other forum members. THAT would prevent the necessity to multi-quote to call attention to the threats being ignored by the moderators/administrators.

Unless there really are no "rules" and this forum is actually about addressing (attacking) the poster and not the post.

I can tell you this much. If Lt. Ripley were asking Supermallet the name of the institution of where he works or Bacon's house of worship and then said how "cool" it would be to contact people in either member's private lives to Lt. Ripley as fast as possible. Because although certain forum rules are violated all the time (such as everyone here posting copyrighted material without getting permission), personal attacks such go far beyond the level of the standard profanities and insults routinely allowed in this forum and welcomed by most posters.

I lost any faith in many forum members for maintaining an even-handed approach toward treatment of other members years ago. But not until now did I lose all confidence in not only the ability of the moderators to control the behavior of members but their willingness to do so.

The majority of forum members and the moderators prefer Lt. Ripley's contributions to following rules? You're welcome to him/her. Enjoy the stimulating conversation.

And we can all acknowledge that this is an unmoderated forum in a Wild West format. That's what people want; that's what they should wallow in. The lowest common denominator shall have their day, and anything is allowed (as long as the rule violation comes from the "correct" viewpoint).

For good measure, they can enjoy selectively "whining"...to use one of their favorite words...about "rule violations" and enjoy the joke...since the "rules" have become a joke.

Gullible and naive? Yes, that's me. For sixteen years, I actually believed that the rules here mattered to the administrators and moderators, although it was painfully clear that they didn't to other forum members. Evidently the "rules" are open to interpretation just as everything in life is. "You're a piece of shit bigot coward dick" is actually a term of endearment. And you can repost that as many times as a row, even in 4-5 consecutive posts as long as you change a word (or just combine two previous posts to create a "new" one). But don't you dare "multi-quote" those same "endearments." That is a highly-offensive rules violation, and sensitive members will put you on "ignore" for doing so.

How foolish to actually believe that the rules actually exist except on paper and to have actually recommended this site to many others as a "fair" forum compared to other online forums.

I owe them an apology and won't repeat that mistake again.

Last edited by creekdipper; 05-28-17 at 02:24 AM.
 
Old 05-27-17, 10:25 AM   #6
DVD Talk Godfather
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 51,927
Re: multi-quote limit?

Personal attacks and such eventually get dealt with on this forum, even if it takes some time. From my experience, usually the moderators take some time to discuss the appropriate form of action and it isn't always instant, and remember they're still volunteers that shouldn't be expected to baby sit 24/7.

It's no excuse to act like a child and make threads difficult to read for everyone else.
__________________
4x Sheep Champion
VG Round 1b | VG Round 7 | NFL | SHEEPERHERO II

And of course you can GFY. -chess
 
Old 05-27-17, 11:41 AM   #7
DVD Talk Legend
 
Nick Danger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 19,656
Re: multi-quote limit?

If someone said, "You're a piece of shit bigot coward dick", then that person is clearly violating the rules.
__________________
Originally Posted by Troy Stiffler: Nick is the coolest!
 
Old 05-27-17, 08:54 PM   #8
DVD Talk Legend
 
creekdipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 17,970
Re: multi-quote limit?

Quote:
Originally Posted by fumanstan View Post
Personal attacks and such eventually get dealt with on this forum, even if it takes some time. From my experience, usually the moderators take some time to discuss the appropriate form of action and it isn't always instant, and remember they're still volunteers that shouldn't be expected to baby sit 24/7.

It's no excuse to act like a child and make threads difficult to read for everyone else.
Did you read Groucho's post when the thread was locked...which has happened repeatedly with Space Ape's threads?

Groucho said that the thread was getting reported "every few minutes now.

That implies that the response was very fast.

We don't know who was reporting posts at that time...certainly not me, as I had reported Lt. Ripley's change of tactic as soon as they started and had given up on any response.

So whose posts were being "reported?" Lt. Ripley's attacks, which had been going on for months in various threads and have been growing in frequency or intensity...or the multi-quoting of his valuable contributions with no added comment?

Did you read Lt. Ripley's comments? Seemingly, other posters were bothered by them since during the discussion of them, one said that he/she couldn't believe that some people hadn't been banned.

