Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers: @UNIMAN Your group has been asked repeatedly to stop with the stalking and useless combative nonsense in those threads but you just dont stop. There will not be much more room for discussion when the words are ignored, the only recourse will be banning. Is it worth all this crap just to force yourself where you are not wanted? Move along and stop being childish, all of you. So now posting in the same threads as certain posters is stalking? I'm having a hard time understanding your interpretation of the TOS. Threatening sundance with banning now? For what?
Let me ask you this question that has been asked so many times before. Do you know or not know which members are not interested in engaging with your group? Do you understand why? Has this not been explained so many times it is disturbing?
The TOS are quite clear and as stated in 17 and so many times before, a member should not post a reply if that message is not adding value or contributing or having a positive purpose, that is common sense human behavior 101. Why would someone go into any thread in any section of the site to post a negative unpleasant reply? This is a base concept that is quite clear in the TOS, is this also not 100% understood and if it is not 100% understood WHY is it NOT understood? If the purpose of a reply is negative why make it? This is so simple it baffle me that it tells me your side is not really interested in understanding and making good decisions, adding value and avoiding drama and conflict.
THAT is my comment for any place on Covers, then add Politics the most toxic section of the site, the expectations of respect and consideration are higher because of the nature of the section and content...that is how we should try and think. I am speaking of member to member interaction not that you have to agree with others its just in poor taste to make conflict member to member. THEN you add that a certain group has decided not to engage with your side due to conflict and stalking, trolling, combative interactions over and over now it is even THAT much more of an issue.
So your side keeps doing the same thing over and over and then you act like you have no idea over and over, I tell you this same stuff over and over and we rinse and repeat.
THAT is why I commented that is there a sincere attempt to try and be a positive contributing member? This keeps happening, it gets explained and the person gets boxed and then it repeats again. At some point there will not be any other option than to ban...how can you completely lack comprehension of this as I state it in so much depth that your side takes shots at me for doing so. You say you dont know what I am talking about, I explain it and you still act like you do not understand and then some of you take a personal shot at me for long messages.
Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu:
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers: @UNIMAN Your group has been asked repeatedly to stop with the stalking and useless combative nonsense in those threads but you just dont stop. There will not be much more room for discussion when the words are ignored, the only recourse will be banning. Is it worth all this crap just to force yourself where you are not wanted? Move along and stop being childish, all of you. So now posting in the same threads as certain posters is stalking? I'm having a hard time understanding your interpretation of the TOS. Threatening sundance with banning now? For what?
Let me ask you this question that has been asked so many times before. Do you know or not know which members are not interested in engaging with your group? Do you understand why? Has this not been explained so many times it is disturbing?
The TOS are quite clear and as stated in 17 and so many times before, a member should not post a reply if that message is not adding value or contributing or having a positive purpose, that is common sense human behavior 101. Why would someone go into any thread in any section of the site to post a negative unpleasant reply? This is a base concept that is quite clear in the TOS, is this also not 100% understood and if it is not 100% understood WHY is it NOT understood? If the purpose of a reply is negative why make it? This is so simple it baffle me that it tells me your side is not really interested in understanding and making good decisions, adding value and avoiding drama and conflict.
THAT is my comment for any place on Covers, then add Politics the most toxic section of the site, the expectations of respect and consideration are higher because of the nature of the section and content...that is how we should try and think. I am speaking of member to member interaction not that you have to agree with others its just in poor taste to make conflict member to member. THEN you add that a certain group has decided not to engage with your side due to conflict and stalking, trolling, combative interactions over and over now it is even THAT much more of an issue.
So your side keeps doing the same thing over and over and then you act like you have no idea over and over, I tell you this same stuff over and over and we rinse and repeat.
THAT is why I commented that is there a sincere attempt to try and be a positive contributing member? This keeps happening, it gets explained and the person gets boxed and then it repeats again. At some point there will not be any other option than to ban...how can you completely lack comprehension of this as I state it in so much depth that your side takes shots at me for doing so. You say you dont know what I am talking about, I explain it and you still act like you do not understand and then some of you take a personal shot at me for long messages.
