njbill - 1 Minute (2 Day) Penalty

[Matnum PI]

In the name of transparency, I went into the log files.

- As anyone can see, there were some personal attacks in the Women's Forum. And these attacks were not just in the Boston College thread. It's also in the USA Lax, Syracuse, Ivy League, and other threads. I cannot say whether these attacks were egregious or not, some people are more sensitive than others, but I can say that one person was receiving most of the abuse and... some of the posts are egregious. This had been going on for many days. Over the course of these many days, more than one person reported these personal attacks and the fingers were being pointed at three post-ers primarily. (Njbill was not one of those three post-ers.) And, looking at the posts, I believe this finger-pointing to be justified.
- Admin stepped in on a Wednesday, asked the personal attacks to stop, and, what seems to be coincidentally, replied to one of njbill's posts within the BC Thread to ask the personal attacks to stop. (Admin could've replied to any number of posts.) And, after this post, njbill moved first. I also think njbill's post was innocuous but he does make a pointed statement about a specific post-er who was being continually attacked after Admin asked the discussions about post-ers to stop. In hindsight, I think Admin should've waited a little longer for one of the more egregious post-ers to post (e.g. one of the three post-ers that were being cited repeatedly) and for a more egregious post but... He didn't. He cited the first mover... who was njbill.
- NJBill was given a 1 Minute (2 Day) Penalty on Thursday AM which would've been released on Saturday, June 19th, at 11:34 AM EST. The Penalty was released on Friday at 6:50 PM EST. Thus a 1.5 day penalty. During the off-season. Not so bad. FWIW, I couldn't find another example of Admin releasing a penalty early.
- What's clear to me is that Admin was just trying to stop the personal attacks. Especially towards this one post-er. I didn't see any favoritism or a personal agenda on his part. If anything, I think Admin was not being pointed enough in going after the three most-aggressive, egregious post-ers.
- And, it does bear mentioning, this one post-er that was being attacked was seemingly engaging in troll-ish behavior. Not trolling like in the Politics Forum but relatively typical lacrosse trolling.
- Bottomline, before I speak to a related topic in a different thread, this is not the first time that a post-er has announced their leaving. And some actually leave. We cannot make decisions based solely on people voicing complaints and leaving. We need to make decisions based on doing the right thing. However the people within this Forum define doing the right thing. Personally, I don't like when people leave our party but, for innumerable reasons, people leave parties. If njbill was leaving because of something egregious that happened, I'd be bothered. But I do not believe this to be the case. With this said, as mentioned previously, in a perfect world, no one would ever leave our party.

[Bart]

In the name of transparency, I went into the log files.

- As anyone can see, there were some personal attacks in the Women's Forum. And these attacks were not just in the Boston College thread. It's also in the USA Lax, Syracuse, Ivy League, and other threads. I cannot say whether these attacks were egregious or not, some people are more sensitive than others, but I can say that one person was receiving most of the abuse and... some of the posts are egregious. This had been going on for many days. Over the course of these many days, more than one person reported these personal attacks and the fingers were being pointed at three post-ers primarily. (Njbill was not one of those three post-ers.) And, looking at the posts, I believe this finger-pointing to be justified.
- Admin stepped in on a Wednesday, asked the personal attacks to stop, and, what seems to be coincidentally, replied to one of njbill's posts within the BC Thread to ask the personal attacks to stop. (Admin could've replied to any number of posts.) And, after this post, njbill moved first. I also think njbill's post was innocuous but he does make a pointed statement about a specific post-er who was being continually attacked after Admin asked the discussions about post-ers to stop. In hindsight, I think Admin should've waited a little longer for one of the more egregious post-ers to post (e.g. one of the three post-ers that were being cited repeatedly) and for a more egregious post but... He didn't. He cited the first mover... who was njbill.
- NJBill was given a 1 Minute (2 Day) Penalty on Thursday AM which would've been released on Saturday, June 19th, at 11:34 AM EST. The Penalty was released on Friday at 6:50 PM EST. Thus a 1.5 day penalty. During the off-season. Not so bad. FWIW, I couldn't find another example of Admin releasing a penalty early.
- What's clear to me is that Admin was just trying to stop the personal attacks. Especially towards this one post-er. I didn't see any favoritism or a personal agenda on his part. If anything, I think Admin was not being pointed enough in going after the three most-aggressive, egregious post-ers.
- And, it does bear mentioning, this one post-er that was being attacked was seemingly engaging in troll-ish behavior. Not trolling like in the Politics Forum but relatively typical lacrosse trolling.
- Bottomline, before I speak to a related topic in a different thread, this is not the first time that a post-er has announced their leaving. And some actually leave. We cannot make decisions based solely on people voicing complaints and leaving. We need to make decisions based on doing the right thing. However the people within this Forum define doing the right thing. Personally, I don't like when people leave our party but, for innumerable reasons, people leave parties. If njbill was leaving because of something egregious that happened, I'd be bothered. But I do not believe this to be the case. With this said, as mentioned previously, in a perfect world, no one would ever leave our party.