Did you find that Lt. Ripley's comments constituted personal attacks? Forget the vulgarity/insults/profanity...Lt. Ripley has been directing that toward forum members for years. But do you think that it is acceptable...or normal...for a poster to repeatedly ask an anonymous but clearly specific in mind forum members (according to Lt. Ripley, "everyone knows" to whom the posts were being made and Vibiana, bless her sweet head, even indicated whom she clearly felt was the target) to identify his/her place of work and place of worship and then state that Lt. Ripley thought it would be great to forward that member's post to the others outside the forum in an intrusion on the other member's personal life?

You find mult-quoting the posts to put them on display "childish," but do you approve of the posts being multi-quoted? Or do you find them to be something far more serious than being "childish?

If the former, then we have no perspective in common.

"Make threads difficult to read?" Seriously? Lt. Ripley posts the equivalent of "shit bigot coward" four times in one bloc and continually interrupts actual conversations going on...never mind the threats he is implying...and that's not creating a problem for reading the threads?

But rounding up the quotes...which demonstrates not only the content in case anyone missed it but demonstrates the frequency...is "making the thread difficult to read?"

Heck, you should be thanking me for gathering them up for easier reading all in one post. They were so brilliant, they deserved to be repeated.

If the latter...did YOU report the posts? Did any of the people who complained about the multi-quoting report Lt. Ripley?

Can you with a straight face read Lt. Ripleys' posts...which were multi-quoted IN SEQUENCE with no gaps so that everyone could see the sum total of what he had posted in the thread (and that only over a little more than 24 hours, although his posts had been reported before that) and think that the moderators had to deliberate about the remarks before deciding whether rules had been broken?

It seems that swift action is taken when swift action is wanted. I can't prove this, but I wager that Lt. Ripley would have sailed along free as a bird to amp up the attacks, which continued right up until the thread was locked.

And was there one peep from moderators...who had been informed both through the reporting icons AND via PM...about the attacks?

No disciplinary action taken. Not even a warning.

Only a "we're closing the thread until things cool down.

Really? Any indication that Lt. Ripley intends to change his behavior?

How many offensive REPORTED posts should a member be allowed to make without a moderator response within a reasonable amount of time? Twenty? Thirty? How long can it continue? Indefinitely?

Last edited by creekdipper; 05-27-17 at 09:00 PM.
 
Old 05-27-17, 09:02 PM   #9
DVD Talk Legend
 
creekdipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 17,970
Re: multi-quote limit?

Quote:
Originally Posted by fumanstan View Post
Personal attacks and such
And such?

Name one other instance in which a member has suggested that it would be a great idea to contact people not on the board to "out" a member to people in his/her personal life. And encouraged other members to do the same.

"And such."

I'd like to know how many people actually reported the posts as they were happening, and how many either sat idly by or thought they were really humorous. If anything seems "childish," it is the latter attitude.

If people treated the forum as a place in which members can be expected to be free from personal attacks and reacted accordingly when other members abused that principle over a long period of time, there wouldn't be any need for "multi-quoting" to draw attention to the attacks...which go beyond anything I've seen on this board. People have been banned for far less.

The mods have taken no action against Lt. Ripley. In fact, Lt. Ripley is continuing the same line of posting in other threads...and even though Lt. Ripley, who loves to speak of "cowardice," refuses to name the targets, he/she is making illusions to the multi-quoting to make it clear whom he/she is targeting.

And the implication is clear. Either the rules are a joke, or some people have free reign to ignore the rules.

Want to test it? Imitate Lt. Ripley's attacks in other threads and watch how quickly that draws a warning/suspension/banning and/or the thread gets locked.

Or just multi-quote clear violations of forum rules and watch people who have ignored the attacks start complaining about having to read them again.

This is a waste of time. If people won't stand up for the rules...or even behave like Trump supporters in welcoming attack on those with other views...then there's no point in explaining the obvious. I don't know who Lt. Ripley was attacking...he bravely refused to say, so it could be anyone who goes to church. It might be Space Ape, or story. It might be Bacon, for all we know. Or it could be our most recent convert to theism, Supermallet. Given the content of the posts, it might even be Lt. Ripley himself/herself.

The only person I know that those attacks weren't intended for was me, given what was stated in the posts, which ruled out me as the target.

But I think that threats being made toward other members should be reported regardless of the target should be vocally, loudly, and swiftly rejected by the members of the forum if they are truly committed to having a respectful forum, regardless of whether the share the views of the target. And drawing attention to the behavior is one way of doing that if the moderators do not respond and allow the attacks to continue unabated.

Unless that's the kind of forum the administrators/moderators/members want in which anything goes. If that's the case, just delete the sticky with the rules.