@StumpTownStu Read post 17 a few times, this question is quite perplexing because the concept of how to interact with other members is not that complex. I find this repeated question as reactive and defensive when someone is looking for an excuse for stalking/trolling etc and I have answered this like 50 times and yet again in post 17.
You have answered nothing, and have only avoided the question. What's more, you are probably one of the most combative posters on this site. You constantly create this imaginary world where every poster has "a side". Youvtalk about, "your kind", "your side", as if that is the way the world, or this site works. People are just people. They have their individual believes on each issue, and sometimes those beliefs align. Obviously there is a liberal and conservative contingency on this site but that doesn't make each respective side some cartel. These are just people. You have clearly defined double standards, and a very inconsistent interpretation of the terms of service. For example, this "stalking" offense you are now accusing posters of. I'll ask you again, what defines "stalking"? Simply posting in the same thread as a poster of which you have had past disagreements? Disagreeing with said poster?
R.I.P. #94 MARSHAWN KNEELAND - DC4L
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
@StumpTownStu Read post 17 a few times, this question is quite perplexing because the concept of how to interact with other members is not that complex. I find this repeated question as reactive and defensive when someone is looking for an excuse for stalking/trolling etc and I have answered this like 50 times and yet again in post 17.
You have answered nothing, and have only avoided the question. What's more, you are probably one of the most combative posters on this site. You constantly create this imaginary world where every poster has "a side". Youvtalk about, "your kind", "your side", as if that is the way the world, or this site works. People are just people. They have their individual believes on each issue, and sometimes those beliefs align. Obviously there is a liberal and conservative contingency on this site but that doesn't make each respective side some cartel. These are just people. You have clearly defined double standards, and a very inconsistent interpretation of the terms of service. For example, this "stalking" offense you are now accusing posters of. I'll ask you again, what defines "stalking"? Simply posting in the same thread as a poster of which you have had past disagreements? Disagreeing with said poster?
Let me ask you a question I have repeatedly asked, that you have repeatedly refused to answer. What exactly is "mygroup"? What gives you the authority to categorize posters in such a way?
There are plenty posts that don't add value, and plenty that could be considered antagonizing. You seem to only call out those from one "group".
R.I.P. #94 MARSHAWN KNEELAND - DC4L
@wallstreetcappers
Let me ask you a question I have repeatedly asked, that you have repeatedly refused to answer. What exactly is "mygroup"? What gives you the authority to categorize posters in such a way?
There are plenty posts that don't add value, and plenty that could be considered antagonizing. You seem to only call out those from one "group".
There is ONE standard, that is member to member interaction inside the TOS. Everything else you try and create in a partisan fashion is noise and nothing else as is the reply SS made that has no relevance to the situation.
There are two groups here it is obvious and blatant, there are many posters and some are indifferent then there are two distinct groups. One group trolls and baits and seems unable to stop the member to member insults, the other group does not have that problem. THAT is the grouping of importance. Two groups divided inside the TOS.
Anything else regarding political beliefs or threads have no importance INSIDE the TOS, so pointing out that one group made partisan threads, well the other does too and it matters zero.
The TOS is regarding member to member interaction and rules on the extremes content wise, your contention is baseless and off topic.
@StumpTownStu
There is ONE standard, that is member to member interaction inside the TOS. Everything else you try and create in a partisan fashion is noise and nothing else as is the reply SS made that has no relevance to the situation.
There are two groups here it is obvious and blatant, there are many posters and some are indifferent then there are two distinct groups. One group trolls and baits and seems unable to stop the member to member insults, the other group does not have that problem. THAT is the grouping of importance. Two groups divided inside the TOS.
Anything else regarding political beliefs or threads have no importance INSIDE the TOS, so pointing out that one group made partisan threads, well the other does too and it matters zero.
The TOS is regarding member to member interaction and rules on the extremes content wise, your contention is baseless and off topic.
@wallstreetcappers Let me ask you a question I have repeatedly asked, that you have repeatedly refused to answer. What exactly is "my group"? What gives you the authority to categorize posters in such a way? There are plenty posts that don't add value, and plenty that could be considered antagonizing. You seem to only call out those from one "group".
Your group is the one which member to member is not respectful and able to co-exist with another and do so within the TOS for the site. I dont care what content you post or what political side you are on INSIDE THE RULES of the site, the only concept of concern is member to member interaction.