Why is it that with nary a hint of the number of posts in the Men's forum almost all, and certainly most of the recent, minutes in the penalty box resulting from non-politics posts come from the Women's Lacrosse forum. Heck if you applied the same semantics to the Hopkins thread alone there would not be enough room in the penalty box for anyone other than those on the Hopkins thread.

The only conclusion I can come up with is that while some like to be provocative and "trollish" (your observation Matnum) they can not handle the heat when called out and cry attack, they are attacking me.

[Matnum PI]

The only conclusion I can come up with is that while some like to be provocative and "trollish" (your observation Matnum) they can not handle the heat when called out and cry attack, they are attacking me.

I think that is correct.

[DMac]

Yup, that's pretty much as obvious as the red on a baboon's asz.

[MDlaxfan76]

Well, let's hope that the powers that be are ultimately able to invite NJbill back to the party and that he accepts the invite.

[8meterPA]

After having given this some thought for the better part of a week, I’ve decided to no longer participate on FanLax. This is my last post. Admin, delete my user account.

I don’t like personal attacks, but have always fought my own battles. As I’ve said, I’ve never reported a post in almost 20 years at LaxPower and now FanLax. I don’t think it’s good manners to do so. That’s not how I was raised, to use a phrase that’s become popular of late. If you have a problem, deal with it and resolve it yourself.

I suffered through a week of abuse without taking the bait, though I did tell the poster after his first “creepy” comment that I thought he was crossing a line. After that week, I posted that I had no interest in discussing anything with a stranger who called me “creepy.” I said I had never reported a post, but was tempted to do so in this instance. Those posts were my way of requesting the poster to back off and alerting admin that he needed to get control of things.

Admin did nothing. The poster did not back off, but within the hour after my second one continued the attacks (“hater,” “cowardly,” “vendetta,” “personal animosity.”). A couple of hours later, more abuse. Admin still did nothing.

The poster went relatively quiet for a period, but picked up his blowtorch again, two weeks later. At that point, I’d had enough and, yes, lost my cool. I wrote the “unhealthy infatuation” post. No response from admin to this post.

Some minutes later I posted that I minded creepy, ad hominem attacks (my third such message in this vein). To which admin responded: “agreed. Let’s be mindful of personal attacks.” Admin considers that to be a warning to me, as do some other posters. Hard to understand why a (legitimate) complaint about personal attacks can or should serve as the basis for a warning to me.

Some posters have referenced my “unhealthy infatuation” post. But that post was not admin’s basis for the warning or the subsequent suspension. Had that been the case, you’d have gotten no argument from me about a warning or suspension. I’d have taken my medicine. But, again and importantly, that isn’t what happened here. If admin considered that post to be the basis for the warning, he should have said so or quoted it, instead of quoting a different post which (reasonably) created the impression that that was the post necessitating the warning in his view.

So, OK, let’s say that was a legitimate warning directed at me. You then get to the next issue, which is whether the post I was suspended for warranted a suspension. I wrote to Larry: “you are wasting your time on this can opener. He thinks Charlotte North is the best player of all time, and no one can tell him otherwise.”

Does that mild post warrant a suspension, whether or not there had been a prior warning? No. Not in a million years in my view. I, myself, have probably written scores of posts worse than that. On FanLax, you could find 1000s.

