Anyone else find him annoying...especially for a "new" member?

Search through his posts.... I can't believe that he's serious about offering Excalibur + $5 for a guy's copy of Sid and Nancy... + some other very inane posts.


I normally don't b!tch about these things....

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...3&pagenumber=8

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...threadid=99127



[Edited by Autotelik on 04-16-01 at 04:00 PM]

This is a "classic": http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...threadid=99245

And he made all those posts today too.

not any more annoying than a LOT of "old" members on here

Where is a mod when you need one :D

I see someone changed his name to minicock rotfl

HEY! I TAKE EXCEPTION TO THAT!!! :grunt:
mini

rotfl rotfl :lol: rotfl rotfl

Now it looks like he's been banned:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...916#post978916

In all of his 30 some posts, did he post anything useful? Or was it all lame comments and fart jokes? rotfl

Sorry mini. :)

I edited the thread title to be less offensive.

randyc

maybe a mod can help me out here -

I'm interested in a DVDTalk definition of "troll" or "trolling".

I really have no intrinsic interest in Throbcock's membership here but what exactly did he do that longstanding members don't do in the Other Forum all the time?

His stupid threads weren't any stupider than, say:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...threadid=99318

or any grosser than, say:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...threadid=96331


just curious

Interesting point, Bust.

Bust-

It took the other members a while to degenerate to the stage you pointed out. minicock started out that way. Think where he'll end up if he follows the same path downhill. :)

I don't think it's fair to ban him for immaturing faster than the rest of us. Hell, I'll admit it. I thought his threads were funny.

I would understand if he was a previously [BANNED] member returning to have some fun though.

Bust, I didn't even get a chance to check into it yet, but I am 95% sure it is a returning member based on the posting pattern. I bet Randy is 100% sure though.

Bust, thanks for pointing out that other thread you linked. It was way over the line. I deleted the link in that thread and closed it. It does not make sense to point to another thread that is beyond forum rules and use it as a measure of these other threads.

randyc

all right, that's fair. I then submit...

His gross threads weren't any grosser than, say:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...threadid=99070


also,

I'm interested in a DVDTalk definition of "troll" or "trolling".

I really have no intrinsic interest in Throbcock's membership here but what exactly did he do that longstanding members don't do in the Other Forum all the time?

still waiting for answers to these questions.

Let's just ban all the members that add wit and comedy to the forum. Sooner or later, it's just gonna be me and classicman2 talking about the capital gains tax. Could we add a forum that's more racy than the other forum;where we could be more mature, funny, profane and maybe engage in some banter that would be considered innapropriate for the rest of DVDTALK? I know the member was previously banned, but he probably wouldn't have been banned in the first place if he has an appropriate outlet to begin with. I miss people like Kim Deal, who kept me frequently checking the forum.

btw... i started this thread because that guy was posting some crude/offensive/sarcastic comments in forums outside of other... and his posts in the other forum strongly suggested that he was a previously banned member (the way he imitated Soup Nazi's subject heading, etc)..

...and he was kind of funny though. ;)

There are a lot of funny members that are *not* banned. The logic that a few funny people are banned means we will have nothing but dry discussion in Other is pretty silly.

Users are not banned for being witty or funny. They are banned for violating forum rules. That is all. It's unfortunate (like in the case of Kim Deal) that someone who is witty and articulate also can't follow simple rules.

Yet ... ;)

<ol><li> -rolleyes- So <i>that</i> is what all the padding is really about!<li> :lol: <li> -confused- I think I get what you are saying here i.e. [MATURE]-type posts. Although the term can sometimes be oxymoronic, IMNSHO!<li> -ptth- <i>"The One & Only Repeat, Rollcall, Pad and Banter Thread"</i>?</li></ol>

There have been a few threads on the Feedback forum <i>and elsewhere</i> about blatant padding, hijacking etc. I don't think it is out of order here for me to express the personal opinion that these can be as annoying as the "dumb" questions and repetitions that are seen on various of the main forums.

It is a bit like trying to have a conversation in a crowded room - where there are various other groups talking that you are striving to ignore so you can concentrate on what interests you - but someone insists on coming by regularly and shouting one-liners in your ear, or throwing a non sequitur in to the mix.

In the scheme of things I guess it isn't a Big Deal but.... you know.... (I mean some guys are regularly just adding a smiley at the end of a quote).

[Edited by benedict on 04-11-01 at 10:59 AM]

I don't know Randy. I think some members may have made up their minds that our goal is to make this a terrible boring forum where free thought is hated. I find it pointless to try to convince them otherwise. They are going to feel what they choose one way or another.

