Support NeoGAF

[Acerac]

An asshole, as in, a decent guy? We must have different definitions either of asshole or decent guy.

Either way, to make it clear, I think Nobody is a good person and a good poster. I also did not see any indication of self-loathing, but if he does, it is, while unfortunate, not something that drags down his character.

Nah, he genuinely does not believe most of what he posts. You can tell by the way he words things. He's not dumb, he's just playing devils advocate.

 

[Yoshi]

Yoshi you have a well-catalogued history stretching back to NI's earliest posts where you leap both-feet-first into defending NI's nonsense. I've lost count of the times you've played tag-team and wrung your hands over the "dogpiles". Half the time you don't even argue the topic, you just run interference for NI. Your contrarian shtick is duly noted.

An endorsement from you regarding this user is functionally worthless, but it's nice to see I can still wring paragraphs of unsolicited defense from you with barely a mention of the name.

I get that you do not agree with him, and that is completely fine. It is also fine that you do not like his posting style. But calling him a troll is unfounded. There is no indication that Nobody_Important is dishonest in his stated positions. He has an outlier position here, in terms of politics an is outspoken about it. No reason to slight him.

Yeah but I wouldn’t trust Captain Autism to read people very well.

I think autistic people would prefer if you did not use their condition as a pejorative. Your previous moniker of robot is expressing the same thing in the context and does not offend other people by being compared to me for an immutable condition they have.

My endorsement was primarily meant to distance myself from the asshole moniker, because I did not want it to read like I was supporting that.

 

[Yoshi]

Nah, he genuinely does not believe most of what he posts. You can tell by the way he words things. He's not dumb, he's just playing devils advocate.

Could you please elaborate on that using examples from his postings; if you prefer via PM?

 

[Papa]

I get that you do not agree with him, and that is completely fine. It is also fine that you do not like his posting style. But calling him a troll is unfounded. There is no indication that Nobody_Important is dishonest in his stated positions. He has an outlier position here, in terms of politics an is outspoken about it. No reason to slight him.
I think autistic people would prefer if you did not use their condition as a pejorative. Your previous moniker of robot is expressing the same thing in the context and does not offend other people by being compared to me for an immutable condition they have.

My endorsement was primarily meant to distance myself from the asshole moniker, because I did not want it to read like I was supporting that.

I’d prefer if you didn’t speak on behalf of people you don’t know or tell me what I can and can’t say, Captain Robot

 

[Scopa]

Nah, he genuinely does not believe most of what he posts. You can tell by the way he words things. He's not dumb, he's just playing devils advocate.

Spot on. But, let’s be real, “shit-stirrer” is more in line with his goals than “devil’s advocate”.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Yoshi To use a lighthearted example, you wouldn't take my word about Zelda series or Yoshi series because those are series I've already stated I'm not the biggest fan of. Our viewpoints differ too strongly. But I hope I don't come
across as dishonest in my like or dislike of particular titles. That's why we can disagree on one thing yet find common ground elsewhere: there's a mutual understanding that we are presenting our viewpoints honestly.

This is not the case with NI. I have no confidence they are presenting their viewpoint honestly, "arguing in good faith", if you will. Hence, the label of troll is entirely appropriate. And since I'm not the only person who views them as a troll, it is crass to suggest I'm only calling them that because I disagree with their political paradigm.

There actually is very little to agree with or disagree with whenever it comes to our resident derailer, and since I seem to get along fine with plenty of GAFers who disagree with me on some political/ethical issues (yourself included), it's equally baseless to say that I disagree with him therefore it leads to my treatments of him. NI's dishonestly and duplicitousness is also well-catalogued, and most of the time you're right there by their side, fighting the good fight with slightly-off-subject pedantry.

Again, I do not think you're qualified to speak about NI's behavior.

 

[Acerac]

Could you please elaborate on that using examples from his postings; if you prefer via PM?

I'm far too lazy to bother. Just like when I called out Jusse as a liar way before we had "proof" either you notice the b.s. or you don't.

*shrug*

NI is not a dumb fellow. He's careful in his wording far beyond what most would bother with and plays his cards well. Hell, often when I am replying to him I just wish to complement his diversions and ability to change focuses. That said, his expertise in such areas is precisely why you'll never see me give him more than a handful of sentences.

 

[Yoshi]

@Yoshi To use a lighthearted example, you wouldn't take my word about Zelda series or Yoshi series because those are series I've already stated I'm not the biggest fan of. Our viewpoints differ too strongly. But I hope I don't come
across as dishonest in my like or dislike of particular titles.

You do not, yes.

This is not the case with NI. I have no confidence they are presenting their viewpoint honestly, "arguing in good faith", if you will.

And why is that? What does he do that makes you think "he is intentionally misrepresenting his positions to cause drama"?

And since I'm not the only person who views them as a troll, it is crass to suggest I'm only calling them that because I disagree with their political paradigm.

Well, the active userbase here, in particular when it comes to political threads contains a huge number of people who are staunchly right leaning (or callit anti-social justice activists, I hope you know what position I mean) specifically on social issues and the people who call him a troll are clearly a subset of those. I've yet to see a moderate-"progressive" or "progressive" leaning (on these issues; I do not like the moniker progressive, because it is, frankly, arrogant, but "left" is probably even more inaccurate because it has nothing to do with traditional leftism) poster call him that. This is a strong indicator that being opposed to social justice activists is a prime factor to this valuation.

and since I seem to get along fine with plenty of GAFers who disagree with me on some political/ethical issues (yourself included)

Don't get me wrong, you are a good discussion partner on various topics and can absolutely deal with arguments from different view points. This does not seem to be true with social justice issues though and here the difference between you and me is much smaller than the one between Nobody_Important and you.

