Ping: SkyDog
 

Since you've characterized this post as trolling, I feel the need to respond.

Hearing about the Jack Kelley incident prompted me to post about it on the board, as I generally do with other news I find around the net. I identified it as Off-Topic in the thread title, as I always do. Because it dealt with religious subject matter I thought it would be fun to personalize the thread title and single subject line a bit towards one of our more vocal religious posters. "Apostles" sounded funnier than "and similar folk". The information is as instructive as a psalm.

The point of the post--aside from just providing links to an interesting news story with an ironic complement--was to show that it takes more than being vocally Christian to actually be a Christian. Sadly, the point was missed by several of the posters in the thread.

As if this wasn't clear enough, in my second post in the thread I explicitly stated that I wasn't using Kelley to make any larger point about religious folk in general. If it wasn't clear enough at that point that I wasn't starting a flame war, pick a fight, or troll, it's your oversight...not mine.

The fact that you feel the need to warn me about a perfectly legitimate post--not to mention close it--because some of the religious folk here felt like I was trying to pick a fight is ludicrous. I have been around this community for at least as long as you, Ben, and know that the absolute only reason you're taking any action on this is because it thumps your religious nerve. I kind of expected some kind of response. But locking the thread and warning me? Please.

In light of the kinds of posts and posters you've tolerated and let slide in the past--and continue to do so, frankly--it's hilarious that you've decided to single out this post to lock away. You have no problem with people slinging all sorts of offensive invective about minority groups, people of other nationalities, and people of various political persuasions. It's obvious that you are much less tolerant of those who would attempt to make a point using matters of religion as their subject matter.

I'm trying to be fairly reasonable and polite about this, Ben, as I've more or less tried to do throughout my more than half decade as a member of this community. Feel free to lock this thread as well...I will say no more publicly about this matter on this forum. But as a person who has vigorously supported enforcing the higher standards of this forum throughout my time here, this has come as a slap in the face. Not an unexpected one, sadly enough, but certainly an offensive one.

Is it just me, or shouldn't this have been a PM?

Y'know, this post actually took slightly longer than I predicted it would.

Other than that ...

I know someone that got banned for this.

Losing a lot of respect for NoMyths.

will this generate another "Ode to SkyDog the Dictator"?

I agree with NoMyths. I thought the same thing before he started this thread. It's hypocricy plain and simple and it sucks. It's funny because Bubba posted in the thread and didn't seem to be offended nor did he escalate things to banning levels. The thread hadn't become a flame war.

It just seems NoMyths hit a nerve with Ben so he decided to penalize someone he disagreed with. I didn't think we did things that way. I guess we do.

Sorry Dog, but you were wrong this time.

I disagree Axxon. From my viewpoint, NoMyths was baiting - no more, no less. Just my $.02

I don't think SkyDog was wrong. It was an obvious troll in my opinion (which is why I posted my question asking what the point was).

It's like a fight you see in public. You know it has nothing to do with you, yet, because it is in the open and not between the specific parties...you can't help but look.

Pretty soon, the chick will haul off and hit the guy with a lawn chair.

Oh wait, that's where it differs.

I just read the thread, and have to agree. There was no point to the post, just an obvious attempt to bait a reaction (maybe this thread is, too).

The board seems to be reaching the point it does about once a year or so, where it is impossible to get through about 15 minutes without some stupid shit like this happening.

First, isn't every post an attempt to get A reaction? If it isn't then just talk to yourself.

My problem is that the actual post was a legit one or are we no longer allowed to discuss current events? You may not see the point in discussing it but I recently posted an article that had no point that no one responded to and it was about religion albeit a positive slant. I was given no warning and my thread wasn't locked.

Any offense had to be in the fact that a particular poster was mentioned and as I said, the target of the so called baiting didn't take the bait. It's the peanut gallery that took offense. It's insane and it's a double standard.

Talk about threads that mention a particular poster and actually take a jab at them. Look at these found after a quick search on the word ping. The difference is that the subject matter didn't offend SkyDog apparantly. They sure aren't anything but an attempt to get a reaction.


http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/for...highlight=ping


http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/for...highlight=ping

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/for...highlight=ping

I could go on. The point is that nothing was said and none of those threads were meant to be constructive. There was no point to any of them. They were jabs. We all "judge" them to be lighthearted ones but that's our personal judgement. SkyDog made the "judgement" in this case that it was a troll thread but not in any of the above. Why? Was it the subject matter which again, in and of itself, is legit.

I happen to disagree with his judgement here especially since the thread hadn't begun to reach any flamewar status. When he was super fast to pull the plug he was reacting to his bias not the state of the thread. Just MHO.