Again, that seems to be stating the obvious. If not, then it's a waste of breath.

Last edited by creekdipper; 05-28-17 at 02:28 AM.
 
Old 05-28-17, 08:23 AM   #10
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Llama School
Posts: 6,539
Re: multi-quote limit?

It sure is neato when someone says that they can't recognize the condescension or insults from their own posts, yet claim they can read into the actual intent of someone else's posts.

We could quote for days, the condescending posts with implied insults, several changes in tactics, and not to mention the overwhelming amount of hypocrisy.

Bigotry is a THREAT to another persons way of life and well being.

Isn't it funny how concerned a bigot gets when they perceive it to be about them. All about "ME".... All. The. Time.

If you want to spread the word of bigoted hate, you would think one would be excited to share where he learns his weekly bigotry. I couldn't say "proud" to share because pride is a "no no."

I never minded....really. My bigotry is so civil.

Do as you guys wish.

Last edited by Lt Ripley; 05-28-17 at 08:36 AM.
 
Old 05-28-17, 11:45 AM   #11
DVD Talk Godfather
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 51,927
Re: multi-quote limit?

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
Did you read Groucho's post when the thread was locked...which has happened repeatedly with Space Ape's threads?

Groucho said that the thread was getting reported "every few minutes now.

That implies that the response was very fast.

We don't know who was reporting posts at that time...certainly not me, as I had reported Lt. Ripley's change of tactic as soon as they started and had given up on any response.

So whose posts were being "reported?" Lt. Ripley's attacks, which had been going on for months in various threads and have been growing in frequency or intensity...or the multi-quoting of his valuable contributions with no added comment?

Did you read Lt. Ripley's comments? Seemingly, other posters were bothered by them since during the discussion of them, one said that he/she couldn't believe that some people hadn't been banned.

Did you find that Lt. Ripley's comments constituted personal attacks? Forget the vulgarity/insults/profanity...Lt. Ripley has been directing that toward forum members for years. But do you think that it is acceptable...or normal...for a poster to repeatedly ask an anonymous but clearly specific in mind forum members (according to Lt. Ripley, "everyone knows" to whom the posts were being made and Vibiana, bless her sweet head, even indicated whom she clearly felt was the target) to identify his/her place of work and place of worship and then state that Lt. Ripley thought it would be great to forward that member's post to the others outside the forum in an intrusion on the other member's personal life?

You find mult-quoting the posts to put them on display "childish," but do you approve of the posts being multi-quoted? Or do you find them to be something far more serious than being "childish?

If the former, then we have no perspective in common.

"Make threads difficult to read?" Seriously? Lt. Ripley posts the equivalent of "shit bigot coward" four times in one bloc and continually interrupts actual conversations going on...never mind the threats he is implying...and that's not creating a problem for reading the threads?

But rounding up the quotes...which demonstrates not only the content in case anyone missed it but demonstrates the frequency...is "making the thread difficult to read?"

Heck, you should be thanking me for gathering them up for easier reading all in one post. They were so brilliant, they deserved to be repeated.

If the latter...did YOU report the posts? Did any of the people who complained about the multi-quoting report Lt. Ripley?

Can you with a straight face read Lt. Ripleys' posts...which were multi-quoted IN SEQUENCE with no gaps so that everyone could see the sum total of what he had posted in the thread (and that only over a little more than 24 hours, although his posts had been reported before that) and think that the moderators had to deliberate about the remarks before deciding whether rules had been broken?

It seems that swift action is taken when swift action is wanted. I can't prove this, but I wager that Lt. Ripley would have sailed along free as a bird to amp up the attacks, which continued right up until the thread was locked.

And was there one peep from moderators...who had been informed both through the reporting icons AND via PM...about the attacks?

No disciplinary action taken. Not even a warning.

Only a "we're closing the thread until things cool down.

Really? Any indication that Lt. Ripley intends to change his behavior?

How many offensive REPORTED posts should a member be allowed to make without a moderator response within a reasonable amount of time? Twenty? Thirty? How long can it continue? Indefinitely?
All of that, and the other subsequent lengthy response, was basically the equivalent of "well he started it" to me.

If you have a concern with the speed and level of moderation, seems you should contact the admins and mods directly. I'm just responding to the topic raised in this thread.
 
Old 05-28-17, 02:33 PM   #12
DVD Talk Legend
 
creekdipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 17,970
Re: multi-quote limit?

