Quote from: xtraelv on November 20, 2019, 12:23:47 AM

Quote from: The-One-Above-All on November 19, 2019, 09:00:48 PM

So rather than keep to a definition that is objectively enforceable and sensible to ensure only information that is presented as true is true. You want a definition that means the mods would need complete knowledge of every members life to enforce that is therefore meaningless and valueless. Anything could be inflammatory if you have personal knowledge of a persons life that may not even seem inflammatory to other readers at all. Trolling from a forums perspective is only objectively enforceable using the forums definition in the rules as they are now.

I mean it is clear that you are afraid of needing to demonstrate any of our central points have been debunked, aka you know you can not debunk them because they are observable instances and are true.

You can't debunk them ( because they are true) so you want definition where they can be true and have value but be called trolling because it is inflammatory to call scammers and scammer supporters... filthy skanky scammers or disgusting shit stain ass kissing scammer supporters. haha

Clearly trying to weasel out of the requirement of demonstrating they can debunk or demonstrate our central points are incorrect.

Can't debunk an observable instance or demonstrate it is incorrect = THEN IT IS NOT TROLLING - got it scammer supporter.

Claiming independently verifiable observable instances are TROLLING when you know you can not debunk them is TROLLING TROLLING and should be punished to prevent this method of hiding, obscuring, derailing and generally trying to cast doubt upon the truth that you know you can not debunk because it is TRUE.

Take these scammers supporters sigs away and watch them squeal like the weasels they are.

So here we have it, there is no credible and valid objection from them to being called scammers or scammer supporters, it seems like just don't like being called filthy dirty skanky scammers or degenerate asskissing servile scummy scam supporters.

Tough shit scum bags.

Rather than using a made up definition that suits your narrative I simply suggested using a definition that is more universally accepted as trolling.

Your comments clearly show that you have no understanding of the forum rules or forum ethos.

The moderators haven't removed your obvious condescending posts that attempt to insult yet you are advocating removing or banning anyone that calls you a troll. Which would be censorship. Something you claim is bad.

All indicators show that your expletive laden word walls are nothing other than trolling. They show your argument to be contradictory and weak.This is easily proven by the lack of others supporting you (other than "we" and alts) in any of your threads.

Everything indicates towards you being an angry entitled young child that still lives at home with mommy. Your demeanor shows you get an observable thrill from inflaming people. You contradictory statements show you have no real ethos. Clearly a narcissistic troll that is still lives with their mommy. Lacking any real social skills.

A made up definition ? by the forum?? haha

Suits our narrative? is this more time travelling? maybe we are theymos? and decided that definition and rule suited our narrative in the future when we decided to use it. Like now.

I think we already debunked the usefulness of trying to employ the undeniably universally accepted definition of trolling on an anonymous forum. You would need total knowledge of every single member to correctly recognize and verify trolling which perhaps even you may realize is impossible. I mean SS for all of his lemon induced crazyness did correctly realize that what one member knows inflames another may seem neutral or ludicrous to other members. Like enjoying lemon tea for example. How would a mod be able to correctly analyse and be on the lookout for such comments. Hence the clear and USEFUL and objectively verifiable definition the board chooses to implement and rule upon. Sorry if that does not suit YOUR narrative. Which even if it DID would define everyone on this thread and the DT thread as trolls and see them all banned you fool.

Plus to deliberately inflame and punish scammers and scammer supporters is net positive for a forum and sub optimal to try to prevent it. Unless you want to place at higher risk honest members? That is clearly what you seek to do.

We like to watch how you lurch from one debunked point to another with no shame or perhaps no real realization of what you are doing haha. It is simply like triggering you to self abuse and self harm over and over again. We can hardly wait for your next viscous attack upon yourself. We keep trying to give you opportunities to stop degrading and debasing yourself in public but you just keep fighting on for your right to self denigrate yourself. It is becoming less satisfactory but at least you keep dragging all those scammers along through the mud with you so we are powerless to stop our selves allowing you to do so haha

Please stop, it is upsetting to see you like this xtraelv. We have little empathy for scammer supporters like you but this is now cruel to watch. Just stop defending and supporting your scammer pals for a second. Even they must be begging you to stop ahah

"The moderators haven't removed your obvious condescending posts that attempt to insult yet you are advocating removing or banning anyone that calls you a troll. Which would be censorship. Something you claim is bad."