Interesting analysis....especially considering right now is the first time I read any of the three threads above, and that I also hadn't read the locked thread until it was brought to my attention as trolling. I made no "judgement" whatsoever about any of the three threads mentioned there. I've said many times that I don't read a good number of the threads around here (probably less than half). This place is generally self-policing, and I think it has been 3-4 months (the druez incident) since I've taken any "unilateral", so to speak, action on anything here. Actually, apart from the druez incident and the mrskippy banning (man I gave that guy too many chances...), virtually every thread locking, suspension, or warning over the last 6-8 months or more has been the result of a non-participant bringing a fight (or improper link) to my attention. In other words, I let most things ride unless someone complains, and then I take a look to see if the complaint is justified. I don't always act even on a complaint, but in this case I had to agree with the complaint.

And to those who tried to analyze my reasons for closing it by saying that it was because it put religion in a negative light, you couldn't be further off-base. I've said many different times on this board that I am not religious, and I abhor religion, and I've never wavered from that position since I was around 18 or 19 years old. In light of that oft-stated fact, it is completely impossible that, as was said, "that the absolute reason you're taking any action on this is because it thumps your religious nerve."

As VPI pointed out, the best way to "protest" a moderating decision is via PM or e-mail. You get much more credibility with me that way. If any of you feel the need to further discuss this matter, the aforementioned mediums would be the proper ones to use.

I will agree there was some trolling done, but apparently a double standard was used here. I have seen similar (and even worse) trolling on the other side of the argument, that was not closed down. This one hardly got personal (the only true reason I see for a thread to be locked). What is wrong with a little light hearted trolling anyway? I agree with Axxon, we all post for some type of reaction. If you don't like it, then just don't read it or reply to it. I have already done that with one particular poster here on similar issues (who shall remain nameless) Free NoMyths! Free NoMyths! Free NoMyths!

Wow.

I had forgotten how long we had been around. It's crazy to think that Dialgate was over 4 years ago.

FWIW, way back in the day I printed out all of the Bear Bryant Challenge (FOF2, nothing but SEC players), and put it in a notebook. I pulled that sucker out last night for a little bedtime reading (100 printed pages!). If the printed dates on the threads are right, it was some time on February 24th, 2000 that I was banned from The Sideline, and some time on February 25th that I was reinstated. Actually, I wasn't just banned, I was an Orwellian non-person. Stix, I believe it was, completely deleted my account and I had to re-register when I was reinstated.

I also have a printout of my Milwaukee BM2K dynasty that I posted on The Sideline as well. Good times.

ryan, you suck

quit jumping in on threads that don't concern you

btw, while I don't agree or disagree with NM's thoughts and/or opinions...warning him about it on an open forum is pretty damned weak
MY $0.02

Actually that was a purposeful sentence by me to get a reaction from you. I was using a charged phrases for effect. I was hoping it would cause you to either confirm or explain what you truly did base the decision on. Neither happened unfortunately.


I hope this wasn't addressed at me. You know very well I take anything that I feel could hurt the board or be controversial to PM's. This just is so incomprehensible to me that I didn't nor can I take it seriously. I'm just perplexed. I don't even see it as a gray area. Maybe I just don't know the politics of it.

Ben, I have to admit that I've been hanging around this community since before FOF2 came out and I've never seen you articulate this thought. I'm perplexed, because I'm not sure I understand it. Am I missing something? Or since I read even less threads than you do have I just missed the right discussions? Just curious ...

I hadn't thought of that. Seems funny to request any questions or discussions about a decision made publicly must be made privately. I'd agree that the warning should have been made the same way.

Why, because you don't want to be shown to be wrong in public?

02-03-2003, 06:17 AM	#29
SkyDog H.N.I.C. Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Tucker, GA Posts: 6,666	I am NOT religious. I follow Jesus Christ. __________________ The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'!

There are several others out there.

No. Because doing it in public is going to be viewed as grandstanding. Besides, I'd have to actually think I might be shown to be wrong to worry about that. :p

easy

what's wrong here since IMO there's no real coherent relation between the two?

So would Jesus close a thread for no obvious or apparant reason and then refuse to explain to his disciples why?? ;)

Jesus would use a parable to explain why he closed the thread.

btw, have you seen this thread

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/for...ad.php?t=23241

?

Heck, I'd take that at this point.

Jesus would do it in Aramaic though, which wouldn't help you unless Mel Gibson gives you subtitles.

I think you're doing a fine job SkyDog for whatever it's worth, and I hope you continue to ignore those who are trying to bait you in this thread as well. Kudos from me.

Yes, because it isn't authentic to have them speaking english. It's far more authentic to have words in a language that hadn't been invented yet show up at everybody's feet as they go about their business.

I hate it when that happens to me don't you?

I thought I was the only one who printed out dynasties. At least, I did way back in the day when I was in college. Computer labs = free paper. Especially since I was one of the lab workers....no one knows a thing...

I just pulled out the old FOF2 strategy guide from a binder the other day.