Quote:
Originally Posted by fumanstan View Post
All of that, and the other subsequent lengthy response, was basically the equivalent of "well he started it" to me.

If you have a concern with the speed and level of moderation, seems you should contact the admins and mods directly. I'm just responding to the topic raised in this thread.
That's exactly the point. Lt. Ripley started violating forum rules years ago through direct insults toward several posters along with anonymous personal attacks. Even though he/she has been suspended and warned in the past, his'/she, other attacks and nonsense posts keep re-occurring...only rarely being reported (by me, anyway) and usually simply ignored with zero response. And they reached the level of not only occurring dozens of times over a few days with no contribution to the thread...which alone seems to warrant a warning to knock it off, even without the vulgarity and profanity expressed...but they devolved into personal threats. And I have never seen that happen before on this site. If it had happened, I would have been certain that the person making the threats would have been immediately banned.

It's hard to be mad at Lt. Ripley; after all, he/she is just doing whatever the moderators will let him/her get away with. Which, apparently, is anything. Hard to imagine anything worse other than to issue threats of physical violence (which, given the nature of the posts, doesn't seem at all unlikely).

What you seem to be implying is that the targets of his/her attacks responded in kind. If that is the case, then that is the easiest false equivalency to disprove that I've ever seen. Not once has anyone threatened Lt. Ripley or directed profane comments in his/her direction.

If putting Lt. Ripley's [I]own words/I] on public display...complete, in sequence, and unedited with no additional commentary is as an "equivalent" response...or anything wrong at all, I'd like to hear your explanation.

If you overhear someone calling others names and making threats against those persons...and then you repeat what that person has said...do you feel guilty for doing something wrong? Add to the fact that you have reported the violations in a couple of different ways with no response. So posting a day's worth of one-line insults to show the evidence of blatant, vicious personal attacks clearly in violation of forum rules is the real offense...but the personal attacks and threats aren't?

Did you report the attacks? Did anybody else? Have you ever seen someone making the kinds of personal attacks...and threats...such as Lt. Ripley has been making over a long period of time without some kind of action being taken?

My observations about moderator action are quite different from yours. The normal response time is very quick...and that is over one post, not dozens made over weeks. If those attacks weren't being reported by others, what does that say...especially when members have commented that they "can't believe that some people haven't been banned" for their behavior. And those were members who disagreed with the views of the targets?

It seems that the moderators responded very quickly...within a matter of hours...as soon as the "multi-quotes" began. That suggests that the moderators are able to respond quickly to a technical violation of rules but not to attacks upon members. And I don't think you'd want to live next to a person who could read the content of the multi-quotes...100% provided by Lt. Ripley...and determine that the remarks are acceptable.

The moderators have remained silent on the issue other than to close the thread. And the behavior continued in another thread after that closing, indicating that the moderators intend to allow the posting to continue. That doesn't suggest a problem with the "speed" of the moderation process. If it takes that long to decide that personal threats might be problem...but that nothing will be said about them publicly...then exactly where is any control over content being demonstrated?

Yes, you're right. Lt. Ripley started the attacks, and he/she was the only one making attacks. And he/she continued the attacks.

When I see personal attacks and threats being made against other forum members...any forum members, including Lt. Ripley...my response was to report them. But if the only moderator reaction is to close the thread...which gives Lt. Ripley exactly what he/she appears to want...then there is no use to report any personal attacks.

If moderators need help and are looking for volunteers, I'm sure there are people willing to help...that is, if any rules governing behavior actually exists.

If they don't, then the administrators should just admit it so that people won't get false expectations.
 
Old 05-28-17, 02:55 PM   #13
DVD Talk Hero
 
davidh777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Home of 2013 NFL champion Seahawks
Posts: 36,852
Re: multi-quote limit?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Danger View Post
Should we replace single multiquote posts with multiple posts?

Whatever we think of their arguments, Creek and Ripley are following the rules.
I find multiple consecutive posts by the same member each with a single quote much more annoying and hard to read/navigate than multiple quotes. That said, much more than five quotes (as proposed in this thread), and I tend to skip over it anyway.
__________________
Challenges: Action 2017 | Academy Award 2017 | TV on DVD* 2017 | Holiday 2016 | Comedy 2016 | Horror 2016 | Criterion 2016 | Animation 2016 | Sci-Fi 2016 | Historical 2016 | Make-Your-Own 2016 | Drive-In 2016 | Leap Day 2016
 
Old 05-28-17, 02:56 PM   #14
DVD Talk Reviewer/ Admin
 
Adam Tyner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Greenville, South Cackalack
Posts: 19,411
Re: multi-quote limit?