While I don’t like the personal attacks, that’s not why I am leaving. I’ve leaving because of admin’s handling of this. His inconsistent moderation in my case and others is unprincipled, unfair, and just plain wrong. He suspends me for a benign post (I challenge anyone to find a milder post that has been the subject of a FanLax suspension), yet Can Opener goes unpunished. Admin says a poster must keep his side of the street clean in order to be entitled to administrative relief. Can Opener kept his side of the road clean? Huh? Beyond absurd.

But the piece de resistance? Citing Cletus – CLETUS? – as the spokesperson for proper forum decorum. That was just beyond the pale.

People are getting flagged for the most ridiculous things. 8meterPA gets penalized for commenting on the women’s forum troll when the troll, himself, acknowledges he’s a troll and says he revels in his troll-ish behavior. How ludicrous is that? Another poster who has commented in this thread has repeatedly called someone a troll elsewhere on FanLax, yet he has never been sanctioned. (Not saying he should; just pointing out the inconsistency.)

I see that Cletus has now resumed his trolling (among other things accusing posters of “intimidating” others). 8meterPA, DMac, and seacoaster have properly called him out. Admin has done nothing about Cletus' continued trolling.

DMac (rightly) calls out Cletus for saying posters “can go pound sand.” What happens? DMac gets sent to the pen. Cletus goes unpunished.

A couple of posters have complained privately to me about Cletus. I said that for some reason, he didn’t bother me. But they were right and, boy, was I wrong. He’s become the scourge of the women’s board, arguably a cancer. He says the site should have “zero tolerance.” Huh? Cletus wants zero tolerance? Aside from the fact that when FanLax was started, they said the rules would be looser than LaxPower’s – and certainly not “zero tolerance” – how many of his posts would be whacked under such a rule?

It’s a strange world when 8meterPA, DMac, and I get suspended and Can Opener and Cletus do not. Again, gross inconsistencies. At least CO fessed up to having reported my posts. Cletus (the other person who obviously did so), are you going to do the same?

A few days ago Mr. Zero Tolerance called me a bully and an intimidator, referencing Hitler and the Nazis. He said he was referring to the “larger issue of bullying and intimidation and insults on these boards, not just what went on between CO and Jersey.” Not just. Well, not just means “including.” Nor did he add the usual disclaimer – if that is what he meant – that his comments did not apply to me. So they did. At least that’s how I read them. Has admin taken any action? No. That Cletus later deleted those comments is pretty compelling evidence he knew they were inappropriate.

DMac is right. Cletus is admin’s fair-haired boy. And to repeat – and this one boggles my mind more than anything else in this whole mess – admin calls Cletus’ view on proper forum etiquette “spot on.” Sir, you are woefully out of touch with the women’s board. If you are going to continue to moderate here, I suggest you take some time to familiarize yourself with the posts and posters. Or find someone who has the temperament and judgment to do the job properly and even handedly.

This site is supposed to be fun. It is no longer fun for me. It has become aggravating and a drag. Admin says: “Our goal is to make this party enjoyable for everyone.” How ironic. It certainly is no longer enjoyable for me. So I am out of here. I just can’t fight City Hall, that is, an admin who metes out inconsistent punishments while at the same time allowing his “favorites” to write whatever they want. I can’t and won’t abide such a system.

To those who supported me (on this site and off-line) while I was in the sin bin and afterwards, thank you. Very much appreciated. Very, very much. I owe you a beer or 12. To my many forum friends and acquaintances whom I’ve come to know over the years (“some are dead and some are living”), thanks for the dialogue. It has been entertaining, informative, educational, and a real pleasure. Fortunately, I know some of you in real life (wish it were more) so I hope I’ll be seeing you on the lacrosse fields. Happy trails.

I hope NJ reconsiders - there are very few on the women's board who understands the wlax game better NJ...and no one is more on top of NJ HS girls lax than NJ. We've traded messages, opinions & barbs over probably 10+ years and I'm sure we have never pulled the same lever in the voting booth. But it doesn't matter because everything is good natured and there's a mutual respect.

I've reached out to the Admin numerous times about about the ridiculous bias in the handing out the penalties and 1 person's destructive trolling which will lead to the demise of the women's board, and admin refuses to address it and only encourages the bad actor to troll harder...it's crazy.

Pretty soon there 1 person left on the women's board having conversations with himself and his burner accounts and the admin will act like nothing has happened.

