Remove EvidenceVsFaith

[Edwardo Piet]

Not only have you stated this opinion three times in two posts regardless of the fact that nobody has responded to it,

I'm just trying to make sure I get my point across because I'm quite often misunderstood. I try not to backtrack so much but it tends to happen to some extent even when I try not to.

you've also gone about doing so with no regard for logic. It does not follow logically that because someone has more posts they'll have a higher percentage off spam and nonsense.

I just said that if you have more posts it is on the whole more likely probably.

E.G: If I had only 100 posts there would of course be less spam simply because there's less posts.

Not only have you made this point four times in two posts, you've once again failed to recognise the point. It does not reflect well on the community if you are spamming useless crap in threads,

I don't believe I am 'spamming useless crap', I'm doing my best to get my point across. It's one thing to know what you want to explain and another to explain it. I often have trouble explaining it so that I am fully understood, so to make sure I am fully understood I give different versions until my point is understood. Because it's hard for me to be sure which 'version' is best. It's the way I write - if I try to write otherwise, nothing comes out. I am trying to improve anyway though (I'm always trying to improve overall) - and I believe I am slowly progressing, although in the short-run I may go back a bit sometimes (or stay around the same are).

and a moderator certainly should absolutely never be contributing to the derailing of a thread.

I don't believe I contribute to it derailing? It is simply that when it has already gone off-topic somewhat, already 'derailed' I respond to the derailing since it seems unoffical policy to not lock threads around here(?)

You adopt a "I'm not the only one doing it" attitude, which once again misses the point - you're supposed to have risen above such poor behaviour

Like I said, threads don't tend to get locked here, so if the thread has already derailed and drifted off-topic too much then I don't think I'm exactly making it worse by responding. It's very open here, you can always create a new thread when old threads have died.

My point with the 'not the only one doing it' is that if someone also 'does this', 'fluff posts' or whatever - if they're got hundreds off less posts than me then even if they 'fluff' just as regularly there would be a lot less 'fluff' simply because they post less.

For example: Hypothetically speaking - If had a million posts and 2000 fluffs...then the 2000 fluff posts would only be a tiny percentage...but if everyone else had like 100 posts and they were all fluffs then even though they fluffed 100% of the time (at least up to that point) they would obviously not have 'fuffed' as much as me but that doesn't mean they're less of a 'fluffer' because they would have fluffed 100% of the time whilst I would have done only a tiny percentage, so I don't really fluff much at all.

Just to demonstrate my point that if you have more posts and fluff a bit - there's still going to be a lot of 'fluffs' simply because you have that many posts.

you are a representative of this forum and visitors to the board (myself included) will respond very negatively to seeing such a free-flowing stream of crap pouring from a super moderators mouth.

I don't think everyone at least, sees it that way - so that's simply an opinion.

I'll of course just leave it to the admins to decide.

I could go on, but I think the point has been well demonstrated.

And the point is? I should be reprimanded for 'being EvF' is that the point - IOW: what rule have I exactly broke?

Now - if it is just that I am to be stripped of being a mod then that's of course totally up to the rest of the staff. I mean, if what you are saying is true - then I wonder why it hadn't been done ages ago if I'm really such a problem? Have they just been completely oblivious to it(?) Or just not wanted to tell me for some reason(?) Lol.

And why was I made a mod in the first place, and kept that way if later they realized I'm 'not up to it'(?), or whatever.

So I think, either 1. They don't (or at the very least, all of them don't) see it the way you do, Bef, or 2. They have been completely oblivious to my 'bad behavior' until you have 'informed them' right here or whatever, or 3. They've not wanted to tell me for some unknown reason?

Or... 4. Maybe you can think of an alternative?

EvF

[Samson]

And this was pretty much why I stated in my opinion earlier that this topic should have been locked down or removed....Reason being, I assumed the original poster would come back and start up a pissing contest with whom he accused. (I was right)...