NI's dishonestly and duplicitousness is also well-catalogued, and most of the time you're right there by their side, fighting the good fight with slightly-off-subject pedantry.

Where is NI dishonest or duplicitous (full disclaimer: I did not know the word, so I had to look it up and my understanding of it might not be ideal yet; I understand it here as deliberately misleading)? NI often gets called out, but mostly for things that are not true. E.g. I can remember the Smollett thread, where he actually kept updating it when he was online with newer information and acknlowedging them.

Again, I do not think you're qualified to speak about NI's behavior.

Why?

EDIT: And I want to add: I think one possible reason for falsely thinking Nobody is a troll is that his position is too foreign to you. In a similar way as it was difficult for me to understand devout Christian's arguments that use statements in the bible as definitive proof for various claims in the context of discussing e.g. Intelligent Design. My first impulse was to disregard ID positions and related arguments as bad faith ones, but I have come to learn that a good number of people come from a very different way of looking at things and consider (parts of) the bible basically axiomatic and truly believe what they say. Note, I personally find NI's positions understandable and often agreeable, so I do not think they are completely "out there", but for someone coming from a a drastically different standpoint, legitimate opinions and arguments may appear too outlandish to be considered legit.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

And why is that? What does he do that makes you think "he is intentionally misrepresenting his positions to cause drama"?

Dodges out of conversations, drops false information (disproven elsewhere) into unrelated topics to stir up disagreement, avoids answering questions while dropping more "gems" for people to argue over. You and I have been in many of those threads together. You and I had many arguments and debates in those threads. You sure your memory is still functioning?

Well, the active userbase here, in particular when it comes to political threads contains a huge number of people who are staunchly right leaning (or callit anti-social justice activists, I hope you know what position I mean) specifically on social issues and the people who call him a troll are clearly a subset of those. I've yet to see a moderate-"progressive" or "progressive" leaning (on these issues; I do not like the moniker progressive, because it is, frankly, arrogant, but "left" is probably even more inaccurate because it has nothing to do with traditional leftism) poster call him that. This is a strong indicator that being opposed to social justice activists is a prime factor to this valuation.

Unfalsifiable claims are your forte, Yoshi. Just because you haven't seen a moderate or progressive leaning person call him a troll does not mean no one has, and it certainly doesn't stand as evidence ("a strong indicator" as you put it) that NI is opposed because of his opinions. You are fabricating your own evidence. This is known as "confirmation bias".

I have seen progressives and left-leaning posters call him out and call him a troll, even in this thread. The burden of proof is on you to show that he is being attacked because of his viewpoints, even though people like myself are plainly explaining that it is because of his lack of honesty.

Don't get me wrong, you are a good discussion partner on various topics and can absolutely deal with arguments from different view points. This does not seem to be true with social justice issues though and here the difference between you and me is much smaller than the one between Nobody_Important and you.

This frustrates me, because how am I supposed to defend against it?

Thanks for the compliment, but what is your evidence that I can't handle different social justice viewpoints? I'd like you to either take this back or to show me the same caliber of evidence that you're demanding out of me. You are poisoning the well again -- just like you made it your mission to insist GAF was a den of "right-leaning" (EDIT: said alt-right which is an incorrect statement about your position) ideology many months ago -- and this makes me doubt your earnestness.

EDIT: you can actually see my viewpoints on "social justice" offered freely and openly here. If it seems like I was unable to deal with arguments from different viewpoints in that thread, please point out an example.

Where is NI dishonest or duplicitous (full disclaimer: I did not know the word, so I had to look it up and my understanding of it might not be ideal yet; I understand it here as deliberately misleading)? NI often gets called out, but mostly for things that are not true. E.g. I can remember the Smollett thread, where he actually kept updating it when he was online with newer information and acknlowedging them.

You and I have many threads across many months where we've already disagreed on NI. I'm not going to drag out old threads. Have you forgotten, or are you just trying to bog me down with homework?

Why?

EDIT: And I want to add: I think one possible reason for falsely thinking Nobody is a troll is that his position is too foreign to you. In a similar way as it was difficult for me to understand devout Christian's arguments that use statements in the bible as definitive proof for various claims in the context of discussing e.g. Intelligent Design. My first impulse was to disregard ID positions and related arguments as bad faith ones, but I have come to learn that a good number of people come from a very different way of looking at things and consider (parts of) the bible basically axiomatic and truly believe what they say. Note, I personally find NI's positions understandable and often agreeable, so I do not think they are completely "out there", but for someone coming from a a drastically different standpoint, legitimate opinions and arguments may appear too outlandish to be considered legit.

Our conversation in this thread is a good example of why you aren't qualified to speak about NI: you are engaging with me, offering counterpoints, disagreeing and explaining why, and that's great! I appreciate you as a conversation partner because you'll pick apart my arguments and ask relevant questions. Some of the time you go off in strange directions but on the whole you stay on topic and avoid most of the common debate foibles.

And you apply this same critique to other posters if you disagree, which is also fine. It shows you to be a consistent person...

...except in the case of NI.

I've never witnessed a shred of your skepticism or critical eye applied to NI, not once. In every case, you rise to their defense. I didn't even state their name (merely linking to a post) and here we are, arguing about NI again, as though his plight could summon you from afar. And since not seeing something is taken as evidence, I would consider this "a strong indicator" (your words, your logic) that you are either in cahoots with NI or are intellectually incapable of seeing their flaws. Right?

You fancy yourself a mind reader. You throw up your hands and say "NI a troll? No, show me the evidence. I think they are a good person" and then proceed to make a heap of unfalsifiable, empty statements toward me like "his position is too foreign to you, which is why you disagree".