NJ - sorry to see you go and hope you reconsider - I'm probably not far behind.

[seacoaster]

Well, let's hope that the powers that be are ultimately able to invite NJbill back to the party and that he accepts the invite.

Doubtful. The problem with the women's board is a troll, and the admin's preference for the troll. Just like the knucklehead that populate the Politics board with his senseless blather. We will continue to lose good posters. And NJBill was perhaps the best, most informed poster on the women's side. DMac, 8MPA, and others, please feel free to PM me with email addresses in the event more of us pull out. Come February, at least we can talk among ourselves.

[MDlaxfan76]

Well, let's hope that the powers that be are ultimately able to invite NJbill back to the party and that he accepts the invite.

Doubtful. The problem with the women's board is a troll, and the admin's preference for the troll. Just like the knucklehead that populate the Politics board with his senseless blather. We will continue to lose good posters. And NJBill was perhaps the best, most informed poster on the women's side. DMac, 8MPA, and others, please feel free to PM me with email addresses in the event more of us pull out. Come February, at least we can talk among ourselves.

Hope not.
Would be a loss on all counts.

I agree re the trolling being destructive.
Not so sure Admin actually favors it...I don't read it that way, but of course could be mistaken.

[Tommy No]

Not so sure Admin actually favors it...I don't read it that way, but of course could be mistaken.

You're not. It's a ridiculous statement.

[Baducchi]

Doubtful. The problem with the women's board is a troll, and the admin's preference for the troll...

Currently in the Politics forum, Peter Brown and his idiot friend are setting a record for most hours trolling in FanLax history. The admin doesn't have a preference for these two. To suggest this makes no sense. Like a cop, he needs the politicians to create laws so he can arrest them. Matnum has asked numerous times for suggestions for what those laws should/could be. And it can't just be "Admin doesn't like X". We need to create a policy. It's explicitly because Admin *doesn't* police based on preference that we have any troll problems. So, sea, what policy do you suggest? No trolling but how do you/we define trolling?

[MDlaxfan76]

Doubtful. The problem with the women's board is a troll, and the admin's preference for the troll...

Currently in the Politics forum, Peter Brown and his idiot friend are setting a record for most hours trolling in FanLax history. The admin doesn't have a preference for these two. To suggest this makes no sense. Like a cop, he needs the politicians to create laws so he can arrest them. Matnum has asked numerous times for suggestions for what those laws should/could be. And it can't just be "Admin doesn't like X". We need to create a policy. It's explicitly because Admin *doesn't* police based on preference that we have any troll problems. So, sea, what policy do you suggest? No trolling but how do you/we define trolling?

That's indeed the issue.
PS, "Kinduv" is most likely a satirical response to PB, in the absence of a policy that eliminates a poster whose only goal is to anger others, a constant barrage of clearly misleading, often bigoted, crap...with misrepresentation and outright lying stock in trade.

I definitely don't think Admin is in favor of, nor wants, such trolling. It poisons the experience for everyone else.

[seacoaster]

Doubtful. The problem with the women's board is a troll, and the admin's preference for the troll...

Currently in the Politics forum, Peter Brown and his idiot friend are setting a record for most hours trolling in FanLax history. The admin doesn't have a preference for these two. To suggest this makes no sense. Like a cop, he needs the politicians to create laws so he can arrest them. Matnum has asked numerous times for suggestions for what those laws should/could be. And it can't just be "Admin doesn't like X". We need to create a policy. It's explicitly because Admin *doesn't* police based on preference that we have any troll problems. So, sea, what policy do you suggest? No trolling but how do you/we define trolling?

That's indeed the issue.
PS, "Kinduv" is most likely a satirical response to PB, in the absence of a policy that eliminates a poster whose only goal is to anger others, a constant barrage of clearly misleading, often bigoted, crap...with misrepresentation and outright lying stock in trade.

I definitely don't think Admin is in favor of, nor wants, such trolling. It poisons the experience for everyone else.

I spoke badly, or at least imprecisely. In saying that the admin showed a preference for the troll, I meant in relation to NJBill's interactions with several folks, including the troll. I just don't think anything Bill did or said warranted discipline or ejection from the forum. I think it was an ardent discussion, dealing with facts and statistics to back up a point of view.