So how could you not understand this concept? I think you do and are seeking a reason for a retort instead of finding a reason to make things better and avoid the conflict and drama.
Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu:
@wallstreetcappers Let me ask you a question I have repeatedly asked, that you have repeatedly refused to answer. What exactly is "my group"? What gives you the authority to categorize posters in such a way? There are plenty posts that don't add value, and plenty that could be considered antagonizing. You seem to only call out those from one "group".
Your group is the one which member to member is not respectful and able to co-exist with another and do so within the TOS for the site. I dont care what content you post or what political side you are on INSIDE THE RULES of the site, the only concept of concern is member to member interaction.
So how could you not understand this concept? I think you do and are seeking a reason for a retort instead of finding a reason to make things better and avoid the conflict and drama.
@StumpTownStu There is ONE standard, that is member to member interaction inside the TOS. Everything else you try and create in a partisan fashion is noise and nothing else as is the reply SS made that has no relevance to the situation. There are two groups here it is obvious and blatant, there are many posters and some are indifferent then there are two distinct groups. One group trolls and baits and seems unable to stop the member to member insults, the other group does not have that problem. THAT is the grouping of importance. Two groups divided inside the TOS. Anything else regarding political beliefs or threads have no importance INSIDE the TOS, so pointing out that one group made partisan threads, well the other does too and it matters zero. The TOS is regarding member to member interaction and rules on the extremes content wise, your contention is baseless and off topic.
I am not a member of any group, and I feel harassed by you repeatedly assigning me to one, as if you are some Lord of Covers. I would imagine this could be interpreted as harassment. Will you please stop? How about we start there?
Midnight came into Slim's last PB thread even though he rarely posts there. Is that not stalking by your definition? I don't aim to calk out Mid. I have genuine and sincere love for the man. I'm just simply establishing your very obvious double standards.
R.I.P. #94 MARSHAWN KNEELAND - DC4L
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
@StumpTownStu There is ONE standard, that is member to member interaction inside the TOS. Everything else you try and create in a partisan fashion is noise and nothing else as is the reply SS made that has no relevance to the situation. There are two groups here it is obvious and blatant, there are many posters and some are indifferent then there are two distinct groups. One group trolls and baits and seems unable to stop the member to member insults, the other group does not have that problem. THAT is the grouping of importance. Two groups divided inside the TOS. Anything else regarding political beliefs or threads have no importance INSIDE the TOS, so pointing out that one group made partisan threads, well the other does too and it matters zero. The TOS is regarding member to member interaction and rules on the extremes content wise, your contention is baseless and off topic.
I am not a member of any group, and I feel harassed by you repeatedly assigning me to one, as if you are some Lord of Covers. I would imagine this could be interpreted as harassment. Will you please stop? How about we start there?
Midnight came into Slim's last PB thread even though he rarely posts there. Is that not stalking by your definition? I don't aim to calk out Mid. I have genuine and sincere love for the man. I'm just simply establishing your very obvious double standards.
Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu: @wallstreetcappers Let me ask you a question I have repeatedly asked, that you have repeatedly refused to answer. What exactly is "my group"? What gives you the authority to categorize posters in such a way? There are plenty posts that don't add value, and plenty that could be considered antagonizing. You seem to only call out those from one "group". Your group is the one which member to member is not respectful and able to co-exist with another and do so within the TOS for the site. I dont care what content you post or what political side you are on INSIDE THE RULES of the site, the only concept of concern is member to member interaction. So how could you not understand this concept? I think you do and are seeking a reason for a retort instead of finding a reason to make things better and avoid the conflict and drama.
This is an ill-defined explanation for "groups", as antagonizing posts exist on both "sides". By definition of creating said "groups", you are antagonizing posters. People are people. Sometimes there beliefs align. The doesn't give you the authority to categorize them.
R.I.P. #94 MARSHAWN KNEELAND - DC4L
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu: @wallstreetcappers Let me ask you a question I have repeatedly asked, that you have repeatedly refused to answer. What exactly is "my group"? What gives you the authority to categorize posters in such a way? There are plenty posts that don't add value, and plenty that could be considered antagonizing. You seem to only call out those from one "group". Your group is the one which member to member is not respectful and able to co-exist with another and do so within the TOS for the site. I dont care what content you post or what political side you are on INSIDE THE RULES of the site, the only concept of concern is member to member interaction. So how could you not understand this concept? I think you do and are seeking a reason for a retort instead of finding a reason to make things better and avoid the conflict and drama.