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
That suggests that the moderators are able to respond quickly to a technical violation of rules but not to attacks upon members.
I'm the one who merged the duplicate posts together, but in forums I don't moderate myself, I limit myself to technical things like that (updating typos in thread titles, removing spam, moving threads accidentally submitted to the wrong forum, etc.). I don't even receive reports from the Political Forum.

I'm sure some moderators are taking long holiday weekends, and that's going to slow down response times.

A lot of what's going on strikes me as bad behavior and on the brink of being unacceptable but not what I'd call a flagrant rule violation.
__________________
"When you're in your twenties, you wonder what everyone's thinking of you. When you're in your thirties, you don't care what people think of you. And when you reach your forties, you find out no one was ever thinking of you in the first place."
-Patton Oswalt

Last edited by Adam Tyner; 05-28-17 at 03:31 PM.
 
Old 05-28-17, 05:40 PM   #15
Somewhat Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ~here there be serpents~
Posts: 8,725
Re: multi-quote limit?

Just reading the thread title, I knew who this was about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidh777 View Post
I find multiple consecutive posts by the same member each with a single quote much more annoying and hard to read/navigate than multiple quotes. That said, much more than five quotes (as proposed in this thread), and I tend to skip over it anyway.
Oh shit, both are annoying, along with the walls of text, they are an immediate skip for me. Must be nice to have that much free time to waste.
__________________
"Cultshock... may your corpse be turned into a side show act for the curious and twisted." -Gandhi (banned DVDTalk member, not the Mahatma). I'm not sure, but I think he was hitting on me.
 
Old 05-28-17, 10:40 PM   #16
DVD Talk Legend
 
Cardsfan111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 16,397
Re: multi-quote limit?

On subject, I don't think there's any reason to worry about a multi-quote limit. Has it ever been an issue before now? There are times when it's useful. I recall starting a thread once that was branched off from another. I multi-quoted a dozen or so posts over to the new thread.

If we're just bringing up behavior that's annoying, there's lots of members in the particular thread(s) in question who are guilty.

And I would suggest a forum rule has been broken repeatedly:

Quote:
Posting complete nonsense, gibberish or using the forum to play posting games.
__________________
DVD/BD Spending Tab: 2017; Rank 'Em as You See 'Em: 2017; Challenge Lists; Movie Pass List

"i 'm new here. most of people in here are good. but there is a miserable person. Look into your mirror. Superboy!" --New Member, robert11
 
Old 05-29-17, 01:40 PM   #17
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 38,112
Re: multi-quote limit?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Tyner View Post
A lot of what's going on strikes me as bad behavior and on the brink of being unacceptable but not what I'd call a flagrant rule violation.
With all due respect, the forum is unusable and people are abandoning it, largely due to creekdipper's posts and people's reactions to them. If that behavior is within the scope of the rules, perhaps the rules need to change.
__________________
These are my DVDs
360 GamerTag: William T Bunny
PSN ID: William_T_Bunny
"JasonF can do no wrong!" -- Rockmjd23
 
Old 05-29-17, 01:44 PM   #18
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
b2net's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,509
Re: multi-quote limit?

I think we also lost a lot of people and traffic with the adware attacks that plagued us for so long without resolution (and still sometimes even recently. Like just now from get-today.com). I, for one, will be very sad if this site goes away.
 
Old 05-29-17, 01:58 PM   #19
Time Lord
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 53,226
Re: multi-quote limit?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonF View Post
With all due respect, the forum is unusable and people are abandoning it, largely due to creekdipper's posts and people's reactions to them. If that behavior is within the scope of the rules, perhaps the rules need to change.
If it wasn't a problem before, it sure is now. Lt. Ripley's posts were annoying but he agreed to stop. Now creek is pouting all over every thread he can find the most meager excuse to post in, all while advocating for a return to separate but equal and defending monuments to Confederate soldiers. It is making the forum unreadable. Perhaps he needs a break.
__________________
Never stop punching fascists.
Stop employing thugs and murderers: Abolish police, abolish the military.
 
Old 05-29-17, 03:11 PM   #20
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Unknown
Posts: 4,089
Re: multi-quote limit?

I barely check in more than once or twice every couple of months now. It wasn't exactly a conscious choice, but more of a consequence of the forum becoming unreadable over time thanks to the efforts of a small handful of posters. I'm sure I'm not the only one...
__________________
"Have fun storming the castle!"
 