No, as I've stated quite clearly, their lack of honesty is why I disagree. Is there a particular reason why you ignore the words I've typed and instead inserted your own head-fiction? This is called strawmanning. You are making assumptions about my inner thoughts, my motivations, and yet you haven't presented one bit of evidence to support that.

I wonder why you must attack my capacity to understand others' viewpoints, although I've already mentioned that I seem to get along with plenty of other GAFers who hold far-left positions across numerous topics. Don't try to poison the well and imply that I disagree with NI because I'm incapable of understanding their position.

If my disagreement with NI is because we disagree on topics, then I will apply that same leap of logic to yourself and say that since you agree with NI on topics, you lack the objectivity to determine their honesty. Fair? Of course not. I have no interest in painting you into a corner with such stupid debate tactics, so if you won't mind, please do not attempt to use them on me.

 

[Nymphae]

avoids answering questions while dropping more "gems" for people to argue over.

To me this is the biggest deal. I cannot stand when a poster does not respond to someone legitimately calling them out, asking a question or for clarification, etc. I'm not saying you need to respond to every damn thing obviously, but you see this a lot with some people. I have a shitlist of people I basically avoid conversation with here because they've done this to me. There needs to be a wall of shame for posters who walk out of conversations or arguments.

I mean that is ostensibly the only reason to be a member here, to discuss things with this community. Which is why NI rubs a lot of people the wrong way I think, it's like, man you actually don't really like a majority of this community, you constantly argue with people and it feels like you just want to gotcha people. He doesn't even post in the gaming forum very often, so I think it's easy to see why people consider him a troll or troll like. Do you hang around in communities you despise to argue with them?

 

[Shifty]

It's bizarre to see so much talk about this NI individual- I've only ever seen them a couple of times here and there.
But, I don't stray into politics-side, so the math probably checks out.

There needs to be a wall of shame for posters who walk out of conversations or arguments.

While that would greatly please the grumpy little devil on my shoulder that loves to make callouts, I don't know if it's wise. Probably better to let standard social mechanisms do their thing and have a poster's reputation speak for itself.

It's one thing to have a high score board for likes and such, but a board of shame officiating our resident shitposters / disingenuous debaters / console war feudal lords seems kind of redundant when they could simply eat a ban. Even if it were some sort of half-step "next time you're gone" situation, it smacks a little too much of locking someone in the stocks and pelting them with rotten fruit to me.

 

[Yoshi]

drops false information (disproven elsewhere) into unrelated topics to stir up disagreement

This would be actually very good evidence to your cause, especially if he refused to acknowledge it as an error. But I am truly unaware of even a single instance of that, even though you claim it is common behaviour of his. Of course, I am not reading everything he writes, so if he only did this only very rarely, I might have missed it, but you even claim:

You and I have been in many of those threads together. You and I had many arguments and debates in those threads.

So I should be aware of this, yet I am truly not. Not of a single instance. Him talking about things on the news that later turned out wrong? Of course, we have the Smollett case recently, but that wasn't him being disingenious, it was (very likely) Smollett lying. So I can only repeat the request: Please point me towards a posting where he actually does this and refuses to acknlowedge it as an error.

You sure your memory is still functioning?

@matt404au will be happy to hear that my self-diagnosis indicates all functions within normal parameters.

Unfalsifiable claims are your forte, Yoshi. Just because you haven't seen a moderate or progressive leaning person call him a troll does not mean no one has, and it certainly doesn't stand as evidence ("a strong indicator" as you put it) that NI is opposed because of his opinions. You are fabricating your own evidence. This is known as "confirmation bias".

Claims of non-existence are easily falsifiable actually, by pointing to one element of the supposedly empty set. The claim of existence is what is hard to falsify because you would need to prove that the existence would be contradictory, but the claim of non-existence is very easily falsifiable. So I do not understand your argument here. And since Nobody_Important is not the only one constantly being on the receiving end of attacks from the right leaning side, consider e.g. JareBear: Remastered , @ssolitare and AfricanKing , the thesis that advocacy for social justice issues is met with a certain vitriol is not that far-fetched. But you see I did not state this as a factual statement, because it is just my impression.

Thanks for the compliment, but what is your evidence that I can't handle different social justice viewpoints? I'd like you to either take this back or to show me the same caliber of evidence that you're demanding out of me. You are poisoning the well again -- just like you made it your mission to insist GAF was a den of alt-right ideology many months ago -- and this makes me doubt your earnestness.

I will not respond to issues I have been told by moderation to keep shut about. I am earnest in what I write here, proving that is not possible though - or at least I wouldn't know how. My evidence for the claim is that you accuse Nobody_Important of being a troll and dishonest without giving any concrete evidence towards this. If you give me convincing evidence of that claim, I will gladly (well, reagrding you; I would be very disappointed in Nobody though, because I consistently have the impression that he earnestly cares about the issues he posts about and makes a good effort in presenting his case). What would you make out this if someone you perceive as a very respectable and consistent poster to constantly be slighted by a small but vocal group and even though you double checked some samples of his postings can see no evidence of the harsh claims made against him? And this goes both ways, if NI was accusing you of being a dishonest poster, I would similarly be puzzled about that.

It is precisely because I have a positive opinion of you that I assume that it must be a misunderstanding on your part, and not ill-intention that leads to the claims about NI. I have repeatedly failed to verify the claim he is dishonest in his posting behaviour, and people who make such claims are usually unwilling to provide any concrete evidence, so what am I supposed to think? I cannot take the above back as of now, because I am currently convinced that your valuation is wrong and that you have no bad intention behind that, which can only be explained by a misunderstanding.