This is an ill-defined explanation for "groups", as antagonizing posts exist on both "sides". By definition of creating said "groups", you are antagonizing posters. People are people. Sometimes there beliefs align. The doesn't give you the authority to categorize them.
Slim creates a DOGE thread. It receives multiple posts from people taking a counter-stance to Slim. Does this not meet the criteria for stalking/harassment as you have defined it? Repeatedly bumping posts with emojis? Is this adding value?
R.I.P. #94 MARSHAWN KNEELAND - DC4L
@wallstreetcappers
Slim creates a DOGE thread. It receives multiple posts from people taking a counter-stance to Slim. Does this not meet the criteria for stalking/harassment as you have defined it? Repeatedly bumping posts with emojis? Is this adding value?
Are you asking these questions to make things better or are you seeking to deflect and blame by giving off-topic examples?
Are these questions improving this divide or no? You discuss open threads and content, that is not the point of discussion or issue here.
Regarding Midnight I think you 100% miss context there, that situation should not exist if SS kept his word and did not return to post per the wager he made. So do you think that the member who was part of the wager might take issue with that? This example is perfect to the topic of content inside the TOS and how we have to evaluate context and past experience. SS does not have clean hands in this situation so you cannot try and use this example to make a point and have it be valid.
@StumpTownStu
Are you asking these questions to make things better or are you seeking to deflect and blame by giving off-topic examples?
Are these questions improving this divide or no? You discuss open threads and content, that is not the point of discussion or issue here.
Regarding Midnight I think you 100% miss context there, that situation should not exist if SS kept his word and did not return to post per the wager he made. So do you think that the member who was part of the wager might take issue with that? This example is perfect to the topic of content inside the TOS and how we have to evaluate context and past experience. SS does not have clean hands in this situation so you cannot try and use this example to make a point and have it be valid.
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers: Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu: @wallstreetcappers Let me ask you a question I have repeatedly asked, that you have repeatedly refused to answer. What exactly is "my group"? What gives you the authority to categorize posters in such a way? There are plenty posts that don't add value, and plenty that could be considered antagonizing. You seem to only call out those from one "group". Your group is the one which member to member is not respectful and able to co-exist with another and do so within the TOS for the site. I dont care what content you post or what political side you are on INSIDE THE RULES of the site, the only concept of concern is member to member interaction. So how could you not understand this concept? I think you do and are seeking a reason for a retort instead of finding a reason to make things better and avoid the conflict and drama. This is an ill-defined explanation for "groups", as antagonizing posts exist on both "sides". By definition of creating said "groups", you are antagonizing posters. People are people. Sometimes there beliefs align. The doesn't give you the authority to categorize them.
You are correlating off topic again. The issue is not having partisan beliefs and posts, beliefs are not the issue and the categorization is one group who has issues with another MEMBER TO MEMBER...that is the TOS, not beliefs and political parties or content (inside the TOS).
Try not to deflect and create an issue when it does not exist, it has never been about political affiliation or political beliefs. I think the largest flaw is your group tries to force this concept and make it the reason for all the decisions instead of it being about member to member interaction inside the TOS.
There are other members not of your group who have experienced similar issues, it is not 100% all your group but it is pretty one sided as to member to member TOS problems.
Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu:
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers: Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu: @wallstreetcappers Let me ask you a question I have repeatedly asked, that you have repeatedly refused to answer. What exactly is "my group"? What gives you the authority to categorize posters in such a way? There are plenty posts that don't add value, and plenty that could be considered antagonizing. You seem to only call out those from one "group". Your group is the one which member to member is not respectful and able to co-exist with another and do so within the TOS for the site. I dont care what content you post or what political side you are on INSIDE THE RULES of the site, the only concept of concern is member to member interaction. So how could you not understand this concept? I think you do and are seeking a reason for a retort instead of finding a reason to make things better and avoid the conflict and drama. This is an ill-defined explanation for "groups", as antagonizing posts exist on both "sides". By definition of creating said "groups", you are antagonizing posters. People are people. Sometimes there beliefs align. The doesn't give you the authority to categorize them.