Bef, no offense, but your opinion on EvF was already read and understood. Most importantly, the Admin of these forums read them and understood... There was no reason to come back with more...

[Demonaura]

I'm with EvF, it's a complete overreaction to it. One, I have never once seen short posts as a bad thing from someone. In fact, I have been on boards that are begging for people to post "nice post!" because they lack any real contributions. I went through his posts and the majority were fine, plenty were short but, who seriously gives a crap? When you are talking to someone in real life do you bitch at them for simply laughing and not speaking in full thoughts?

EvF restates his points for the same reason I do, as he said because he is, as I am often misunderstood. Wording it in a different way helps to get a point across. I have been in plenty of arguments with people over basic misunderstandings because text is an absolute fail form of communication.

At any rate, I return to my previous statment. You just came in here and threw out your dislike for a specific person. If we honestly gave a crap we would talk to EvF ourselves, some of us have and he is making an effort. We don't punish people because of some random guy coming in here and telling us why we should hate him.

Post something constructive or go away as far as I care. FYI, constructive isn't forming a lynch mob, it's offering solutions or help. We listen to helpers not rioters.

As for Samsons post, /signed.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I could go on, but I think the point has been well demonstrated.

What you mean like you're a noobie prick who appears to have come here for no other reason than to piss the regulars off? In that case I agree .. point well made!

EDIT: It's also worth pointing out that having made the entrance you have you really (and I mean REALLY) aren't going to be all that popular with many of us (some of us value loyalty) so as far as I am concerned you might as well just leave (and my initial version of that statement was far less polite).

Kyu

[Eilonnwy]

EvF, you do have a tendency to have disjointed thoughts in one post. It's easy to tell because you seem to start a new paragraph every time a new thought occurs. A simple solution is to make sure you proofread. Consolidate your posts if you find yourself repeating yourself. I can understand repeating yourself to make sure you are understood, but it can come off as if your dumbing it down. Whenever I am making a well thought out response to an argument, I'm always reading over my posts and changing what I say to make the thought itself solid and strong. I'll often see I'm repeating something so I'll delete it and then go back to the point I repeated and try to expand on it. Learning correct grammar and sentence structure is no easy task and everyone struggles with it. I have proofread posts 10 times and a week later I'll check it again and see mistakes. But practice makes perfect.

That said, moving from EvF I want to address something else.

Convenient how you all ignore the fact that Bef came here at Adrian's urging, and refused to listen to a word of criticism, even if it was harsh and poorly stated until I came in here and said something. I can understand wanting to defend a friend, but this thread was nothing but a disaster on both ends. Defending a friend is admirable, but you can't let it blind you from valid criticism.

You all need to stop doing this, here and elsewhere. In other posts by spammers or people trying to witness, you all come in like a swarm and insult the person. Does the person deserve it? Maybe. But to a first time poster coming for honest conversation it's probably enough to turn them away.

While I agree that Bef's criticisms should have been dealt with more privately and he himself was insulting and tactless, I think it's highlighted a problem on these forums. People won't want to come here when they see people fluff posting or when everyone just swarms in for the kill if someone takes a misstep.

At the Anime Boston Forums that I moderate, we lock posts that don't belong. This prevents 10 people from then coming in and starting a flame war in a thread. We also make sure to say why we are locking the thread and inform the poster in a non-insulting but helpful way on what they did wrong. We also encourage our members to report a thread that has gone on too long without moderator action. (We have dozens of forums and subforums, especially if you're staff)

Furthermore, we often remove spam or inappropriate posts by putting it in a graveyard. The Graveyard forum itself is locked and viewable only to moderators. This way it's out of site from regular forum members but moderators can refer to the posts if needed. I don't know if you guys have anything like this, but it seems to me you don't.