You and I have many threads across many months where we've already disagreed on NI. I'm not going to drag out old threads. Have you forgotten, or are you just trying to bog me down with homework?

I seriously cannot recall any citations of him that are evidence he is being dishonest in his posting behaviour. I know we have disagreed in our valuation of what he has posted, but I do not remember any evidence of yours that he is dishonest. That he was wrong on something, probably yes, I do not remember precisely that you highlighted that, but he certainly was wrong on something already, like virtually everyone. But I have not seen evidence for dishonesty (or must have forgotten it, technically, but I would be so strongly disappointed that I am positive I would remember).

I've never witnessed a shred of your skepticism or critical eye applied to NI, not once. In every case, you rise to their defense.

Well, that's not true, I'll give you two examples:
(1) https://www.neogaf.com/threads/pew-...-and-political-issues.1471223/#post-253725677
(2) https://www.neogaf.com/threads/off-...ep-it-in-here.1462647/page-139#post-253631976

You fancy yourself a mind reader. You throw up your hands and say "NI a troll? No, show me the evidence. I think they are a good person" and then proceed to make a heap of unfalsifiable, empty statements toward me like "his position is too foreign to you, which is why you disagree".

It is not mind reading, it is the only logical explanation that is consistent with my view of you and NI as persons that I can come up with.

If my disagreement with NI is because we disagree on topics, then I will apply that same leap of logic to yourself and say that since you agree with NI on topics, you lack the objectivity to determine their honesty. Fair? Of course not. I have no interest in painting you into a corner with such stupid debate tactics, so if you won't mind, please do not attempt to use them on me.

The thing is, I do not agree with NI nearly as consistently as you claim. I can understand where he is coming from and see good intentions in his positions, but our specific positions are certainly distinct.

 

[hariseldon]

since Nobody_Important is not the only one constantly being on the receiving end of attacks from the right leaning side, consider e.g. JareBear: Remastered , @ssolitare and AfricanKing , the thesis that advocacy for social justice issues is met with a certain vitriol is not that far-fetched.

I don't see JareBear: Remastered getting any abuse (maybe I missed it? He doesn't seem to get any more than I do as far as I can tell), primarily because he speaks with humility and simply tells it how he sees it. Nobody minds an honestly-held opinion. It helps that he also seems like a nice guy. The others on the other hand.. yeah not so much. That they get abuse speaks more of their character than their opinions.

PS that post is a great example of why I find you quite tiring.

 

[Nymphae]

While that would greatly please the grumpy little devil on my shoulder that loves to make callouts, I don't know if it's wise. Probably better to let standard social mechanisms do their thing and have a poster's reputation speak for itself.

It's one thing to have a high score board for likes and such, but a board of shame officiating our resident shitposters / disingenuous debaters / console war feudal lords seems kind of redundant when they could simply eat a ban. Even if it were some sort of half-step "next time you're gone" situation, it smacks a little too much of locking someone in the stocks and pelting them with rotten fruit to me.

I was only kidding, I don't expect that to ever become a feature. But tbh someone not responding to a legitimate question or argument or whatnot immediately makes me want to put that person on ignore, and makes me feel a tiny bit shittier about the community each time someone does it. As I said it's the only reason to be here, to have a back and forth with the people here, so not doing that just feels gross to me. I will 100% of the time respond to someone who is asking me a question or feeding me crow.

 

[Nymphae]

Nobody minds an honestly-held opinion.

lol Jarebear does, something I said got me on his ignore list.

 

[hariseldon]

lol Jarebear does, something I said got me on his ignore list.

That surprises me. Honestly I've never had any issues with him, he honestly seems pretty ok to me. Shame you guys couldn't get on though

 

[JareBear: Remastered]

lol Jarebear does, something I said got me on his ignore list.

I was just having a bit of a freak out that day. I don’t even remember what it was.

Sorry about that.

 

[guggnichso]

Seems like this is the right place to post this: I think the, well, „campaign“ to get users like Nobody_Important and Yoshi to constantly explain or comment on political and social issues and then dogpiling them and trying to frame them as disingenuous and get them banned is ridiculous. This new GAF should be open to discussion, as was stated by the owner and mods numerous times, and trying to silence more left leaning voices and making this forum into some mirror universe version of Resetera is laughable.

You complain about so called „SJW“ people silencing you on other forums? Cool. Now don’t try to silence dissenters in your own preferred forum.

 

[hariseldon]

I was just having a bit of a freak out that day. I don’t even remember what it was.

Sorry about that.

Now kiss him dammit, kiss him.

 

[Yoshi]

I don't see @JareBear getting any abuse (maybe I missed it? He doesn't seem to get any more than I do as far as I can tell), primarily because he speaks with humility and simply tells it how he sees it.

In terms of e.g. discussions on AOC it was quite apparent, but I also found the unnecessary outcalling in the Smollett thread in bad taste, especially considering he has been very open about the difficult position he is in right now. He has taken it well, and I am glad about it, but it is a level of roughness that I cannot appreciate.

PS that post is a great example of why I find you quite tiring.

Let's see the bright side of things: If you need to take extra naps because of increasing age you can tell your wife that tiring dinosaur on the internet is at fault.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Yoshi since you can present no evidence, merely the excuse that "it's the most logical thing I could come up with" and "I am unaware of this", I'll take that to mean you have no interest in seeing my perspective.

Since you and I have already had these sort of conversations where you also had a really difficult time seeing my perspective on this particular user, I can only conclude that perhaps my perspective is "just too foreign" to you. It's not that I'm wrong and you're right: you're just not capable of seeing the holes in your position because you lack the understanding of my side. I don't think you are ill-willed, just lacking in perspective.