Someone help this poor cretin please.

1. present the condescending posts that are clearly debunked as untrue and baseless

2. Attempt to insult? if stating the truth is also insulting then ....haha sorry about that.

3. banning, removing people?? calls me a troll?? - err do you mean banning sigs on those that try to claim that observable instances of scamming are TROLLING and therefore placing honest members at financial high risk?? yes they should be punished their sigs won't prevent them from contributing will it?

4. Stopping people supporting, protecting and excusing those that are scamming others, or punishing them is censorship you say? well that may be so but refraining someone from taking your stealing your things may be selfish and invading their personal space.... this is where you call agent foxpoop in he will back you up for sure. I mean the board rules clearly say, that deliberate proliferation of debunked or incorrect information as true is trolling. So you claiming that observable instances are trolling aka untrue meets that direct defintion does it not? so you must be warned and then if you continue must face a punishment.

Condescending ? is that in the rules?

Calling a proven scammer a filthy dirty piece of shit scammer.... is that in the rules??

Calling a scammer protector and excuse provider an ass licking low down sickening drooling scum bag scammer supporter... is that in the rules??

I don't think correctly associating negative actions with negative words that correctly sums them up is against the rules is it?

"All indicators show that your expletive laden word walls are nothing other than trolling. They show your argument to be contradictory and weak.This is easily proven by the lack of others supporting you (other than "we" and alts) in any of your threads. "

There are no valid indicators as we keep debunking every single one of your points haha
No contradiction, no weakness.
LOL at meta board beneficiaries of the status quo not supporting changing anything = proof haha

How about the LACK of debunking any of our central points bozo ?? haha The observable instances require ZERO support. Get that into your thick skull.

Everything indicates towards you being an angry entitled young child that still lives at home with mommy. Your demeanor shows you get an observable thrill from inflaming people. You contradictory statements show you have no real ethos. Clearly a narcissistic troll that is still lives with their mommy. Lacking any real social skills.

Inflammatory comments ... trolling, please stop, haha

No denying that crushing, humiliating and generally degrading (if that is possible) scammers and scammer supporters like xtraelv is pleasurable and satisfying. Nom nom nom.

Again NO contradictory statements. No trolling ( as per the board sensible definition, that we keep using for our own personal gain haha)

LOVE HOW THESE IDIOTS SCREAM FOR BANNING PEOPLE THEY FALSELY ACCUSE OF BEING A TROLL ( but can provide even ONE instance where they have debunked their central points) . THEN CRY WHEN YOU WANT THE BOARDS RULES ( that clearly can be demonstrated to define them as trolling scum bags) ON TROLLING TO APPLY TO THEM AND ONLY HAVE THEIR SIGS TAKEN AWAY.... haha the real bitcoin enthusiasts are here. LOL

So they incorrectly and deliberately call your posts trolling and THEY continually BEG for your ban

then when you

Correctly demonstrate the boards rules clearly define their actions as trolling and they should ~~just~~ have a sig ban

THEY COMPLAIN THAT YOU ASK...

haha

xtraelv is the most entertaining yet. I mean nobody takes a debunking session like this dude and keeps going. Only the very most shameless self abuser could endure this. Imagine if we could get a few like him. We could use them to turn up the heat on their scamming buddies no end. The compilation xtraelv role play we are going to make in his honor will be spectacular.

Their refusal to accept trolling as the presenting as true previously conclusively debunked or incorrect information MEANS THEY KNOW AND ACCEPT they can NOT debunk any of our central points. They are accepting this now clearly. Not that this was not OBVIOUS since they all ran from any challenge to present our debunked central points time and time again.

They know they are scammers, they know they are scammer supporters. They are trying to claim these observable instances are trolling and leverage that to beg for a ban to silence whistle blowing again. Not that that would even work. You can not prevent the presentation of observable instances of wrong doing in your post histories. You have done wrong, you must face the fact people can mention it and should continuously mention it whilst you are in positions of trust.

Get them out.