Phil Deakins

Letting someone do it doesn't affect you. I used to get requests and eventually I let someone do it just to stop the requests - and it did.

Ohhnoes wrote: Yeah, let's go! FIFY

I never have a problem understanding your English either. It's strange that some native English spearkers don't seem to be able to understand it..

You keep forgetting, I don't have memory issues. You, on the other hand, seem to forget that.

Ohhnoes wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Ohhnoes wrote: Are you trolling with this piece of text that has some of the oddest, non-excisting words, abbreviatons and strange sentences in it? You mean like the ones I highlighted in red? Indeed Phil, my apologies for the typo's. I am, however, glad you have been able to remember some spelling and you even remembered how to highlight in red, considering the poor condition of your memory that is really amazing. There is nothing wrong with my memory. You seem to have forgotten that Btw, I can understand the second spelling error being a typo but the 'c' must have been intentionally put into the first error

To me, a bogey is what you pick out of your nose, and a man of that stuff? Yeuk! Still, if that's what you think, who am I to correct you

Ohhnoes wrote: Are you trolling with this piece of text that has some of the oddest, non-excisting words, abbreviatons and strange sentences in it? You mean like the ones I highlighted in red?

Are you saying that jujmental is, in fact, Pep? Goodness gracious!

I do believe we're on the same page, Malanya. We forum users don't have to put up with it. If we use the RIC link as we could, instead of just ignoring it each time, it would probably stop, and the people who do it would have to simply post normally. That's what I've been suggesting we do.

So report me. All the evidence is still there for all to see, including the moderators. The "he" is you, and the "she" is Amara, who you caused to leave the forum, which caused Rhonda's astonishing outburst against you. It's all still there. Report me if you think I'm wrong.

jujmental wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: jujmental wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: It sometimes becomes like a domino effect when he keeps on and on and on, and simply doesn't stop, and especially when his few friends join in. May I interject with a question? How many of what you might claim to be your friends interceded publicly on your behalf in a recent debate that you had with Pie Serendipity regarding your fabricated memories of an event in the history of Pep Daniels? I understand you had no support for your position whatsoever, and that it has been criticised as being without merit, and possibly justifies classification as a vexatious argument, which is prima facie evidence of harassment. The Judge You may ask the question. None of those I think of as friends posted anything in support of my point Does this not rather dilute you position. In fact, does it not render your situation ridiculously untenable, since you are arguing that limited public support was offered to your antagonist, whereas you could offer none at all yourself. I will not comment on invisible expressions of support, as you have not admitted the possibility that your antagonist might have had extensive support which was not mobilised into the public domain, thus rendering you even more risible. The Judge I'm not asking you to comment on private support. I'm not asking you anything at all. Nothing is diluted. I have my genuine sources and they will remain private. I'm not trying to prove anything. You did that yourself when you showed everyone who was interested by linking to the old thread. On the charge of scoring own goals: GUILTY

jujmental wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: causing someone to leave completely and another to react in an astonishing way On the charge of False Memory Syndrome: GUILTY, BUT INSANE From the old forum thread that you yourself linked to:- It was not his little barbs. It was what he did to someone you called a friend. She is gone now, so it is not like it can ever happen again That was Rhonda stating why she reacted as she did. The "he" is you and she "she" was Amara, who you drove out of the forum, causing Rhonda's outburst against you. On the charge of squirming: GUILTY

jujmental wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: It sometimes becomes like a domino effect when he keeps on and on and on, and simply doesn't stop, and especially when his few friends join in. May I interject with a question? How many of what you might claim to be your friends interceded publicly on your behalf in a recent debate that you had with Pie Serendipity regarding your fabricated memories of an event in the history of Pep Daniels? I understand you had no support for your position whatsoever, and that it has been criticised as being without merit, and possibly justifies classification as a vexatious argument, which is prima facie evidence of harassment. The Judge You may ask the question. None of those I think of as friends posted anything in support of my point - but you did. However, as I told you before, I did receive a number of messages of support - one even came to see me inworld to offer support. I don't ask people to post on my behalf. I let the evidence speak for itself. I don't need support in posts. The facts are all I need and you posted a link to some of the fact lol. ETA: You judge guise is novel. I'll give you that.