If you want evidence, I'll point to their shifting goalposts regarding the Mueller investigation and the Kavanaugh case as my two examples. I don't expect this to change your mind, but I would hate to leave you hanging on the off-chance that you had any genuine interest in examining NI's behavior and turning around your opinion.

Seems like this is the right place to post this: I think the, well, „campaign“ to get users like Nobody_Important and Yoshi to constantly explain or comment on political and social issues and then dogpiling them and trying to frame them as disingenuous and get them banned is ridiculous. This new GAF should be open to discussion, as was stated by the owner and mods numerous times, and trying to silence more left leaning voices and making this forum into some mirror universe version of Resetera is laughable.

You complain about so called „SJW“ people silencing you on other forums? Cool. Now don’t try to silence dissenters in your own preferred forum.

This would apply if Yoshi and NI didn't willingly leap into the conversations in which they are later "dogpiled".

As already pointed out, I didn't even call out the user by name and yet here we are, arguing about our resident derailer in full detail, with many of the usual suspects rushing in to defend.

Given this website's history of ideological/political astroturfing, I have every reason to be suspicious of behavior like that.

 

[Deleted member 77995]

Seems like this is the right place to post this: I think the, well, „campaign“ to get users like Nobody_Important and Yoshi to constantly explain or comment on political and social issues and then dogpiling them and trying to frame them as disingenuous and get them banned is ridiculous. This new GAF should be open to discussion, as was stated by the owner and mods numerous times, and trying to silence more left leaning voices and making this forum into some mirror universe version of Resetera is laughable.

You complain about so called „SJW“ people silencing you on other forums? Cool. Now don’t try to silence dissenters in your own preferred forum.

It's something that has been eating at me as well.

Too many threads get dragged down with metacommentary on "agendas" and "what you really meant", second guessing each other's intentions, dragging users across various threads, instigating, supposing about hypotheticals, personal insults, etc. It's the same kind of filth that dragged down oldGaf, just wearing a different mask.

We're all guilty of it at times but it's something worth pointing out as this forum continues to try to shed the old skin.

 

[Yoshi]

@Yoshi since you can present no evidence, merely the excuse that "it's the most logical thing I could come up with" and "I am unaware of this", I'll take that to mean you have no interest in seeing my perspective.

Since you and I have already had these sort of conversations where you also had a really difficult time seeing my perspective on this particular user, I can only conclude that perhaps my perspective is "just too foreign" to you. It's not that I'm wrong and you're right: you're just not capable of seeing the holes in your position because you lack the understanding of my side. I don't think you are ill-willed, just lacking in perspective.

You cannot be serious! I have answered to numerous of your points, giving you evidence e.g. for the claim I would never question what Nobody says and I even explained to you how it is easily possible to falsify what I have claimed. Yet you answer with such a, frnakly, disrespectfully low effort posting.

If you want evidence,

I do!

I'll point to their shifting goalposts regarding the Mueller investigation and the Kavanaugh case as my two examples. I don't expect this to change your mind, but I would hate to leave you hanging on the off-chance that you had any genuine interest in examining NI's behavior and turning around your opinion.

Then please, show me the postings you are referring to, that are indeed showcasing that Nobody_Important is being dishonest.

As already pointed out, I didn't even call out the user by name and yet here we are, arguing about our resident derailer in full detail, with many of the usual suspects rushing in to defend.

Whether you name him or not has no significance, because I only have notifications for my name, wouldn't even know how I could add notifications for others (nor be interested in that). I have just read your posting, and you have given a posting of his as an example of something that requires punishment in your eyes, while calling him a well-known troll. How is it strange that I click on the link you yourself provided and comment on your proposal, including the slight against Nobody?

Given this website's history of ideological/political astroturfing, I have every reason to be suspicious of behavior like that.

Astroturfing? Who do you think could be paid here and who would be paying? No party will spend money on astroturfing a video game forum's politics subforum with maybe 40 active users from all over the world (rough estimate). That would be some tremendous waste of money.

 

[hariseldon]

In terms of e.g. discussions on AOC it was quite apparent, but I also found the unnecessary outcalling in the Smollett thread in bad taste, especially considering he has been very open about the difficult position he is in right now. He has taken it well, and I am glad about it, but it is a level of roughness that I cannot appreciate.
Let's see the bright side of things: If you need to take extra naps because of increasing age you can tell your wife that tiring dinosaur on the internet is at fault.

Ah I don't think I went into those threads, sounds like I missed all the fun. The AOC thing is something I'm not really informed on enough to add much to the debate, and I know absolutely bugger all about Smollett, whoever or whatever that is.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Yoshi You are welcome to continue defaulting to incredulous disbelief and doubt, but skepticism does not an argument make especially when you do not apply any of this skepticism to the user in question. Spoonfeeding you information that you either ignore or whittle down with pedantry is a dance we've danced many times before. I told you the two topics where they flip-flopped. Spend a fraction of this skepticism you're displaying toward me and go examine those topics. They should be in your own post history, since you were in there too.

I am not being disrespectfully low-effort. I am literally ripping off your own brand of logic and using it against you. This should be painfully obvious to anyone with self awareness. I don't actually believe that your opinion should be dismissed because you agree with NI. I don't actually believe that your opinion should be doubted because you agree with NI. But that is exactly the accusation you have leveled against me, and since you refuse to walk it back, I have no choice but to throw it in your face.

Are you unaware of GAF's own history as a hotbed for astroturfing, banning based on political alignments, and high traffic to a particular political party?