I am stumped by a policy that would counteract trolling, partly because the definition of trolling certainly has a subjective edge to it. I certainly loathe what PB posts on a subjective level. But what I really loathe about his posts are the near total absence of content and discussion. Ninety-eight percent of his posts are intended to frustrate and anger people. Being told, over and over and over and over and over and over again that Democrats hate America and should be admitted to a secure psychiatric facility is not discussion; it is a wide-net generalization that has no real use to the generation of discussion. I take plenty of people on the Politics boards to task -- for example, youth athletics, tech37, old salt -- but all of those guys have a real viewpoint, show at least some willingness to listen, and impart good and sometimes compelling information.

From my perspective, the only counter to trolls and trolling is the normative power of the community to counteract it. So it is that I often -- more than I'd like -- say "Boycott Stupid." This is my shorthand for urging folks to place PB on their foe list, and to carefully and consistently ignore his posts, at least insofar as a response to them is concerned.

The women's Division 1 board troll is different. He seems to enjoy tearing down coaches, players and teams. I simply think that is, for the most part, unseemly. I'm not interested in tearing down individual teenagers and young women. I'm not too interested in establishing a hierarchy of coaches, with the metrics amounting to drubbing one or more coaches to elevate another. Just not my thing. For example, his constant refrain about the Maryland women's program taking a nosedive is, at a certain point, plainly intended to provoke Maryland fans. I'm not a Maryland fan, but it is simply unseemly after a while. I already went though middle school with my kids; not interested in reviving that "ethos" here discussing women's lacrosse.

I hope I have responded in kind to your post, which I took to be an earnest question about this issue -- one for which I don't have much of an answer.

[Baducchi]

i'd love to see the forum have a policy where not trolls but trumps are not welcome. if you sound a lot like donald or donald jr. or any of their wanna-bes, you're automatically suspended. this cletus guy doesn't bother me. this peter brown guy, permanently suspend the dude. just call it the trump rule.

[MDlaxfan76]

i'd love to see the forum have a policy where not trolls but trumps are not welcome. if you sound a lot like donald or donald jr. or any of their wanna-bes, you're automatically suspended. this cletus guy doesn't bother me. this peter brown guy, permanently suspend the dude. just call it the trump rule.

Devoid of truth, only intended to inflame.

[MDlaxfan76]

Doubtful. The problem with the women's board is a troll, and the admin's preference for the troll...

Currently in the Politics forum, Peter Brown and his idiot friend are setting a record for most hours trolling in FanLax history. The admin doesn't have a preference for these two. To suggest this makes no sense. Like a cop, he needs the politicians to create laws so he can arrest them. Matnum has asked numerous times for suggestions for what those laws should/could be. And it can't just be "Admin doesn't like X". We need to create a policy. It's explicitly because Admin *doesn't* police based on preference that we have any troll problems. So, sea, what policy do you suggest? No trolling but how do you/we define trolling?

That's indeed the issue.
PS, "Kinduv" is most likely a satirical response to PB, in the absence of a policy that eliminates a poster whose only goal is to anger others, a constant barrage of clearly misleading, often bigoted, crap...with misrepresentation and outright lying stock in trade.

I definitely don't think Admin is in favor of, nor wants, such trolling. It poisons the experience for everyone else.

I spoke badly, or at least imprecisely. In saying that the admin showed a preference for the troll, I meant in relation to NJBill's interactions with several folks, including the troll. I just don't think anything Bill did or said warranted discipline or ejection from the forum. I think it was an ardent discussion, dealing with facts and statistics to back up a point of view.

I am stumped by a policy that would counteract trolling, partly because the definition of trolling certainly has a subjective edge to it. I certainly loathe what PB posts on a subjective level. But what I really loathe about his posts are the near total absence of content and discussion. Ninety-eight percent of his posts are intended to frustrate and anger people. Being told, over and over and over and over and over and over again that Democrats hate America and should be admitted to a secure psychiatric facility is not discussion; it is a wide-net generalization that has no real use to the generation of discussion. I take plenty of people on the Politics boards to task -- for example, youth athletics, tech37, old salt -- but all of those guys have a real viewpoint, show at least some willingness to listen, and impart good and sometimes compelling information.