In my opinion, we have increased moderators here but I don't believed we've increased the quality of topics, and wasn't that the intent? I can't tell you how many times I come, see a topic of interest and it's just spam or drive by preaching, which yeah it sucks. But the 20 posts insulting the guy made it look like it was a topic worth reading when I first clicked on the thread. Lock them, or move them to a graveyard. Do something. There are plenty of moderators here, but seemingly no moderation.

[Edwardo Piet]

You see the thing is, I don't think I 'fluff post' particularly a lot.

Like I have said - If I do it just a bit that's still going to be a lot of 'fluff posts' simply because I (comparatively) have so many posts.

I don't know whether you've noticed but I've got absolute tons of posts when I'm arguing/debating with someone.

And as for deleting my repeatings of myself - I am improving and trying to do that...the difficulty is doing it whilst making sure I don't delete the best version(s) and have it come out actually worse than if I'd just kept another version or two in (because demonstrating the point is actually less effective if the version I have is ineffective).

And for the record on insulting, I can't speak for others - but I myself never insulted Bef, correct? No ad homs whatsoever?

If there are any then it would have slipped in accidentally - but I doubt there are any at all!

EvF

EDIT: Also - I think when someone has a lot of posts then it is easier to think they have been spamming. As I have said - if one does 'fluff post' then more posts would equate to more 'fluff posting' (because one 'fluff posts' at least to some extent).

I think some may be surprised out of the near 3000 posts I've done exactly how many are reasonably large posts in response to what others have said? (Or as an opening post for one of my own threads - look at one of my threads - I do a lot of arguing there for instance).

My free will thread for instance, and on the marriage threads (particularly one of them, where I had to double-post because my post was too big for one post (and it was all arguments not a massive spam post)).

EvF

[Tiberius]

If I do it just a bit that's still going to be a lot of 'fluff posts' simply because I (comparatively) have so many posts.

I think Bef explained this and you missed the point entirely. Saying "I have a lot of posts so I am going to have a lot of fluff posts" is not a good argument because it uses absolute amounts rather than relative amounts.

Your argument goes (and correct me if I'm wrong) that person A with 100 posts might have 1 fluff post, and person B with 1000 posts might have 10 fluff posts, so person B has more fluff posts because he has more actual posts. This is true, but is not a good argument because both people have the "fluff ratio" of 1:100.

Now say person B had 1000 posts and 50 fluff posts. You could make the same argument that he has more fluff posts because he has more actual posts, but as you see it doesn't stand up. Person B now has a "fluff ratio" of 1:20. In other words he has more fluffs relative to the amount of actual posts than person A.

The point Bef was trying to make was that people like Eilonnwy have a very small fluff ratio, whilst you have a larger fluff ratio. Amount of posts doesn't come into it.

Anyway, I agree, this discussion has got out of hand. We might just take Eilonnwy's suggestion of more mods, and then have some mod training or whatever.

[chatpilot]

EvF congratulations on ruffling someones feathers enough so that they would go through the trouble of dedicating a whole thread to you and request your eviction lol too damn funny.Keep up the good work my friend,obviously your patience is alot greater than mine and your tolerance for idiocy is commendable.I personally can debate forever but I grow weary of having to repeat the same points over and over and over again.

[Edwardo Piet]

If I do it just a bit that's still going to be a lot of 'fluff posts' simply because I (comparatively) have so many posts.

I think Bef explained this and you missed the point entirely. Saying "I have a lot of posts so I am going to have a lot of fluff posts" is not a good argument because it uses absolute amounts rather than relative amounts.

But my point was that it is of course relative. So the fact I have absolutely more 'fluff posts' (simply because I have so many posts) doesn't mean I have relatively a lot - it may just look like I have 'a lot' (relatively) because I have so many posts.

E.G: Someone who has 10 million posts and has 1000 'fluff posts' and someone else like "Wow....1000 'fluff posts' - what a spammer!" - but relatively speaking - that's nothing!!

1000 may be a lot of 'fluff posts' (because it's simply an awful lot) - but not when the poster (in this hypothetical example) has 10 million posts!