You are correlating off topic again. The issue is not having partisan beliefs and posts, beliefs are not the issue and the categorization is one group who has issues with another MEMBER TO MEMBER...that is the TOS, not beliefs and political parties or content (inside the TOS).
Try not to deflect and create an issue when it does not exist, it has never been about political affiliation or political beliefs. I think the largest flaw is your group tries to force this concept and make it the reason for all the decisions instead of it being about member to member interaction inside the TOS.
There are other members not of your group who have experienced similar issues, it is not 100% all your group but it is pretty one sided as to member to member TOS problems.
@StumpTownStu Are you asking these questions to make things better or are you seeking to deflect and blame by giving off-topic examples? Are these questions improving this divide or no? You discuss open threads and content, that is not the point of discussion or issue here. Regarding Midnight I think you 100% miss context there, that situation should not exist if SS kept his word and did not return to post per the wager he made. So do you think that the member who was part of the wager might take issue with that? This example is perfect to the topic of content inside the TOS and how we have to evaluate context and past experience. SS does not have clean hands in this situation so you cannot try and use this example to make a point and have it be valid.
President Trump DID NOT LOSE THE ELECTION...............it was stolen/rigged ..Hence I did Not lose the wager.
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
@StumpTownStu Are you asking these questions to make things better or are you seeking to deflect and blame by giving off-topic examples? Are these questions improving this divide or no? You discuss open threads and content, that is not the point of discussion or issue here. Regarding Midnight I think you 100% miss context there, that situation should not exist if SS kept his word and did not return to post per the wager he made. So do you think that the member who was part of the wager might take issue with that? This example is perfect to the topic of content inside the TOS and how we have to evaluate context and past experience. SS does not have clean hands in this situation so you cannot try and use this example to make a point and have it be valid.
President Trump DID NOT LOSE THE ELECTION...............it was stolen/rigged ..Hence I did Not lose the wager.
Who me ? Yeah I personally think that Nas won the beef versus Jay-Z . But I can respect how some people think Hov won .
See, I never just did things just to do them. Come on, what am I gonna do? Just all of a sudden jump up and grind my feet on somebody's couch like it's something to do? Come on. I got a little more sense then that.
Yeah, I remember grinding my feet on Eddie's couch
Quote Originally Posted by spockgato:
Who me ? Yeah I personally think that Nas won the beef versus Jay-Z . But I can respect how some people think Hov won .
See, I never just did things just to do them. Come on, what am I gonna do? Just all of a sudden jump up and grind my feet on somebody's couch like it's something to do? Come on. I got a little more sense then that.
Yeah, I remember grinding my feet on Eddie's couch
Just what reason do I have to deflect? I have no current beefs, and am not heavily invested in any of these current topics, though I have strong opinions on some, including Ukraine. Probably the only topic I have been extremely vocal on recently. I have nothing to deflect from. I am trying to establish consistent standards. You clearly have double standards.
I use Midnight as an example much more than I already have for risk of it coming off as me calling out my brother. However, any past bet not withstanding, it's Slim's right and prerogative to still post if he chooses. There are no site standards for walk away wagers. You can call it poor character but he isn't violating any terms of service by coming back.
With that said, as you have established your own standards for what you call "stalking", what Mid did would meet those parameters. He literally came into a forum in which he never even posts.
Slim is my dude. Has been for a while now. We even share a bday. However, if you're making a comparison of relationships, the difference is Midnight and day. Midnight is my bro in a very real way. So this isn't defending one's "group" or "side". I agree with Slim on some issues, and disagree on some. Same with Mid. I am simply pointing out the very clear double-standards with which you moderate this site. You repeatedly make excuses for said double-standards because you can't deny them.
R.I.P. #94 MARSHAWN KNEELAND - DC4L
@wallstreetcappers
Just what reason do I have to deflect? I have no current beefs, and am not heavily invested in any of these current topics, though I have strong opinions on some, including Ukraine. Probably the only topic I have been extremely vocal on recently. I have nothing to deflect from. I am trying to establish consistent standards. You clearly have double standards.