There probably are others here who also do it. It's just that I'm not aware of them. Like you, I also don't understand how someone can be reduced to tears by what a person says in a forum but it does happen, and continually poking barbs at people will almost certainly cause it to happen to one or more of them over time. I agree that it's human nature in some people but, fortunately, it's not most people's nature, so those who do it are few. In the old thread that he linked to, everyone who expressed an opinion judged him guilty of causing what happened - causing someone to leave completely and another to react in an astonishing way. What surprised me was how easily one person wrote off the one who had left - who was seen as a good forum friend - and said something along the lines of, "What's done it done, so let's put it in the past and carry on". It felt like the victim had been driven out so forget about her and carry on with the culprit still there. It just felt wrong. Through all the years we've seen the same person doing the same things. Sometimes someone will privately be reduced to tears, and sometimes someone will feel that being in the forum is too unpleasant so they go. Most times it doesn't have those effects, of course, but each individual's tolerance level is different, and he doesn't know who he is really going to hurt next. Having recently re-read that part of the old thread, it occurred to me that the forum population doesn't have to put up with it, and that's why I encourage users to report any trolling posts (flames, barbs, insults). If he doesn't post any more of them, all will be well, but, if he does, don't put up with it. Report them instead, and not just his. Let's not put up with it any more, They can only continue if we let them. There can't be anything at all wrong with that. Nobody has anything to be concerned about if they don't post flames or insults or even barbs.

Anger and annoyance are emotions. Being reduced to tears is an emotion. To the best of my knowledge, he is the only one left who aims at causing those reactions in people. There used to be others. Not many, but not just him. If there are others in the forum who do it, I'm not aware of them. It happens quite often here that a person accuses someone of being a troll. It's because they are getting wound up by not having their view agreed with. Other people resort to insults. The people they accuse are not trolls though. In this discussion I'm talking about one person who intentionally writes things with the intention of winding another person up. That is being a troll. It's what a troll does. It sometimes becomes like a domino effect when he keeps on and on and on, and simply doesn't stop, and especially when his few friends join in. In a forum we can expect anger to rise up sometimes, and debates to become heated. It's normal for forums. But there is no need to expect or accept someone intentionally causing it.

Trinity Yazimoto wrote: So, i prob differ a bit with Phil opinion about trolls... its not they are really hurting Usually they don't much, if at all, but sometimes they badly hurt people. He himself posted a link to an old forum thread in which he caused one person to leave completely and another to react so much that he himself was hurt by it. And he is known to have reduced people to tears, and caused others to leave the forum. We can do without any of that. We can do without anyone intentionally winding people's emotions up, even if it's only to relatively mild anger or annoyance. There's no need for trying to arouse people's negative emotions. If we get wound up during genuine discussions/debates/arguments, ok, but to do it intentionally is despicable. ETA: Sometimes people resort to insults during arguments. There is no need for it but it can be understandable. But we not talking about those occasions. We are talking about someone who does it intentionally, and without an argument building up to it.

Dresden Ceriano wrote: Incessant whining about trolls is the perfect troll bait... I rest my case. ...Dres Interesting point and observation, Dres

jujmental wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: jujmental wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: feel forced to leave the forum completely, or get reduced to tears. No evidence has been presented: GUILTY Obiter Dicta: This is the second offence. I understand there is a principle of three strikes and out for Harassment. 1. You yourself posted a link to where there is irrefutable evidence of one of those things 2. And I know that the other is also true. 1. Unsubstantiated hearsay is not allowable evidence in my, or any other civilised court. STRUCK OUT! 2. Interpretation of personal opinion as factual is allowed only to expert witnesses; you don't qualify. STRUCK OUT! The Judge Then try the one where you yourself posted a link to the evidence (You, the person at the keyboard, that is) Oh, and word of mouth evidence is most definitely allowed in my court

jujmental wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: I exhort forum users to report the troll's trolling posts On the charge of Harassment, I find you GUILTY Obiter Dicta: There is, as has been pointed out, no offence of "Trolling" in the Tos/Guidelines; you are thus encouraging others to report posts which do not contravene the rules of the Forums. Trolling is a blanket word that covers things that are in the forum guidelines. You need to brush up on the law, judge.

jujmental wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: feel forced to leave the forum completely, or get reduced to tears. No evidence has been presented: GUILTY Obiter Dicta: This is the second offence. I understand there is a principle of three strikes and out for Harassment. You yourself posted a link to where there is irrefutable evidence of one of those things And I know that the other is also true.