My point is that it is indeed relative. So the fact I have many 'fluff posts' does not imply that I do it a lot if it's actually relatively a small(/er) amount, it's simply still absolutely a lot because I have 3000 posts (and do 'fluff post' to some extent (or so I'm told - I'm not sure exactly what qualifies for it or where the 'cut-off point' is exacty between 'fluffing' and 'non fluffing' - like I said, threads don't tend to get closed here and if they've already died, I would think that would he a different matter? (for example))).

Your argument goes (and correct me if I'm wrong) that person A with 100 posts might have 1 fluff post, and person B with 1000 posts might have 10 fluff posts, so person B has more fluff posts because he has more actual posts. This is true, but is not a good argument because both people have the "fluff ratio" of 1:100.

No my point is that the fact I have absolutely a lot of fluffs doesn't mean I have a high fluff ratio. Out of the near 3000 posts I have - a very large amount of them are big posts containing arguments, I'd certainly argue that I'm not exactly a 'fluffer'. It's easier to find more fluff posts when I have a lot of posts. This, as you say - does not mean I have a large fluff-ratio!

The point Bef was trying to make was that people like Eilonnwy have a very small fluff ratio, whilst you have a larger fluff ratio.

Maybe so - but it's easier to see the 'fluff ratio' average out when you've done very many posts (I'm aware that Elionnwy doesn't ever tend to post what is described as 'fluffing' yes, but if a topic has already died (and has died ages ago) I don't really see what the problem is if I'm just continuing the conversation, if it takes fluffing when the alternative is to just ignore what's going on in there.

I may describe myself as someone who - "Tends to type large posts with arguments and opinions and if ever does 'fluff' - does 'selective fluffing' based on the fact that the topic has kind of died anyway or it's just a 'funny video' so there's not much else to say on that topic anyway (and I add more than "lol", I give at least some opinion even then)."

And furthermore I don't think my 'fluff posting' is as mad as it's being made out to be, if you're talking about the ratio - yes I have quite a few but I have 3000 posts, but as a ratio I don't think I actually have that many. And if you have less posts it may take longer for the 'fluff posts' to average out, as I said.

Amount of posts doesn't come into it.

I agree. It shouldn't. And I don't think my 'fluff ratio' is that bad. I have almost 3000 posts and I don't think that many of them are 'fluffs' considering all the averaging out over time. An absolute ton of them are pretty damn big and not merely a 'fluff post'.

And actually I've been told on quite a few occasions that my posts tend to be relatively big. You yourself, Adrian, have said that: "EvF is quite possibly the only person who could win an argument just by typing so much the other person loses interest in the entire topic.[...] Damn you and your keyboard!"

So that's 1. Typing a lot in a single post, constructively (to the best of my ability) and in an argument and 2. I'm not losing interesting in the topic there (in that example) - I'm on topic. So It's not like I'm killing a thread...so

...Not exactly 'fluff posting' - and my point here is that: I'd argue that an awful lot of my posts are like that. Not as many 'fluff posts' that are made out. And I can't think of any that derails the topic any more than it is, and if anything it may stop the thread dying if it was otherwise going to - or if it's already dead, it may even help it 'take off' again.

'Constructive fluffing' one might call in the sense that, at best it helps keep the thread alive (or stop it from dying) - and at worst it doesn't make the topic any more derailed than it already is.

I think it's very easy to cherry-pick my posts. And if you go ahead and do that, I don't see the problem anyway? I don't see what harm I am doing to an already dead topic when the alternative is to ignore it? ( Besides, as I said, it might 'take off' again if it stays active).

I'd argue that a large percentage of my posts are like this one - when my posts aren't small they do tend to be larger, and not 'fluff posts', but arguments - and ratio-wise I think I'm doing pretty good to be honest.

EvF

[Darwinian]

We might just take Eilonnwy's suggestion of more mods, and then have some mod training or whatever.

Hmmmm, I think a bit of training might go a long way