Negativity is not the same as trolling, as you said. If you can't take the ignore feature and you can't stand to hear negativity about the team, I apologize. I don't know what to say. Ed O.
Aren't you oversimplifying it a bit there, Ed? I dare say that NO ONE minds a bit of negativity (or even reality) now and then. But the constant, over-the-top and probably made-up crap that gets thrown out every single day??? That's the issue. It's not that someone, anyone cries blashphemy if a negative word is said about the team - it's the ongoing and constant barrage of bull nookie that "some" people like to create everyday.
Your continued complaints on this topic are noted but, ultimately, irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. You've said the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over. Do you think that your point is stronger now than it was a month ago? Really? There is a small group of people that love to bitch about a few posters and act all up in arms that they have to put up with the constant negativity. You are a part of that small group, and I'm sorry that you're incapable of ignoring him or at least (to help the rest of us out) shut up about it. Ed O.
Maybe it's just the pessimism that comes with being a Warrior fan but I don't think there's any chance of the Ws drafting worse than 10th in the next 4 years
I don't know what the exact definition of trolling is, so I guess I shouldn't have used that term. In any event, I have no problem hearing negativity about the team, the board would be dull without it. But there is a certain line that I believe is being crossed. Negativity is certainly allowed, but dishonorable intentions are not, according to forum rule #1. Can constant, over-the-top negativity be considered a form of dishonorable intent? I would sure think so. The rules also state that "it is completely the discretion of SportsTwo staff to enforce any unwritten policies they deem fit" and that "we reserve the right to amend these rules at any time." So, even if you determine that the poster in question's intent is honorable, if the SportsTwo staff wanted to ban him for essentially any other reason, they certainly could. And if they can ban someone, why wouldn't the staff want to ban a poster that completely annoys the vast majority of the rest of their customers? It's simple business...if one customer is spending $50 a day at my restaurant, but is driving away $200 in business, I would get rid of him.
Cool - so long as you defend the rights of individual to piss on the forum, hopefully you'll just as fervently defend my rights to piss on him? You're a good guy - impartial to the end.
Let me answer that question for you Chuck before Ed comes in with the same reply: apparently, there's only 4 or 5 of us that are annoyed by this poster so it's really not pertinent to fix. From what I'm told, most people enjoy him just fine and it's just the four or five of us that just need to shut up about him. Understood?
There is no "pissing on the forum". People are being crybabies about a guy who has been posting in this community for YEARS. Longer than you have, I would guess. He attacks the players and the GM. So what? That's part of why this forum exists. He has the right to do that... loudly and often, if he so chooses. I will defend that right, sure. You have NO rights to "piss on" any poster and there is nothing for me to defend on that front. Sorry. Ed O.
Sure it can. It can also be the way that the guy expresses himself. I can understand what you're saying. This is not a business, though... I don't get paid to do this, at least. The success of this site and the community lies in the diversity of opinion and the open nature of communications about sports and the teams we all follow. It would be easier to ban the people that complain about him repeatedly, actually. It would be more consistent with the nature of the board which is to talk about basketball, not about other posters. Ed O.
So . . . what you're saying is that this is not an equal opportunity piss-hole? That's too bad the pissing only gets to go one way then. I'll look forward to the next time you're wrong as it'll be your first
Certainly. And intent is a very difficult thing to judge, especially on an internet forum. My point is that just because he may not be "trolling", doesn't mean he's not breaking the rules. Somebody's cashing the checks for all the banner ads, so this certainly is a business. And I'm sure the more people who visit the site, the bigger the checks are. I don't think anyone is arguing that diversity of opinion is great and is part of the fun. If we all posted the same opinion, it would be very boring around here.
I don't think it's a small group of people. I've noticed a bit more people who admitted they didn't pay attention to him before, now starting to call him out on being unreasonable in his opinions. Heck, he never backs up his opinions with any fact. He got banned on the other site for it I think, or maybe I'm wrong. In the end, I don't want to see him banned. I just want the guy to be just a tiny bit more reasonable, defend his opinions, and not 'troll' and run away while never responding. This reminds me of in basketball: a guy will sucker punch someone first, another player retaliates and then gets T'ed up because the refs only saw the retaliation. And the first guy looks like a victim. Oh well...
I don't know what you're talking about. If anyone breaks rules, they will be asked to stop. If they talk basketball, irrespective of volume or negativity, they're not breaking rules. You claim that you look forward to "pissing on" another poster. That is clearly against the rules of the board. This isn't a matter of me being right or wrong... I'm wrong all on a pretty regular basis. This is an issue of you continuing to bitch about something in spite of you not having a leg to stand on. Ed O.
If you see him break rules, please let me or another mod know. Or report the post. Personally, I don't think that being an "unpopular poster" is breaking rules. Ed O.
I think there is certainly a possibility he is breaking the honorable intentions rule. The problem with the rule though, is that it is almost impossible to determine if it is being violated. If he isn't breaking any of the forum's rules, than so be it. Then I blame the forum for having weak rules, and will visit less often. I think there is a significant amount of posters who feel the same way, and will do the same. I'm surprised the forum doesn't care enough to do something about it.
IMO he's baiting, but I just ignore it because it's attention that he's after, and it's kind of boring. While only so many complain about it though, I don't think it's sensible to assume they are the only ones it bothers. The people it bothers though would be, IMO, wiser to just ignore it to minimize the effect it's causes. I'm not saying using the ignore feature, just skip over it, why respond to something that bothers you?
I agree. This is what I typically do. On the few occasions I have responded, he never wrote back anyways. Lately, I've literally not come to this site to specifically avoid him. That wasn't always the case. And that got me thinking. It seems like the site would be a much better place without him, and I would think the staff would want whats best for the site. So I spoke up to hear what their defense is. I also wanted to let the mods know that I, too, believe he crosses a line and am bothered by it. I'll go back into my mostly-lurking hole now.
This is a pretty simple proposition to me. There are two possibilities: 1. MIXUM is a troll. If he is a troll, posters would ignore him, because it's pretty well-known by this point that "feeding trolls" only plays into their game and causes them to troll more. Anyone who really believes MIXUM is a troll would ignore him. Thus, all the people who respond to and about him are voting for: 2. MIXUM is not a troll. He's a highly negative, but sincere, fan who's basketball opinions annoy a lot of people. That's not against the rules. Anyone who really believes (1) would ignore him and counsel others to ignore him and let him fade away. The people who talk the most about MIXUM believe (as proven by their actions) in (2).