Old 05-29-17, 04:05 PM   #21
DVD Talk Godfather
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 51,927
Re: multi-quote limit?

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
That's exactly the point. Lt. Ripley started violating forum rules years ago through direct insults toward several posters along with anonymous personal attacks. Even though he/she has been suspended and warned in the past, his'/she, other attacks and nonsense posts keep re-occurring...only rarely being reported (by me, anyway) and usually simply ignored with zero response. And they reached the level of not only occurring dozens of times over a few days with no contribution to the thread...which alone seems to warrant a warning to knock it off, even without the vulgarity and profanity expressed...but they devolved into personal threats. And I have never seen that happen before on this site. If it had happened, I would have been certain that the person making the threats would have been immediately banned.

It's hard to be mad at Lt. Ripley; after all, he/she is just doing whatever the moderators will let him/her get away with. Which, apparently, is anything. Hard to imagine anything worse other than to issue threats of physical violence (which, given the nature of the posts, doesn't seem at all unlikely).

What you seem to be implying is that the targets of his/her attacks responded in kind. If that is the case, then that is the easiest false equivalency to disprove that I've ever seen. Not once has anyone threatened Lt. Ripley or directed profane comments in his/her direction.

If putting Lt. Ripley's [I]own words/I] on public display...complete, in sequence, and unedited with no additional commentary is as an "equivalent" response...or anything wrong at all, I'd like to hear your explanation.

If you overhear someone calling others names and making threats against those persons...and then you repeat what that person has said...do you feel guilty for doing something wrong? Add to the fact that you have reported the violations in a couple of different ways with no response. So posting a day's worth of one-line insults to show the evidence of blatant, vicious personal attacks clearly in violation of forum rules is the real offense...but the personal attacks and threats aren't?

Did you report the attacks? Did anybody else? Have you ever seen someone making the kinds of personal attacks...and threats...such as Lt. Ripley has been making over a long period of time without some kind of action being taken?

My observations about moderator action are quite different from yours. The normal response time is very quick...and that is over one post, not dozens made over weeks. If those attacks weren't being reported by others, what does that say...especially when members have commented that they "can't believe that some people haven't been banned" for their behavior. And those were members who disagreed with the views of the targets?

It seems that the moderators responded very quickly...within a matter of hours...as soon as the "multi-quotes" began. That suggests that the moderators are able to respond quickly to a technical violation of rules but not to attacks upon members. And I don't think you'd want to live next to a person who could read the content of the multi-quotes...100% provided by Lt. Ripley...and determine that the remarks are acceptable.

The moderators have remained silent on the issue other than to close the thread. And the behavior continued in another thread after that closing, indicating that the moderators intend to allow the posting to continue. That doesn't suggest a problem with the "speed" of the moderation process. If it takes that long to decide that personal threats might be problem...but that nothing will be said about them publicly...then exactly where is any control over content being demonstrated?

Yes, you're right. Lt. Ripley started the attacks, and he/she was the only one making attacks. And he/she continued the attacks.

When I see personal attacks and threats being made against other forum members...any forum members, including Lt. Ripley...my response was to report them. But if the only moderator reaction is to close the thread...which gives Lt. Ripley exactly what he/she appears to want...then there is no use to report any personal attacks.

If moderators need help and are looking for volunteers, I'm sure there are people willing to help...that is, if any rules governing behavior actually exists.

If they don't, then the administrators should just admit it so that people won't get false expectations.
I'm not sure how you managed to write all that while completely missing my point. If you want to address your issues with Ripley, you can do so with the admins/mods or start a new thread about it.

It doesn't change the fact that your response is a childish and obnoxious reaction, which is the subject of this thread.
__________________
4x Sheep Champion
VG Round 1b | VG Round 7 | NFL | SHEEPERHERO II

And of course you can GFY. -chess
 
Old 05-29-17, 10:48 PM   #22
DVD Talk Legend
 
creekdipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 17,970
Re: multi-quote limit?

Quote:
Originally Posted by fumanstan View Post
It doesn't change the fact that your response is a childish and obnoxious reaction, which is the subject of this thread.
Thanks for sharing the fact that you think that simply reposting threats made by one forum members toward other forum members is a "childish and obnoxious" reaction.

You handle that any way you want, and you are welcome to your opinion.

