The Sidebar Thread

[RedheadDane]

Guys... next time I ask a question just answer the question. No demonstrations!

And I'll try not to be so clueless next time...



Right! About the mods!

I actually think they're doing a pretty neat job. Can't be easy running this madhouse.

 

[martinvickers]

Great news.
A rule that everybody has completely ignored for the past 3 years,
gets repealed.
Should work wonders for forum harmony, with now only one side capable of trolling.

Go forbid they actually enforce the rule against the jedi. Despite Benson, was never going to happen. You know your base audience.

Best to walk away, perhaps.

 

[Netserk]

What rule are you talking about? The one on the big rules list or the one on the other rules list? Or something written under guidelines, which therefore never was under the rules section?

 

[martinvickers]

What rule are you talking about? The one on the big rules list or the one on the other rules list? Or something written under guidelines, which therefore never was under the rules section?

I think this is probably covered under...

• Attempting to smartass your way around these rules.

 

[Netserk]

I think this is probably covered under...

Which rule would it smartass its way around?

It was/is quite obvious that "source before saying a rider is a doper" never was a rule. It simply never was in either lists of rules. It was a guideline for posting.

 

[martinvickers]

Which rule would it smartass its way around?

• Trolling
• Cruising the boards looking for a fight.

for starters.

 

[Netserk]

Would you care to explain how stating Horner is a doper smartasses around the rule of trolling?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Would you care to explain how stating Horner is a doper smartasses around the rule of trolling?

Welcome back, Netserk. Good post.

 

[martinvickers]

Would you care to explain how stating Horner is a doper smartasses around the rule of trolling?

From wikipedia

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[6]

Baldly declaring any rider a doper, as though it were fact, and without any backup of evidence, or official sanction, clearly meets that definition. Not least because it clearly flouts the clear instruction in the guidance to the rules every one is supposed to be trying to abide by.

Trying to suggest that the guidance part of the rules is somehow meaningless, and can thus be ignored is a) disingenuous and b) itself clearly smartassing around the cruising for a fight rule.

 

[Netserk]

From wikipedia



Baldly declaring any rider a doper, as though it were fact, and without any backup of evidence, or official sanction, clearly meets that definition. Not least because it clearly flouts the clear instruction in the guidance to the rules every one is supposed to be trying to abide by.

Trying to suggest that the guidance part of the rules is somehow meaningless, and can thus be ignored is a) disingenuous and b) itself clearly smartassing around the cruising for a fight rule.

Bolded: I never said that the guidelines were meaningless. I said that there were two lists of rules and then a section of guidelines, which clearly means that the guidelines aren't rules. I think it's disingenuous of you, if you try to argue that the guidelines are rules, or that if they aren't they are meaningless.

From your post, I get that your argument is that if you troll and don't follow the guidelines, then you smartass your way around the trolling rule. Doesn't make sense to me, so I have most likely got it wrong.

And I disagree that stating (as part of a post with context) that Horner is a doper is trolling.

 

[martinvickers]

Bolded: I never said that the guidelines were meaningless. I said that there were two lists of rules and then a section of guidelines, which clearly means that the guidelines aren't rules. I think it's disingenuous of you, if you try to argue that the guidelines are rules, or that if they aren't they are meaningless.

OT, if you knew the trouble in my real life work life caused by whether or not 'guidance' was 'rules', you would understand my insanity rather better

My point is the rules should be read in light of the guidance; the guidance clarifies the rules. They aren't stand alone rules, and neither are they meaningless.

From your post, I get that your argument is that if you troll and don't follow the guidelines, then you smartass your way around the trolling rule. Doesn't make sense to me, so I have most likely got it wrong.

Indeed, it's wrong.

My point is this;
clearly the guidance provides information, inter alia, on what might be considered inappropriate posting, such as trolling.

Included in that guidance is a clear admonition that one shouldn't post that a rider is a doper as fact without backup. Since this is guidance to the rules, the clear rules affected are trolling and crusing for a fight. It has no possible relevance to the rest.

And that therefore suggesting that because the guidance is not itself a freestanding rule, that it can therefore be ignored in interpreting the rule, is itself smart arsing your way around that same rule.

And I disagree that stating (as part of a post with context) that Horner is a doper is trolling.

And I agree with that. If there is context, either making it clear it's merely opinion, or in discussing actual or possible evidence.

Since the relevant guidance seems to have been not only abolished, but entirely reversed, it hardly matters in any event. My basic point remains, the admonition was entirely ignored from the moment daniel wrote it. In so far as it formed part of the rules, it wasn't enforced. and now it's not even part of the rules.

 

[The Hitch]

From wikipedia



Baldly declaring any rider a doper, as though it were fact, and without any backup of evidence, or official sanction, clearly meets that definition. Not least because it clearly flouts the clear instruction in the guidance to the rules every one is supposed to be trying to abide by.

Trying to suggest that the guidance part of the rules is somehow meaningless, and can thus be ignored is a) disingenuous and b) itself clearly smartassing around the cruising for a fight rule.

So everyone who before 2012 said Armstrong doped was trolling?

 

[Netserk]

OT, if you knew the trouble in my real life work life caused by whether or not 'guidance' was 'rules', you would understand my insanity rather better

My point is the rules should be read in light of the guidance; the guidance clarifies the rules. They aren't stand alone rules, and neither are they meaningless.

Indeed, it's wrong.

My point is this;
clearly the guidance provides information, inter alia, on what might be considered inappropriate posting, such as trolling.