 

[JareBear: Remastered]

 

[Nobody_Important]

If you want evidence, I'll point to their shifting goalposts regarding the Mueller investigation and the Kavanaugh case as my two examples.

Can you show me where I shifted the goalposts on either of those subjects please? I have been very upfront and pretty transparent on my feelings when it comes to both.

 

[Yoshi]

@Yoshi You are welcome to continue defaulting to incredulous disbelief and doubt, but skepticism does not an argument make especially when you do not apply any of this skepticism to the user in question.

You know, I have given you two examples as to why this is wrong, have you even looked at them?

Spoonfeeding you information that you either ignore or whittle down with pedantry is a dance we've danced many times before. I told you the two topics where they flip-flopped. Spend a fraction of this skepticism you're displaying toward me and go examine those topics. They should be in your own post history, since you were in there too.

Great, you name two threads of many hundred posts in which Nobody_Important was very active; one of which likely distributed over several topics and even though you know I have been unable to identify dishonest posting behaviour you think I will now suddenly be able to see it by just read the whole threads? If it is so apparent that he is being dishonest in his psotings, why do you not just post two or three postings that make clear that he is being dishonest? I have done the same above as a response to your allegation.

Are you unaware of GAF's own history as a hotbed for astroturfing, banning based on political alignments, and high traffic to a particular political party?

I am aware of this, but that was at a time where a moderator was working for the campaign of a presidential candidate and thus had personal interest in upholding the stance in the forum; I would be surprised if he actually got paid for that specific behaviour. But even if he did, times were different with many more active users here at the time, it being before the split, and we were in an actual running presidential election. Nobody has been here for well over a year, I have been here for well over a decade. This does not make any sense.

EDIT: Erroneously called Hillary Clinton president instead of presidential candidate.

 

[Nobody_Important]

DunDunDunpachi


Here let me save you some time and let me show you that you are full of crap real quick. I'll even use your Mueller example. I assume that you are saying that I am moving goalposts on the Mueller investigation because I was in the Mueller thread yesterday pointing out how I was already satisfied with the Mueller report and that I never thought Trump was gonna be removed as a result of it.


Except if you look at my post history I am being 100% consistent. I haven't moved shit.



Here I am on Nov 6th saying that impeachment was never a realistic possibility

Honestly at this point I'd rather Trump be left in office. Impeachment was always a pipe dream anyway. Leave him in office and let him continue to destroy the prestige of the office and embarass the country. It will only make the next election that much easier.

Here I am on October 19th of last year pointing out I was never on the impeachment train

I was never on the impeachment train because I knew it was unrealistic. I am on the "Obstruct Trump's agenda at every possible turn and destroy his credibility" train.


Its why the mid-terms are so important this year. Even if the Dems can only take back the House it would go a long way in disrupting the GOP's ability to get things done.

Here I am on Aug 1st of last year saying I don't care if he is impeached

I have already said I don't care if he is impeached or not. So long as the investigation ends with him being so publicly humiliated that it makes it nearly impoosble for him to get any part of his agenda passed between now and the next elections then I frankly don't care. Him being impeached and the GOP being unable to pass any of their agenda is essentially the same outcome to me.

Here I am on July 31st of last year saying I don't care if he is impeached

To be perfectly honest I don't even care if he is impeached at this point. So long as his reputation is so damaged and disgraced that he can get nothing done for the rest of his term thanks to the Dems continuing to be obstructionists I would be 100% fine with that.

So no. I haven't moved jack shit when it comes to Mueller. I have been consistent in my expectations of the Mueller report since I got here. I never thought impeachment was a realistic possibility. In fact all I wanted was the investigation to uncover as many negative things as it could about Trump and his inner circle so it could be used to obstruct his agenda. And thats exactly what it did. So me saying I am satisfied is not me moving goalposts. It fits perfectly in line with my stated expectations and desires.


Now you can argue that its a petulant outlook or that its a shitty outlook, but its a consistent one. One that I have maintained my entire time here. So i would appreciate it if you are gonna accuse me of shit at least make sure its shit I have actually done please.

 

[JareBear: Remastered]

I’m curious, am I the only person in GAF history to be asked by somebody not to like their posts? Dude was bothered that I liked his posts. I still have PTSD from that. Thanks for pooping in my cereal, Darkking.

 

[Nobody_Important]

I’m curious, am I the only person in GAF history to be asked by somebody not to like their posts? I still have PTSD from that. Thanks for pooping in my cereal, Darkking

Hey at least you have the ability to like posts. Be happy for it.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Yoshi neither of your examples show anything resembling the wringer you're trying to put me through now. In fact, one of your examples looks more like a close friend gently chiding their buddy over a poor choice of words. I've never seen you dismantle their argument.

Don't dodge on the astroturfing issue. You know full well my concern isn't money changing hands but rather the lack of honest conversation on these topics. You're drifting further into the realm of pedantry.

I believe my response directly to Nobody_Important will not sufficiently meet your criteria, so I'm preemptively asking you to please explain to me what other evidence you need, because we both know you're really serious about taking a closer look at NI's standpoints wink wink.

Can you show me where I shifted the goalposts on either of those subjects please? I have been very upfront and pretty transparent on my feelings when it comes to both.

Kavanaugh backpedaling where you went from "he's a drunk, he lies about his past, he raised his voice" to "I hope it's not true, even though the GOP wouldn't stop the nomination anyway" back to "it was never really meant to be proven in a court" and then more conjecture about his drinking habits. A choice quote:

Whether or not it's actually true doesn't matter. They BELIEVE that it's true so they are protesting and you can't tell people what to believe. Especially people who are already so close to an issue as sensitive as this.​

There were more than a few topics about the Mueller investigation that you opened. Now you have backpedalled to the point where you say that even if collusion is never found, the investigation was still profitable.