I use Midnight as an example much more than I already have for risk of it coming off as me calling out my brother. However, any past bet not withstanding, it's Slim's right and prerogative to still post if he chooses. There are no site standards for walk away wagers. You can call it poor character but he isn't violating any terms of service by coming back.
With that said, as you have established your own standards for what you call "stalking", what Mid did would meet those parameters. He literally came into a forum in which he never even posts.
Slim is my dude. Has been for a while now. We even share a bday. However, if you're making a comparison of relationships, the difference is Midnight and day. Midnight is my bro in a very real way. So this isn't defending one's "group" or "side". I agree with Slim on some issues, and disagree on some. Same with Mid. I am simply pointing out the very clear double-standards with which you moderate this site. You repeatedly make excuses for said double-standards because you can't deny them.
I have repeatedly asked you to not refer to me as a member of a "group". You continue to harass me. Will you please stop. I don't fit into this "group", as yiu have defined it.
R.I.P. #94 MARSHAWN KNEELAND - DC4L
@wallstreetcappers
I have repeatedly asked you to not refer to me as a member of a "group". You continue to harass me. Will you please stop. I don't fit into this "group", as yiu have defined it.
Problems corrected @UNIMAN "If the purpose of interaction is to antagonize, annoy, pester and about 50 other adjectives then it is breaking site rules." UNI,Do you feel that the purpose of these threads below ( just on page #1) is to debate and not combative nonsense to antagonize ? Prime example of the other CLAN trolling 1.) We have picked a terrible time to have the stupidest president ever. 2.) President Greatness Project Expert Survey ranks Biden #14...Obama#7GWBush #32..Trump ranks DEAD LAST. 3.) What damage to America does the traitor and his party plan for the rest of the year ? 4.)Trump lies so much . 5.) Con artist Trumpy already trying to get away from his pre election 6.) How low can Trump go ? 7.) Even more trump FRAUD and CORRUPTION. ..and more ...
Actually the titles do not bother me. Some people believe that, it's their view, OK. It's the total failure to engage and then repeat, enlarge, bold, and color, antagonizing posts over and over. Today I did the same once just to point it out. For some reason there is a "protected class" here. You behave this way and ignore those who blatantly antagonize. Bizarre!
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:
Problems corrected @UNIMAN "If the purpose of interaction is to antagonize, annoy, pester and about 50 other adjectives then it is breaking site rules." UNI,Do you feel that the purpose of these threads below ( just on page #1) is to debate and not combative nonsense to antagonize ? Prime example of the other CLAN trolling 1.) We have picked a terrible time to have the stupidest president ever. 2.) President Greatness Project Expert Survey ranks Biden #14...Obama#7GWBush #32..Trump ranks DEAD LAST. 3.) What damage to America does the traitor and his party plan for the rest of the year ? 4.)Trump lies so much . 5.) Con artist Trumpy already trying to get away from his pre election 6.) How low can Trump go ? 7.) Even more trump FRAUD and CORRUPTION. ..and more ...
Actually the titles do not bother me. Some people believe that, it's their view, OK. It's the total failure to engage and then repeat, enlarge, bold, and color, antagonizing posts over and over. Today I did the same once just to point it out. For some reason there is a "protected class" here. You behave this way and ignore those who blatantly antagonize. Bizarre!
@wallstreetcappers You have been exposed ....... Time to give it up and go off line for a while .
So since you say the election was rigged even though he lost then I am exposed?
You are the one who made the bet not anyone else, so you wormed out of it and thus you do not have clean hands with regards to the other member. I didnt ban you for squirming out of a wager you made, I only said you do not have clean hands with regards to interactions with him, and this is 100% true.
Keep working it out SS...
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:
@wallstreetcappers You have been exposed ....... Time to give it up and go off line for a while .
So since you say the election was rigged even though he lost then I am exposed?
You are the one who made the bet not anyone else, so you wormed out of it and thus you do not have clean hands with regards to the other member. I didnt ban you for squirming out of a wager you made, I only said you do not have clean hands with regards to interactions with him, and this is 100% true.
Group is not political, group is member to member issues and you are for sure not in the other group, you have bothered the other side plenty so why are you offended when you have done exactly what I defined?