Included in that guidance is a clear admonition that one shouldn't post that a rider is a doper as fact without backup. Since this is guidance to the rules, the clear rules affected are trolling and crusing for a fight. It has no possible relevance to the rest.

And that therefore suggesting that because the guidance is not itself a freestanding rule, that it can therefore be ignored in interpreting the rule, is itself smart arsing your way around that same rule.




And I agree with that. If there is context, either making it clear it's merely opinion, or in discussing actual or possible evidence.

Since the relevant guidance seems to have been not only abolished, but entirely reversed, it hardly matters in any event. My basic point remains, the admonition was entirely ignored from the moment daniel wrote it. In so far as it formed part of the rules, it wasn't enforced. and now it's not even part of the rules.

I read it differently. It says "Guidelines for posting" not "Guidelines for the rules". I hope that expresses my point.

 

[Netserk]

So everyone who before 2012 said Armstrong doped was trolling?

According to martin, yes. If they didn't make it clear that it was an opinion and not a fact, they would be trolling to state that he was a doper.

 

[martinvickers]

So everyone who before 2012 said Armstrong doped was trolling?

If it was simply stated without any refrence to

a) that it's simply the opinion of the poster

OR

b) without reference to the admittedly copious amounts of evidence,

then yes, it could well be trolling.

trolling is about HOW and WHY you post, not just WHAT you post.

For example, let's day, gods forbid, there was in 2010 an "Armstrong, the clean idol" fan website.

And one day into that website, poster A simply posts.

Armstrong's just a doper.

and nothing more

frankly, that's trolling, even if it turns out, as it does to be true. Trolling is not about being right or wrong. You can very easily troll with stuff that turns out to be true.

if however, you get a long post setting out all the known c**p around armstrong in the same fan thread - you may in theory be cruising or baiting, but you're not necessarily trolling.

 

[martinvickers]

I read it differently. It says "Guidelines for posting" not "Guidelines for the rules". I hope that expresses my point.

Indeed, and we can civilly agree or disagree, I hope.

I would note only that the whole thing appears inside a post titled simply "Forum Rules". I hope that expresses mine.

 

[martinvickers]

According to martin, yes. If they didn't make it clear that it was an opinion and not a fact, they would be trolling to state that he was a doper.

There's a famous story all law students eventually hear about. Liberace V. Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd. The newspaper insinuated (didn't state, as far as memory serves) that Liberace was gay, according to the court by use of the phrase "fruit flavoured".

The quote was

"[Liberace is]…the summit of sex—the pinnacle of masculine, feminine, and neuter. Everything that he, she, and it can ever want… a deadly, winking, s******ing, snuggling, chromium-plated, scent-impregnated, luminous, quivering, giggling, fruit-flavoured, mincing, ice-covered heap of mother love",

No-one could accuse English newspapers of subtlety

Now Liberace was gay. As a grig. Flaming. He set off gaydar several timezones away. and everyone, everyone, knew it.

And Liberace won the case. Madness, but there you are.

My only point, apart from regurgitating a slightly amusing story, is this. No matter how obvious the truth, it's not always a defence.

If I went to a fictional We love Liberace website and printed that quote without context, without evidence, during his life time? Yep, I think there's an argument that's trolling, even though it's blatently true.

 

[Netserk]

1) This is not a court

2) This is not an "Armstrong, the clean idol" fan website.

So the countless of times where it was stated here that Lance was a doper (before USADA) without stating that it was an opinion were trolling?

 

[martinvickers]

1) This is not a court

2) This is not an "Armstrong, the clean idol" fan website.

So the countless of times where it was stated here that Lance was a doper (before USADA) without stating that it was an opinion were trolling?

If stated simpliciter, with no reference to any evidence, and no 'admission' of opinion, at least implied? Yes, it could well be. Being true doesn't change that at all.

Edit : perhaps it would be better if this conversation was moved to the sidebar?

 

[Netserk]

So according to you this was trolling ("the guy" referring to Lance)?

 

[the sceptic]

Guys... next time I ask a question just answer the question. No demonstrations!

And I'll try not to be so clueless next time...



Right! About the mods!

I actually think they're doing a pretty neat job. Can't be easy running this madhouse.

To be fair, its hard to understand what the vortex is until you have been in it yourself. So a demonstration might be the best way to explain.

 

[martinvickers]

So according to you this was trolling ("the guy" referring to Lance)?

I couldn't say for certainwithout the context of the thread, but given that the post seems, in some odd way to be defending Armstrong DESPITE his many flaws, and the recipient absolutely agrees about those flaws and, from my knowledge, always has, it's hard to see how it could be.

I think you're stretching here, Netserk.

 

[The Hitch]

Now Liberace was gay. As a grig.

If he never admitted he was gay, aren't you by your own rules trolling when you say the above?

 

[Netserk]

How can it not be trolling, if stating an unproven rider is a doper, whilst not stating it is an opinion = trolling?

Or do you think that stating a rider is a doper is not trolling?

 

[martinvickers]

If he never admitted he was gay, aren't you by your own rules trolling when you say the above?

Nope, because, like Lance et all, it's since been proven and falls under the 'common knowledge' provision (see old 'guidance') - he settled a court case with his former lover on the issue, and a close friend came out and admitted publically that she acted as his beard ("Betty White" as it happens)

No-one said it had to be an admission to be a proven fact.

Of course, if you were to challenge the assertion, and I simply refused to bring any evidence, context or admission of opinion, and simply repeated it - then, yes, that could be trolling. See the difference?