As a freebie, I also like how you handwaved a bunch of private citizens (kids, no less) getting threatened and doxxed and could not muster the courage to hold the media accountable for it. Instead, you wanted to play "let's battle against strawman hypocrisy to stir up the thread".

Don't bother defending yourself, since I know you don't take a single thing I'm saying seriously anyway. The attention has likely thrilled you, in fact.

 

[hariseldon]

I’m curious, am I the only person in GAF history to be asked by somebody not to like their posts? Dude was bothered that I liked his posts. I still have PTSD from that. Thanks for pooping in my cereal, Darkking.

If you ever like my posts again I'll cut your balls off.

 

[Nobody_Important]

Kavanaugh backpedaling where you went from "he's a drunk, he lies about his past, he raised his voice" to "I hope it's not true, even though the GOP wouldn't stop the nomination anyway" back to "it was never really meant to be proven in a court" and then more conjecture about his drinking habits. A choice quote:

Whether or not it's actually true doesn't matter. They BELIEVE that it's true so they are protesting and you can't tell people what to believe. Especially people who are already so close to an issue as sensitive as this.​

​

​

I made myself clear on the kavanaugh situation multiple times. I didn't even pick a side on the issue until after both of them testified. But since the side I chose wasn't one you agree with you are gonna try and hang it over me anyway so I am not gonna waste time on that rabbit hole again. You can believe what you want on it.​

​

There were more than a few topics about the Mueller investigation that you opened. Now you have backpedalled to the point where you say that even if collusion is never found, the investigation was still profitable.

I already showed you were full of crap on the Mueller thing above. I have been consistent in my expectations of the Mueller report since I got here.

As a freebie, I also like how you handwaved a bunch of private citizens (kids, no less) getting threatened and doxxed and could not muster the courage to hold the media accountable for it. Instead, you wanted to play "let's battle against strawman hypocrisy to stir up the thread".

Now you are once again cherrypicking and ignoring my other comments on the subject because they don't fit the picture you wanna paint of me.


Here I am saying that if its proven that they spread lies on purpose then they should be held accountable.

No I am saying that if its proven they knew about the video and released the story anyway then by all means punish them.

If its proven the Post knew of the video and continued to put out what they did anyway then I 100% support them having to pay some kind of financial penalty.

If its proven they knowingly spread lies about the incident in order to get clicks and views then I hope they get some kind of financial penalty put on them. Maybe not $250 million, but something at least. No media outlet should knowingly spread lies and misinformation without having some kind of accountability to themselves or the public.

So yes I believe the media should be held accountable if its proven they are willingly spreading lies. And once again you accuse of me of something that I didn't actually do by cherry-picking my posts and ignoring the ones that don't fit the narrative you are trying to push about me.

 

[JareBear: Remastered]

If you ever like my posts again I'll cut your balls off.

I’m a liberal soyboy. Good luck finding them

 

[Nymphae]

I didn't even pick a side on the issue until after both of them testified.

If this holds up his appointment even a little bit then it's worth it. So I am okay with this. Also it deserves to be checked out in case it actually leads to something.

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/bret...lasey-fords-allegation-of-misconduct.1465788/

So this was before the hearing, and you were already ok with it as a stall tactic, even if untrue apparently. Your secondary point was that it might be a crime worth looking into. But again, your first thought was "excellent, we don't want him in and this stalls that." You're biases are very clear.

 

[Nobody_Important]

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/bret...lasey-fords-allegation-of-misconduct.1465788/

So this was before the hearing, and you were already ok with it as a stall tactic, even if untrue apparently. Your secondary point was that it might be a crime worth looking into. But again, your first thought was "excellent, we don't want him in and this stalls that." You're biases are very clear.

I never said I wasn't biased. Hell most people on this forum have a bias of some kind. Of course I was against Kavanaugh and didn't want him in due to my political leanings. But if you actually go through the thread you will see that I specifically waited for both of them to testify before I picked a side in terms of the allegations themselves. There is even a post where I point out to another user that I hadn't made it home yet after them testifying and I still needed to get caught up before I said anything.

But like I said I am not going down that rabbit hole again. Everything I have to say about it is in the thread itself.

 

[Nymphae]

never said I wasn't biased. Hell most people on this forum have a bias of some kind.

Of course. I'm just saying, you say you "didn't pick sides" on the Kavanaugh thing, but it was clear to everyone from the outset which "side" you would be arguing for. I haven't read through the thread again, but I'm willing to bet that you were running more defense for Ford than for Kavanaugh.

 

[Nobody_Important]

Of course. I'm just saying, you say you "didn't pick sides" on the Kavanaugh thing, but it was clear to everyone from the outset which "side" you would be arguing for. I haven't read through the thread again, but I'm willing to bet that you were running more defense for Ford than for Kavanaugh.

Politically yes. I was on the Left side of the issue politically speaking. But in terms of the allegations themselves I was not on either side until after I heard from both sides. You have to understand that I separate the two. Him being delayed as a result of the allegations and the allegations themselves are two separate issues to me.


One is political and the other is moral/legal in my opinion. My opinion on one thing does not necessarily guarantee my opinion on the other.

 

[Nymphae]

And I was shocked to discover which side you took after the hearing.

 

[Nobody_Important]

And I was shocked to discover which side you took after the hearing.

I think you would be shocked about alot of my opinions to be honest.

 

[Yoshi]

I’m curious, am I the only person in GAF history to be asked by somebody not to like their posts? Dude was bothered that I liked his posts. I still have PTSD from that. Thanks for pooping in my cereal, Darkking.