Storm. I know you defend him because you and he are friends, so I'm not going to get into an argument with you about it. You have your views, and I have mine. You like to throw in little barbs, such as a 12 year old girl, and I don't. So there's no point in getting into an argument about it with you. But would you please do this for me. It's a sincere request. Will you read my post (#27) in this thread. It's on the previous page. And while you're reading it, just pretend that the subject isn't a friend of yours. Pretend that you've no idea who the person is. And, if you can do that, please tell me honestly what you think of the person - the subject of that post.

My problem is that one person sometimes ruins the forum for individuals, and he enjoys doing it. The forum should be a pleasant place where people chat, laugh, write thoughts and ideas, discuss problems, ask questions, etc. etc., and it usually is. But one person is in the nasty habit of insulting people so that their emotions get wound up and,, on occasion, feel forced to leave the forum completely, or get reduced to tears. He knows he does it, and he keeps on doing it, because he enjoys doing it. It's like his playground where ha can bully people. That's the problem that I see. If he stopped doing it, there would be no problem. Now tell me something. You seem to object to me suggesting that people report his trolling posts. Why do you object to troll posts being reported? I would have thought that all forum users (except the troll himself) would prefer it if there were no troll posts - no insults. That's what I'd like to see here. Why do you think they should continue?

jujmental wrote: Obiter Dicta: One comment may express many thoughts; one thought may be expressed in many sentences; in your case, you appear to have a life sentence relating to one thought - and it is abusive, contrary to the ToS/Guideline relating to Harassment, by vindictively exhorting others to report an individual's posts. The Judge I exhort forum users to report the troll's trolling posts - not his non-trolling posts. That's not harassment. If people report posts that contain trolling, as the mods have asked us to do, there is no harassment. If that person doesn't post any more trolling posts, he won't get reported. It's not harassment. All he has to do is stop trolling and he won't be reported by anyone. There is no harassment here. I speak of him in the third person although, in this post, I believe the second person would be suitable.

jujmental wrote: Obiter Dicta: Presuming to speak on behalf of everyone is delusional and abusive. The Judge That's 'obiter dictum' - singular. You only wrote one comment. 'obiter dicta' is plural. I hope that helps in your future cases. It should save you from some embarrassment. We wouldn't want people laughing at the judge, would we? lol

Phil Deakins wrote: Heh. I read your post a few minutes ago, and I'm now in the middle of reading a forum page that someone sent me a URL to, in which a forum troll (this forum) is defending his posts by claiming that he is not responsible " for the inability of others to manage their own emotions." Expanding on that... If I punch your face, it will physically hurt you, but that pain will disappear quickly. If I punch your emotions, by insulting you for instance, it'll maybe hurt a little but not very much. But if I keep punching at your emotions, it'll get to hurt you a lot, and that pain won't heal anywhere near as quickly as a punch in the face. That's exactly what the forum troll has been doing through the years, and it has hurt people a great deal. It's been completely intentional. He has reduced people to tears, he has driven people out of the forum, and so on. All intentionally. Perhaps he never intended to reduce people to tears or drive them out of the forum, but he did intend to hurt their emotions and, in doing it, he did those things. Emotional pain can be much worse than physical pain, and yet, as far as I know, he's never shown any remorse. What he has done is claim no responsibility "for the inability of others to manage their own emotions", when he's intentionally been hitting at those emotions as much as he can, and intentionally giving them cause to need to manage their emotions. It's a despicable and thoroughly nasty thing to do, but that's what he's enjoyed doing through the years. And yet, when someone justifiably hit back some years ago, and hit back very hard, his emotions were badly hurt, so much so that he posted about it all over the threads at the time. Someone struck out at his emotions, just as he'd been striking out at other people's emotions, and he didn't like it one bit - because it hurt. You'd think that would have shown him the emotional effect that he'd been having on people. It did show him but, with the full knowledge of the effects he'd been having, he carried on regardless, and has been carrying on regardless ever since. Intentionally hitting people's emotions, so that it hurts, is a nasty and despicable practise, and anyone who supports or defends it, really needs to reconsider their attitude towards it. Note: No names have been used in this post, so no identity has been disclosed.