But if someone ever threatens you on the board or any other member...including Ripley...I will take do whatever possible to protest the threats and draw attention to them...beginning with reporting the posts, then contacting mods, and then doing the only thing left...reposting them so that no one can claim ignorance of them.

I never heard you say what action you took since you have so much interest in the situation. Perhaps you could show what steps you took to protest the threats being made and to protect the integrity of the forum. Then you can go back to lecturing others for their response.

You're right...I totally missed where you described how you responded to overt threats being made. Please direct me to those comments.
 
Old 05-29-17, 11:02 PM   #23
DVD Talk Legend
 
creekdipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 17,970
Re: multi-quote limit?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supermallet View Post
If it wasn't a problem before, it sure is now. Lt. Ripley's posts were annoying but he agreed to stop. Now creek is pouting all over every thread he can find the most meager excuse to post in, all while advocating for a return to separate but equal and defending monuments to Confederate soldiers. It is making the forum unreadable. Perhaps he needs a break.
Where did Ripley "agree to stop?"

He/she continued to post the same crap in unlocked threads. And announced that he/she was proud to be "an asshole," matching other recent comments about his/her/she intent by saying that he/she "just enjoys being a prick." And, although he/she changed his/her signature (again, apparently to avoid direct links to his targets, who initially were named in his/her signature before he/she wised up to the possible ramifications), even that contains his/her patented vulgar attacks upon people he/she hates.

By his/her own testimony, he/she said that he would "turn down" the attacks...not stop them. And anyone who thinks that he/she is a changed person who will not return to the same thing hasn't been very observant from past behavior and current attitudes expressed above.

Perhaps you need to stop lying about other forum members. In your post above, you made a completely false allegation about 'defending monuments' and you totally mischaracterized the other argument...which you yourself acknowledged as partial satire to make a point.

I posted an op-ed by a lesbian arguing that protected class status should be done away with...and she didn't offer any separate government options. Oddly enough, you didn't make a peep about that.

The character assassinations from members who cannot put aside their personal dislikes for others...including you, who uttered a host of insults and said that you would do far worse if it wouldn't get you banned...and then blamed your behavior on the "I couldn't help myself, you MADE me be vulgar and profane" excuse...is what is making the forum "unreadable."

When the forum rules are totally ignored and only protect one viewpoint...and posters constantly "attack the poster and not the post"...then what seems to be bothering you is not having a monopoly on one point of view being expressed.

If you had a case to make, you wouldn't have to resort to dishonesty. Even your characterization of Ripley's "agreement" is deceptive. Ripley said he/she listened to those he/she "respects" and that "not one mod had said one word" to him/her.

That sound like anyone was responding to his/her vulgar, nonsensical, threatening, constantly-interrupting comments from an administrative end? Sounds more like fellow travelers trying to keep him/her from getting banned (fat chance of that). But it is instructive to see that you can read the long list of Ripley's comments and then determine that others are "the heckler(s)."

Thanks for sharing your valuable insights. It appears that you are either totally blinded by hatred or partisanship...or that you think you can bait others into responding in kind (and then report them to get them banned). Sorry, can't oblige. I have just as much right to be hear and air my views as you do, even though I don't resort to name-calling and dishonesty. When people will stoop to any level to get rid of views they don't like...and have proclaimed loudly some time ago that they don't want to have any further conversations (but continue to talk about the member)...then we can identify the problem.

For someone who constantly complains about "condescension"....

Likewise, thanks for talking about "meager excuses to post in." I'll bear that in mind the next time you visit threads along with others just to threadcrap, troll, and discuss the virtues of reubens.

Yes, that's exactly a demonstration of a serious, open-minded approach to debate. So glad for the lessons.

That goes along with your "all of them" response about giving examples of which posts you find condescending. That was a really mature response.

Some might even call it "pouting."

Perhaps if haters confined their discussions of how to get members banned and how much they hate other members to the Facebook page clubhouse, we wouldn't be having this problem.

Or here's an even more radical approach. Just get over your hatred and focus on listening to others' viewpoints and respond with integrity. Don't justify atrocious behavior and then nit-pick over nothing based upon whose viewpoints you share.

Since Supermallet feels qualified to dispense advice, I'll return the favor. Perhaps you should examine your own behavior and ask whether you are truly committed to the principles you profess to hold. That is, if you're just not playing people to make them waste time and then sharing laughs with other "open-minded" folks who, like you, have previously lost self-control on the board. Ask yourself if that attitude is consistent with your new-found beliefs.