The protected class are those who do not break the TOS with regards to member to member interaction, and of course those who keep the content TOS rules as well. The issue in that section for the most part is not content even though a few people do break those rules it is for sure not the core problem.
When any member who has a history of issues with other members repeats the same behaviors which have caused problems in the past and the present, they will likely (not always) have issues with the TOS and mods. My suggestion is since some of you seem completely incapable of stopping yourselves from the digs and stalking of certain members, just do not go to those sections and threads and avoid the entire issue completely.
We have said the exact same thing in the mains when members cannot stop themselves from combative posting, we say just avoid each other and then the problem does not exist and there is no issues. Seems like a straightforward solution and if you notice, the other group does this perfectly, they do not engage or enter threads and cause problems with their differences. They keep to themselves and are not breaking the TOS in the process.
Pretty elementary logic and course of action and yet so many of you refuse to do this and wonder why we keep having repeat issues.
@StumpTownStu
Group is not political, group is member to member issues and you are for sure not in the other group, you have bothered the other side plenty so why are you offended when you have done exactly what I defined?
The protected class are those who do not break the TOS with regards to member to member interaction, and of course those who keep the content TOS rules as well. The issue in that section for the most part is not content even though a few people do break those rules it is for sure not the core problem.
When any member who has a history of issues with other members repeats the same behaviors which have caused problems in the past and the present, they will likely (not always) have issues with the TOS and mods. My suggestion is since some of you seem completely incapable of stopping yourselves from the digs and stalking of certain members, just do not go to those sections and threads and avoid the entire issue completely.
We have said the exact same thing in the mains when members cannot stop themselves from combative posting, we say just avoid each other and then the problem does not exist and there is no issues. Seems like a straightforward solution and if you notice, the other group does this perfectly, they do not engage or enter threads and cause problems with their differences. They keep to themselves and are not breaking the TOS in the process.
Pretty elementary logic and course of action and yet so many of you refuse to do this and wonder why we keep having repeat issues.
@StumpTownStu Group is not political, group is member to member issues and you are for sure not in the other group, you have bothered the other side plenty so why are you offended when you have done exactly what I defined? The protected class are those who do not break the TOS with regards to member to member interaction, and of course those who keep the content TOS rules as well. The issue in that section for the most part is not content even though a few people do break those rules it is for sure not the core problem. When any member who has a history of issues with other members repeats the same behaviors which have caused problems in the past and the present, they will likely (not always) have issues with the TOS and mods. My suggestion is since some of you seem completely incapable of stopping yourselves from the digs and stalking of certain members, just do not go to those sections and threads and avoid the entire issue completely. We have said the exact same thing in the mains when members cannot stop themselves from combative posting, we say just avoid each other and then the problem does not exist and there is no issues. Seems like a straightforward solution and if you notice, the other group does this perfectly, they do not engage or enter threads and cause problems with their differences. They keep to themselves and are not breaking the TOS in the process. Pretty elementary logic and course of action and yet so many of you refuse to do this and wonder why we keep having repeat issues.
"Group is not political.".............it when you say YOUR GROUP.....
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
@StumpTownStu Group is not political, group is member to member issues and you are for sure not in the other group, you have bothered the other side plenty so why are you offended when you have done exactly what I defined? The protected class are those who do not break the TOS with regards to member to member interaction, and of course those who keep the content TOS rules as well. The issue in that section for the most part is not content even though a few people do break those rules it is for sure not the core problem. When any member who has a history of issues with other members repeats the same behaviors which have caused problems in the past and the present, they will likely (not always) have issues with the TOS and mods. My suggestion is since some of you seem completely incapable of stopping yourselves from the digs and stalking of certain members, just do not go to those sections and threads and avoid the entire issue completely. We have said the exact same thing in the mains when members cannot stop themselves from combative posting, we say just avoid each other and then the problem does not exist and there is no issues. Seems like a straightforward solution and if you notice, the other group does this perfectly, they do not engage or enter threads and cause problems with their differences. They keep to themselves and are not breaking the TOS in the process. Pretty elementary logic and course of action and yet so many of you refuse to do this and wonder why we keep having repeat issues.
"Group is not political.".............it when you say YOUR GROUP.....
Hot Forum Topics