Has this fella re-registered under <a href="http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/member.php?action=mailform&userid=35973">this name</a>?

wow, another Josh"stinkle" :(

Maybe it would work if there was a forum within DVDTalk.com called "adultdvdtalk," where the discussions could be as I described above. But since adultdvdtalk.com is pornographic and not as prominent as the forums on DVDTalk, it scares people away. That site is not just "adult" in nature and in conversation, it deals mainly in explicit pornography. Unfortunately, many people at work and at school cannot access it. I think the thing is to find a balance between adultdvdtalk, and what we have now. I appreciate your suggestion of adultdvdtalk.com, but their equivalent of the other forum receives much less traffic than the other forum here. Part of the fun of the forums is the amount of people who contribute. Although sometimes semi-abusive and always laced with profanity, Kim Deal's posts were hysterically funny. In fact, they were funny because of the two aforementioned attributes. His posts were just a bit too racy for DVDTalk, but not in line with the pornography at adultdvdtalk. I don't think the above really proposes a solution or even clearly addresses a specific problem, but those are just my thoughts.

Understood Freejg.

But consider this, where do we draw the line? If someone thinks adultdvdtalk is too far, to whose standard do we use? What *you* may think is funny or not too risque, is the same stuff that someone else thinks is too much.

A huge part of moderating the forums is trying to balance those two. It's not black and white, in fact is almost all shades of gray. We have some concrete rules and we try to be flexible and understanding, but we are also aware that people from all backgrounds, ages, etc come to DVDtalk forums. We can't be all things to everyone, we understand that. We can't stop everyone from ever being offended. That is understood. We just try to walk that fine line, and also try to maintain certain standards and rules that are set down by the site owner.

Now in reference to your mention of Kim Deal, and also to this entire post. There is a lot of assumptions people may make about things, such as why certain users are banned. I will suggest you (the collective you) may not be aware of everything that goes on behind the scenes. You may not be aware of things that poster said that were deleted. You may not know about private mail or users with more than one identity. Returning banned members.

Do you really think Kim Deal was banned because he was too witty and pushed the envelope? I don't. But it is my policy to not discuss why someone was banned. I am aware that silence on the matter may lead to baseless speculation. So be it. Again, I will mention, you may not know all the facts.

Nobody, specially me, wants a forum that is too dry or lacking humor. Specially me.

Are you the guy that ratted on him? Just curious.

I guess at the rate he was posting... some 30+ obnoxious posts in about an hour... someone was bound to notice

someone else had noticed this too in the Other Forum... I just happened to bring it up here because I thought he would be offending other members by his posts in the Talk Forum, Bargains Forum, and Exchange Forum. If he had just reared his head in Other, I wouldn't have bothered starting this thread.


Did I rat on him? Don't think so... as I said, and if you had read his initial posts, you would see that someone else had noticed too and minicock pretended not to know what IBTB meant.

Besides, i think randyc or another mod would have picked it up anyway... since they're so quick on these things.

Just curious, why are you sticking your nose into this, trying to figure this out? He was going down one way or another, FYI.

Wow, that's really hostile.

I don't think anyone 'ratted' on him, anyone reading threads that day couldn't help but notice him. He posted all over the place.

That sounds fair. I always see people talking about notifying mods about this and that, and I'm just curious what would motivate someone to do that -- you can ignore most of the stuff you don't want to see, so I'm just wondering.

If you have a problem with anything I do, please feel free to email Geoff at [email protected] . He is open to all of your concerns.

I don't believe I was hostile. I'm still curious why you want to know who 'ratted' this member out. 'Ratted out' is not hostile, by your apparently loose definition?

You really don't think this kind of personal moderating would be more appropriate on e-mail?

Were I moderating, I would use email.

The question I was asking was as a member, not as a moderator. Were it as a moderator it would be a whole different ballgame of seriousness I try to avoid, and one that is not warranted either.

You may be unfamiliar with how we do things here (which may explain your reaction). I am allowed to be a member, to make comments like a member, to hold opinions like a member, to ask questions like a member, etc. . . In addition to that I act as a policeman, making sure the rules are enforced fairly.

As to my comment about contacting Geoff, it was an offer I am comfortable making in front of everyone here. If you prefer to discuss something with me and do not want to use a message board, please feel free to email me. If you would prefer to comment on the job I am doing, but not do so to me, then please contact Geoff, who will do a fair job considering all you have to say.

I'm not quite sure what you think I should not have put in my posts, but I'd be happy to discuss it either on the forum or over email.

Apparently I was confused by this post of yours. I thought it was from your role as a moderator, not as a member. Please pardon my confusion -- I imagine its cause is evident in your post above.

I hope we can avoid that "ballgame of seriousness". That sounds a little too serious for such a silly discussion, you know?

May I add something? (I'll do it anyway ;))




It's true that I definitely could have ignored that guy, and I've been around enough to ignore a lot of inane posters and comments... heck, I even ignore the IBTL and wrong forum comments and they don't bother me... but I just felt like posting something here (which is one of the purposes of this forum anyway). Also, I am aware that a moderator would have noticed sooner or later anyway...


I also think his initial username wasn't very agreeable either... and i know that in the past, inappropriate usernames have been changed too.

Interpret it however you (anyone) want... maybe I just had too much time that day and too little to do at work that I started this thread...


...and nope, I wasn't a big dobber back in infants school :p


[Edited by Autotelik on 04-16-01 at 04:13 PM]