Last edited by creekdipper; 05-30-17 at 10:07 AM.
 
Old 05-29-17, 11:12 PM   #24
DVD Talk Legend
 
creekdipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 17,970
Re: multi-quote limit?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonF View Post
With all due respect, the forum is unusable and people are abandoning it, largely due to creekdipper's posts and people's reactions to them. If that behavior is within the scope of the rules, perhaps the rules need to change.


Well, the majority have always had a hard time accepting the intrusion of minority viewpoints, so there's a lot of historical precedent there.

Maybe you can make membership ID requirements more stringent, too...just to keep out the "undesirables."

Then you can Make DVDTalk Great Again!

Last edited by creekdipper; 05-30-17 at 12:08 AM.
 
Old 05-30-17, 04:11 AM   #25
DVD Talk Legend
 
creekdipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 17,970
Re: multi-quote limit?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lt Ripley View Post
We could quote for days, the condescending posts with implied insults, several changes in tactics, and not to mention the overwhelming amount of hypocrisy.

If you want to spread the word of bigoted hate, you would think one would be excited to share where he learns his weekly bigotry. I couldn't say "proud" to share because pride is a "no no."
Wait a minute.

I just now read this.

Now, I think this is worth discussing. Exactly to whom is Lt. Ripley referring? For years he has kept referring to "cowards" (and bigoted invisible man fluffer prick dick pieces of shit" etc.) yet has steadfastly refused to name his target. That makes if a bit difficult for anyone to respond to his charges except to say a general "prove it" when someone keeps going on about how he/she could quote "for days" the posts which have hurt his/her feelings. His/her posts were re-posted as indisputable proof for everyone to see his repeated, intentional, and blatant violation of the most basic forum rules...multiple violations of multiple rules...and yet he curiously declines to back up his/her own fake charges.

But there is a more important point to this.

Ripley goes on to say "you'd think one would be proud...", etc., etc., as if to justify his implied threat to contact another forum members' private contacts who have nothing to do with the forum...and encouraging other members to do the same. Of course, even that story has now changed; earlier it was about "outing" the member to his congregation; now it's about "showing where he learns his weekly bigotry." Typical Ripley revisionist back-tracking to avoid taking responsibility for foolishness.

You see...if Ripley would only be brave enough to name names, I believe that an embarrassing fact that is common knowledge to many on this board but which has apparently escaped him/her could be revealed that would put his/her fears to rest. And would demonstrate a much larger, more important point that this is only about individuals to those sharing a particular viewpoint, whereas to me it is about following the most basic rules of civility.

Because it can be clearly shown that his/her target could not be me, according to his/her own descriptions. Because Lt. Ripley would have to be a complete moron if I were the target, and we know that he/she is an intelligent person. Don't know why he/she wouldn't name names; he has nothing to fear regarding disciplinary action.

So why does that matter? Simple. I have one expectation from this board...for all members to be treated equally, and for the rules to be enforced when others don't wish to give other members that respect. It shouldn't matter whether the rule-violating members care if they get civil treatment or not; they should be protected by the same rules.

And, just to throw in a completely novel idea, everyone should be offended when they see any members being abused. The abusers, as has always been the case, like to belittle those protesting the abuse...even when sticking up for other members. That has always been the historical tactics of bullies.

"I hit her because she was just asking for it...I"m not to blame. Go ahead and whine, you little "pussy" (one of Ripley's favorite terms). You deserve to be insulted since you're such a bigot. I don't have to give examples of my accusations...everybody knows they're true. " And on and on.

And one trip to the Facebook page corresponding to this site was all it took to show those same posters...easily identified under their actual names...discussing how to get specific members banned, bragging about how their attempts to provoke responses, describing how much they hate certain members, boasting about how they had run off previous members...and, of course, complaining that the moderators here treat them unfairly by either not being complicit with their efforts or by actually restricting their attempts to abuse other members.

And this is the "legacy" that JasonF wants to protect. Never mind the rules that are being treated as trash. Never mind the abuse being dished out toward other members. Let's create some new rules specifically to weed out members whose views we don't like...rather than competing with them head-to-head, toe-to-toe with superior ideas. Why should we have to be confronted with ideas we don't like when we can simply forbid their expression.

And to think that we don't think there should be some discussion of whose views actually make up a Taliban-style approach to this forum.

Last edited by creekdipper; 05-30-17 at 09:45 AM.
 
Closed Thread


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:01 PM.


Copyright 2011 DVDTalk.com All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0