Without any guarantee, probably you are unique in this, but NeoGAF hasn't had likes for long. If likes were here in the months before the split, it would probably not be a unique situation. And I found it rude and unfair what Darkking said to you.

Hey at least you have the ability to like posts. Be happy for it.

The right to give likes can be revoked?

Don't dodge on the astroturfing issue. You know full well my concern isn't money changing hands but rather the lack of honest conversation on these topics. You're drifting further into the realm of pedantry.

Uhm, no I thought you meant astroturfing when you said astroturfing. Maybe you meant shiling instead? Either way, I do not know whether Nobody_Important has connections to the Democratic party, but even if he was a member of the Democratic party, that wouldn't make it immoral for him to argue for left-leaning positions. In fact it would only be natural.

@Yoshi neither of your examples show anything resembling the wringer you're trying to put me through now. In fact, one of your examples looks more like a close friend gently chiding their buddy over a poor choice of words. I've never seen you dismantle their argument.

He hasn't given me reason to, but there is a point in this current debate I heavily disagree on. As I understand Nobody_Important , he would consider it a positive if the appointment of Kavanaugh was held up due to the allegations of sexual miscunduct even if they were wrong. This is unfair in my eyes. Disagree with him politically all you want, it is never good to have anyone accused of something he did not do, no matter what "higher purpose" it may serve.

so I'm preemptively asking you to please explain to me what other evidence you need

Yes, it is insufficient, but I can point to something easy: You claimed:

drops false information (disproven elsewhere) into unrelated topics to stir up disagreement,

This is the easiest to check and the least subjective. If you want I will also answer as to why I do not think the quoted things indicate that NI is a troll after dinner.

 

[Nobody_Important]

The right to give likes can be revoked?

Apparently. I had mine revoked and it was never explained why. I was told I can ask Evilore, but I didn't wanna bother him or get myself in more trouble in the process.

 

[Voost Kain]

Apparently. I had mine revoked and it was never explained why. I was told I can ask Evilore, but I didn't wanna bother him or get myself in trouble in the process.

Nonsense, Evilore is a cool guy.

 

[Nobody_Important]

Nonsense, Evilore is a cool guy.

Well I assume if I need to ask him why I don't have it he (or one of the higher up mods) are the ones who took it away in the first place and I also assume they had a reason. And I would rather not get into a disagreement with the owner of the site if I can help it. So I will just wait and see if the privilege is ever restored.

 

[EviLore]

Your liking was restored earlier today.

 

[Nymphae]

Apparently. I had mine revoked and it was never explained why. I was told I can ask Evilore, but I didn't wanna bother him or get myself in more trouble in the process.

What the fuck? You're abusing your ability to like a post somehow?

What nonsense is this EviLore ?

 

[Nobody_Important]

Your liking was restored earlier today.

................................................

................

.......................................

................

I got so used to it not even being there that I didn't even notice that it had come back lol Thanks Evilore

What the fuck? You're abusing your ability to like a post somehow?

What nonsense is this EviLore ?

Its my nonsense. It was restored today, but I am an idiot and didn't notice lol

 

[Voost Kain]

See? All that worrying for nothing.

 

[Yoshi]

OK, now that I have eaten my thirty melons for the day:

Kavanaugh backpedaling where you went from "he's a drunk, he lies about his past, he raised his voice" to "I hope it's not true, even though the GOP wouldn't stop the nomination anyway" back to "it was never really meant to be proven in a court" and then more conjecture about his drinking habits. A choice quote:

Whether or not it's actually true doesn't matter. They BELIEVE that it's true so they are protesting and you can't tell people what to believe. Especially people who are already so close to an issue as sensitive as this.

You can think something very likely happened and still hope that it has not. This is not even inconsistent. And even if his position had changed upon viewing the questioning, how is that dishonest? If you learn new information, your opinion may change. I mean, in the Smollett case, though I do not know if I had commented so early, I was thinking that it is likely true that he was attacked, because I couldn't see a reason (actually, still cannot) why one would fake such a thing. Now we have a lot of new information and evidence, so now I think he was actually lying. Is that trolling? I say no, being open to new information is just rational.

There were more than a few topics about the Mueller investigation that you opened. Now you have backpedalled to the point where you say that even if collusion is never found, the investigation was still profitable.

So, Nobody_Important thought (And thinks? I do not know, I do think so, though) that collusion has likely happened, mocked Trump's "it did not happen, but if it did, it wouldn't be illegal", which sounds a bit like a preemptive defense and thinks that even if Muller in the end fails to prove that Trump personally was involved, the investigation still was fruitful? I mean, even if I put it into one sentence, you can easily see how one can hold all three position at the same time. In fact, I share position 1 & 3, though as a pedant, I think that remarking that something one is investigated about is not even illegal is not a hidden confession that one did it.

As a freebie, I also like how you handwaved a bunch of private citizens (kids, no less) getting threatened and doxxed and could not muster the courage to hold the media accountable for it. Instead, you wanted to play "let's battle against strawman hypocrisy to stir up the thread".

Based on early, inaccurate reports, he condemned teens who allegedly harassed a native American (I cannot say what my position would have been, I did not care about this enough before the full story was out to form an opinioin and hinsight is 20/20), then said that media did the right thing in correcting its report (this I disagree on, it is the journalists responsibility to investigate properly before reporting and outing people, especiall, but not only, if minors are involved), and that he thinks they couldn't be held accountable legally, because a law that outrules such a thing would be interfering with freedom of press due to difficulty of proving intent (I agree on that point). These are three completely different aspects, you can basically have all three positions independently of each other. Any subset of these positions is a viable overall position.