From my perspective, the only counter to trolls and trolling is the normative power of the community to counteract it. So it is that I often -- more than I'd like -- say "Boycott Stupid." This is my shorthand for urging folks to place PB on their foe list, and to carefully and consistently ignore his posts, at least insofar as a response to them is concerned.

The women's Division 1 board troll is different. He seems to enjoy tearing down coaches, players and teams. I simply think that is, for the most part, unseemly. I'm not interested in tearing down individual teenagers and young women. I'm not too interested in establishing a hierarchy of coaches, with the metrics amounting to drubbing one or more coaches to elevate another. Just not my thing. For example, his constant refrain about the Maryland women's program taking a nosedive is, at a certain point, plainly intended to provoke Maryland fans. I'm not a Maryland fan, but it is simply unseemly after a while. I already went though middle school with my kids; not interested in reviving that "ethos" here discussing women's lacrosse.

I hope I have responded in kind to your post, which I took to be an earnest question about this issue -- one for which I don't have much of an answer.

Fair, and that's how I read many of the women's side posts as well...I don't spend enough time there to have a full perspective, but definitely observe some 'trolling' behavior that is downright middle schoolish.

If I was the Admin, I think I'd privately warn a poster with a pattern of such to either refrain from such or risk a public warning, then penalty phase if persistent. Ultimately banning the poster permanently. Just no value.

The PB stuff, for instance, is so far off the rails as to be much more obviously damaging than the stuff on the women's thread, IMO, though I think the standards should indeed be somewhat different for appropriate discussion on a lax thread than in Politics. Politics should have somewhat more latitude, IMO...but definitely there's a line that's been crossed specifically by PB. I quite agree that there are several regular posters representing views from the hard right (and far left) who are constructive and add value, as well as perspective, to the discussions. Not PB, IMO.

I don't think there should be a different standard, however, between men's and women's lax...maybe high school is different, but not the genders. Fact based critique of college players and coaches' performance should be included in the discussion as fair game.

That said, "unseemly" is certainly an appropriate word, indeed gentle IMO, for critique that isn't fact-based and at least seemingly intended simply to insult. I think it's one thing to say that player A is 'better' than player B based on how one weights various aspects of performance, and engaging in a fact based discussion, but suggesting that player B isn't also a terrific athlete making their best efforts to utilize their talents successfully, or worse, gets to a region that ticks me off as a parent. Same when applied to teams.

Again, if there's a pattern of such 'trolling', I think it deserves an Admin response.

I have a bit of a bias when it comes to critique of coaches; I want posters to be able to criticize observed choices and behaviors that impact those they're paid to coach. All the more so for experienced coaches with a significant amount of track record. Gender doesn't matter in that regard.

[Baducchi]

I spoke badly, or at least imprecisely. In saying that the admin showed a preference for the troll, I meant in relation to NJBill's interactions with several folks, including the troll... I hope I have responded in kind to your post, which I took to be an earnest question about this issue -- one for which I don't have much of an answer.

Admin isn't throwing flags for personal reasons. He doesn't know NJBill from Cletus from whomever. He's just a cop administering laws. Numerous cars are driving over the speed limit so he issues a warning via loudspeaker, and then waits. First car that goes 66 or over, he pulls over. If necessary, a second car going 66 or over, etc. (But it appears that after Admin pulls over one car, consistently, all the other cars start driving under the speed limit.) And... NJBill was that first car. But, for the sake of argument, let's say that NJ was 100% right and Admin was 100% wrong (which I do not believe to be the case... though Admin must've had something going on in his head because he let NJ out of the box early), because of that NJ quits the forum, and because one trolling poster didn't get put in the box? I don't know. But whatever. As for the "normative power of the community", you're right, there's the power through individual posts and there's also the power through making rules. I'm not joking about my Trump Rule. I think we should have a Trump Rule where if you sound a lot like Trump, a lot like a sociopath, you go in the box. Obviously there's some subjectivity to this but... There's also some subjectivity to Unsportsmanlike Conduct and somehow we make this work. Bottomline, *we* set the rules. Which is why NJBill choosing to walk away seemed like, whatever, to me. Personally, I blame LaxPower. I think some people have some LaxPower PTSD. At LaxPower, there was plenty of personal stuff going on when people were slapped on the wrist. But FanLax isn't LaxPower. Very different. Anyway, the Trump Rule is my proposal (to deal with Peter Brown). Or something similar. As for Cletus, I don't frequent the Women's Forum so much and he doesn't bother me but... I get it. Constant negativity can be grating. I get it. Especially negativity with the expressed purpose of getting under your skin. I think this is harder to legislate but maybe there could be a "You're being a D*ck" rule. Something like this. Again, subjective but... I bet we can make it work. And, for what it's worth, I think Cletus is being less of a d*ck.

