Sick to death of all the sock accounts around here

Magats_Love_NHB said:
I was looking to not have only one person in my threads due to her always coming in trying to troll and derail from the start. If there was a rule of no derailing for the first 20 threads it would be nice. But it would require moderation which it seems Damo is not interested in.
Click to expand...
If someone is derailing you can ask moderation to ban them from that thread. We've already had a few that needed to be removed from Owlwoman's discussion.
 
Jade Dragon said:
That is the only way to do it with the new software, as far as I know. I recall Damo saying that.
Click to expand...


200.webp
 
I voted against the threadban when it was first put to a vote.

The lefties voted for it.

But when they discovered that others could use it to ban them from threads, copious caterwauling commenced.

The same lefties then demanded that @Damocles hold another vote, so the issue was again put to a vote.

They lost.

It only went away when the new software was installed.

Do you crybullies need your own pattern of behavior explained to you, or can you figure it out by yourself?




B

Thread 'THREADBAN POLL 2017 (READ THREAD B4 VOTING - BANS POSSIBLE IF YOU DONT READ RULES)'

RESULTS
(For future reference):

The poll formally ended on 7/27/17
Majority clinched a day or two earlier

Literal Vampire Potbelly Goblin said:
44 total legitimate votes

24 in favor
11 against
9 neutral
2 dumbasses that can't read the rules.
12 people that did not vote
Click to expand...

_____________________________

SUMMARY

* Threadbanning is a feature that allows one to selectively ban people from threads they create.

* If you are semi-new and still don't have a fully formed opinion on the matter, you can read this thread...

B

Thread 'THREADBAN POLL 2019'

SUMMARY

Once again, we are revisiting the issue of whether or not JPP should have threadbans.


  • This poll will be open for 10 days. It's starting 12:00amish monday so It will close 12:00amish thursday next week. I want everyone to have the opportunity to vote. Walls might be spammed O_O

  • If the vast majority of people vote rather quickly it may be closed earlier.

  • If the vote appears to be an obvious runaway it may be closed earlier.

  • VOTE WILL BE ANONYMOUS, even after votes are in. That way, if you wanna be...
 
This one is interesting...

14. The treatment of Incendiary Troll accounts. Definition: Posting solely for reaction, to harass, or stalk. Whether single or secondary, those accounts posting solely for reaction and/or harassment and not contributing to the discussion in any way post at the sole discretion of the JPP Admin Team and may be removed at any moment.
 
Magats_Love_NHB said:
This one is interesting...

14. The treatment of Incendiary Troll accounts. Definition: Posting solely for reaction, to harass, or stalk. Whether single or secondary, those accounts posting solely for reaction and/or harassment and not contributing to the discussion in any way post at the sole discretion of the JPP Admin Team and may be removed at any moment.
Click to expand...
Don't expect @Damocles to enforce that rule.
 
Magats_Love_NHB said:
Can we accuse people of grooming children? Is that not toeing the pedo line?
Click to expand...
No. It has to be specific: "I bet you groom kids to pet horses" is ok. "I bet you groom kids" is not.

It's a fine difference that true newbies like yourself don't get but experienced members like Lesion Lameass fully understand.

When a "newbie" fully understands the difference, that's another way to know they are a sock. Someone like Ms. Edwina who shows up and understands this fine difference is identifying herself as a sock. :)
 
AProudLefty said:
Don't expect @Damocles to enforce that rule.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but it's been used twice to ban people, IIRC. The NY retard Witold was one, although I don't know why. I think BulletBob was banned for it, IIRC

Enforcement about what is okay under the 12 rules and what isn't can be interesting. Hence my thoughts that it's about who is a donor and who isn't. LOL

Edwina AKA Lesion is a donor. At least under one account, so the decision tilts toward forgiveness. :) An example is the multiple NAMBLA references.
 
Jade Dragon said:
I've liked it better here without it. How about you?
Click to expand...
Agreed.
Magats_Love_NHB said:
I was looking to not have only one person in my threads due to her always coming in trying to troll and derail from the start. If there was a rule of no derailing for the first 20 threads it would be nice. But it would require moderation which it seems Damo is not interested in.
Click to expand...
Aau contraire ma chère, how could I barf on her posts or otherwise ridicule her hypocrisy and stupidity if she was banned from threads?

I do not support censorship such as what Damo did with FORCED IGNORE. OTOH, self-censorship such as the ignore function is fine with me. :)
 
MAGA said:
Because they feel his leadership has a better chance of improving their lives and stability around the world. It sure as fuck wasn't for his personality.
Click to expand...
Then it must be his famous humanitarianism or his splendid record in public service.

He's a conman. It's entirely his personality.
 
martin said:
Then it must be his famous humanitarianism or his splendid record in public service.

He's a conman. It's entirely his personality.
Click to expand...
:rofl2: :ROFLMAO: :rofl2:re Trump's "famous humanitarianism or his splendid record in public service".

Agreed on conman being in his personality. He's the most materialistic and transactional person I've ever seen, especially in politics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top