This thread has turned into The Passion of the 'Dog.

Does that mean we're going to get to whip SkyDog until he's a bloody mess?

When you have a thread pulled for no apparant reason remind me to not back you up.

And I too think SkyDog is doing a fine job but he dropped the ball this time. Doesn't make him a bad mod but a fine mod who made a bad decision IMHO.

You must have missed the Skippy, Wig, Horns Bragg etc days. This thing isn't even in the same sport much less the same ballpark.

Nice topical reference though.

Yes yes.As someone who's requesting the respect of being dealt with privately, you should also GIVE the same respect of dealing with it privately. Or do you get a free pass on double standards when you become a mod?

Be careful, Axxon. People have been warned for stuff like that...

You seem to care an awful lot about this thread. Must have a yearning in your soul or something.

I talked for about ten minutes with my coworker about her marital problems but I certainly don't give one shit about it. I'm not sure how discussing = caring because quite frankly if it did, I'd most likely be mute.

Well, that seems to be where the disagreement lies. From the viewpoints of many, including SkyDog, there was an apparent reason.

As I said, I was prompting SkyDog to state his apparent reason as it's not so apparent to most of us posting here. If I don't know what's not acceptable how can I not post it??

SkyDog refused so you see, for me, there is still NOT an apparent reason.

And the double standard appalls me. He publicly warns NM, and then drops the deal with me in private standard?


What blatant hypocrisy. One standard will do just fine. :(

My $0.02:

The thread title of the original thread was "Bubba and his Apostles". I think this, as much as anything leads me to believe there was some intent to bait or troll. Another thing that leads me to believe that the thread was started with some malicious intent was that NoMyths didn't really comment on what he posted. USUALLY, if someone posts something like this, they follow it up with some sort of commentary as to why they think it is important, why they agree, or why they disagree. None of that from NoMyths. That helps give me the IMPRESSION that NoMyths was throwing it out in an attempt to get a response from Bubba wheels.

Lastly, my impression was further solidified by the following:


Followed by...


And the response...




And...


And lastly...


From the very first response to the thread the purpose or intent of the thread was questioned, all by people who weren't the target of the initial post (unless you want to include JIMG as an apostle). NoMyths stated that his purpose wasn't "using Kelley to make any larger point about religious folk in general", but never did explain what his purpose was until after the thread was closed.

Hopefully I won't be accused of being a SkyDog fanboy, since I have been critical of him at times, and also because I have presented my reasons for thinking that NoMyths post was questionable in the way it was presented (NOT FOR IT'S CONTENT!!).


{EDIT: Forgot to remove JIMG's post count/status, as I don't consider it relevant.}

Are those jackboots I hear?

I wouldn't accuse you of anything. At least you had the stones to state your position. I disagree with you because of the threads I posted above. The intended target didn't respond as if it's bait. It was other people who jumped the gun but no matter. No flaming occured, no bait was taken. It was a quiet and peaceful thread and I don't think we need to be closing down threads because it may have caused a flamewar that never occured. That's a bit too proactive for my taste.

Also, it was intended to get a response from Bubba and it did. The response was civil and stated his views on the article posted. Where was the freaking problem????

Lets not overthink this. There was no problem, the "victim" had seen the post and it was fine.

Forgot to say this. If we are going to close all posts that MAY turn into a flamewar we'll have to close them all. Hell, a video game draft got more heated than this bad boy. Lets just shut this puppy down and go home. :(

Not sure I agree with you there Ax. I think there was certainly a willingness to engage in a flame war.


"Also, it was intended to get a response from Bubba and it did. The response was civil and stated his views on the article posted. Where was the freaking problem????"

I think you might have conveniently overlooked this little gem by Bubba. Not exactly sure that is civil, or states his views on the article posted. By the way, Bubba's "civil" response was a reply to Sabotai's "supposition" about the purpose of NoMyth's post, NOT to NoMyths post itself.


However, flame wars aren't the issue. Trolling is the issue, so while I respect your opinion that the thread was shut down too soon (I think either side has a pretty good argument), I've stated why I think the post was trolling and why SD was justified. I don't think the video game thread was started for the sole purpose of eliciting a heated response.

I'm glad you brought up this exchange because I thought about sabotai's response especially in light of the fact that the thread hadn't really said much and I realized that sabotai was talking about Bubba bringing up religion. That's how I took it and Bubba must have taken it the same way, thus his reply.

This particular exchange could and most likely would have occured anywhere Bubba was discussing religion. Do we ban all religious threads? If not, using it as an example of this becoming a flame thread is misguided.

I am a bit put off that we're going to start judging every thread to see if it is a troll even if the thread doesn't turn out that way. It's stupid and frankly, who has the time???

I respectfully agree that we'll disagree. I can see your points and they are decent ones but I don't think they're enough to lock a thread and PUBLICLY warn someone about.