[Baducchi]

Devoid of truth, only intended to inflame.

And then he/she/they argue "what is the truth?", the mainstream media lies etc.. Trump and his followers and "What is the truth?" and the conspiracy theories and... It all sounds very Trump-ian to me. if they sound Trumpian, they go in the box. I like it.

[MDlaxfan76]

Maybe the rule you are suggesting might be better branded as 'like Putin" or "Putinesque" instead of "like Trump" or "Trumpian"...same thing, really, but the point isn't left or right, R or D, but the purposeful use of misinformation and disinformation as a tool to divide and enrage.

Trump does this for his personal benefit, Putin does this to undermine faith in democracy, to his personal benefit. Both are sociopaths and they attract other sociopaths who take pleasure in the endorphins of fostering delusion and rage.

Not all those who are deluded by these sociopathic manipulators are themselves sociopaths, indeed most are not.

[Bart]

I spoke badly, or at least imprecisely. In saying that the admin showed a preference for the troll, I meant in relation to NJBill's interactions with several folks, including the troll... I hope I have responded in kind to your post, which I took to be an earnest question about this issue -- one for which I don't have much of an answer.

Admin isn't throwing flags for personal reasons. He doesn't know NJBill from Cletus from whomever. He's just a cop administering laws. Numerous cars are driving over the speed limit so he issues a warning via loudspeaker, and then waits. First car that goes 66 or over, he pulls over. If necessary, a second car going 66 or over, etc. (But it appears that after Admin pulls over one car, consistently, all the other cars start driving under the speed limit.) And... NJBill was that first car. But, for the sake of argument, let's say that NJ was 100% right and Admin was 100% wrong (which I do not believe to be the case... though Admin must've had something going on in his head because he let NJ out of the box early), because of that NJ quits the forum, and because one trolling poster didn't get put in the box? I don't know. But whatever. As for the "normative power of the community", you're right, there's the power through individual posts and there's also the power through making rules. I'm not joking about my Trump Rule. I think we should have a Trump Rule where if you sound a lot like Trump, a lot like a sociopath, you go in the box. Obviously there's some subjectivity to this but... There's also some subjectivity to Unsportsmanlike Conduct and somehow we make this work. Bottomline, *we* set the rules. Which is why NJBill choosing to walk away seemed like, whatever, to me. Personally, I blame LaxPower. I think some people have some LaxPower PTSD. At LaxPower, there was plenty of personal stuff going on when people were slapped on the wrist. But FanLax isn't LaxPower. Very different. Anyway, the Trump Rule is my proposal (to deal with Peter Brown). Or something similar. As for Cletus, I don't frequent the Women's Forum so much and he doesn't bother me but... I get it. Constant negativity can be grating. I get it. Especially negativity with the expressed purpose of getting under your skin. I think this is harder to legislate but maybe there could be a "You're being a D*ck" rule. Something like this. Again, subjective but... I bet we can make it work. And, for what it's worth, I think Cletus is being less of a d*ck.

If you are going to troll at least have the stones to live up to it. If you are being a d!ck and people call you out as such don't go whining to the admin that people are attacking me........ Again, why are the last posts for the sin bin on the women's side of the house? Cause people want to be "provacative" but then claim injury when called on it. If the same standards were applied on the men's side we'd have almost all the JHU posters in the sin bin from what they say to DocB.

[Matnum PI]

... better branded as 'like Putin" or "Putinesque"...

This strikes me as reasonable. A "Russian 'bot" Rule. If a Russian 'bot was in our forum, we'd remove it immediately. So why not do something similar if a post-er's posts read a *lot* like a Russian 'bot?