patrick.net

zzyzzx says

Wouldn't that me more if an ignore user feature?

Ban and ignore can both be features. They should be independent of each other though.

Herb says

if I do comment on others' threads, I feel I must be civil, pretty much limit my comments to the actual topic they started it with, be relevant, be factual, and be coherent.

You clearly don't belong on PatNet. This site is all about verbal hate sex.

Dan8267 says

Herb says

if I do comment on others' threads, I feel I must be civil, pretty much limit my comments to the actual topic they started it with, be relevant, be factual, and be coherent.

You clearly don't belong on PatNet. This site is all about verbal hate sex.

It is what you make it

Herb says

I made my [semi]joke posting several weeks back suggesting Patrick introduce a "Bedevil" feature, the opposite of the "Befriend" feature, so that those who want to abuse and belittle each other could exchange personal emails and get into it off-site)

I fear that would result in patrick.net being mentioned in a police report about assault or murder. "Victim became acquainted with perpetrator via online forum patrick.net..."

Interesting. Never considered this as for the most part I ignore banning.
I like the idea that if you ban someone, you also ban yourself from posting in their threads.
If someone goes to the extreme of banning, then it should automatically work both ways...

zzyzzx says

First off, you have to understand that when someone bans you, it's really only a one way thing. They can still post in your threads, etc. You really have to ban them back. I don't understand why everyone doesn't do this.

I just don't know how people don't dive in with a 9% yield that is poised to increase.

It's too generous. Probably freaks them out.

"Why you want to give me so much money?!"

This is absolutely boring.
How about no bans altogether. Instead:

Have two modes for a thread:
1- safe mode. thread owner can mark posts as unsafe as needed with a simple click
2- thread can be viewed with all posts, or just safe posts by all users. simple click to switch back and forth
3- insults and diversions can be kept in chronological order for maximum entertainment value
4- those with a bone for serious shit can have their cake, even if the baker won't bake...

Herb says

Secondly, if I do comment on others' threads, I feel I must be civil, pretty much limit my comments to the actual topic they started it with, be relevant, be factual, and be coherent. Above all, one should never go on other threads and be disruptive; it's just disrespectful.

5- A thread will always default to safe mode when first clicked...

BlueSardine says

This is absolutely boring.

How about no bans altogether. Instead:

Have two modes for a thread:

1- safe mode. thread owner can mark posts as unsafe as needed with a simple click

2- thread can be viewed with all posts, or just safe posts by all users. simple click to switch back and forth

3- insults and diversions can be kept in chronological order for maximum entertainment value

4- those with a bone for serious shit can have their cake, even if the baker won't bake...

Corrected.
Goran_K says

Unless you're afflicted with an extreme case of OCD

What would Reddit do?

As I understand it, each sub-Reddit has one or more moderators who can ban users or even delete comments, but everyone can still see everything. That seems similar to what we have here now. Everyone is a moderator for their own threads in terms of banning.

Does Reddit have a better system somehow?

rando says

What would Reddit do?

As I understand it, each sub-Reddit has one or more moderators who can ban users or even delete comments, but everyone can still see everything. That seems similar to what we have here now. Everyone is a moderator for their own threads in terms of banning.

Does Reddit have a better system somehow?

I think the current system is fine. If you don't want to engage with someone, it's easy to ignore them or ban them from your threads. Literally there is no way for someone here to harass or bully you.

It seems to work fine for me.

I guess the concept of getting money from a business is foreign to too many people these days.

rando says

Does Reddit have a better system somehow?

No, but it does have more porn. So it's better.

Goran_K says

Literally there is no way for someone here to harass or bully you.

This basically applies to Internet as a whole.

Can it be made so that if a person bans somebody then they also cant post in the threads of the banned?

I think its childish to ban people for simply not agreeing or having a different view.

Danny adhominemed me on a thunderdome thread! WTF??
@Patrick

BlueSardine says

Danny adhominemed me on a thunderdome thread! WTF??

And triggered you! Fair? No. An abuse of power? Yes. Would I do it again? Yes, because you deserve it!

www.youtube.com/embed/SAMes-H21pc

rpanic01 says

I think its childish to ban people for simply not agreeing or having a different view.

I agree. The idea is to make it more of a marketplace where people will start to know which threads they want to comment in by who authored it.

If someone is being childish, then just leave them alone and write up your point in your own thread. If you are mature about things, people will comment in your thread and you'll have the bigger audience eventually.

At least that's the theory. Not sure it will work. So many unexpected twists when dealing with humans. Makes me fond of computers.

BlueSardine says

Danny adhominemed me on a thunderdome thread! WTF??

OK fixed. adhom link is gone again from thunderdome threads.

Sorry, distracted with work on the new version of the site.

I agree. The idea is to make it more of a marketplace where people will start to know which threads they want to comment in by who authored it.

---------------

Your only possible outcome is failure. You're attempting to control that which cannot be controlled, in lieu of simply dealing with reality.

User Names and picture icons are childish, and they have no value. Possibly even a negative value.

Do away with user names, and the problem solves itself. All you're left with is ideas.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/valuetrap.asp

Not that I think this is what's going on, I didn't sell my 200 shares last month when it was going down.

When big fish were getting out either they had inside information on upcoming not-good news, or they just wanted out of a stock that wasn't going to pop any more, and/or wanted out of the carbon-heavy sector altogether.

Yahoo Finance board on ARLP said Trump's appointed ambassador to Canada is the CEO's wife, so there's that . . .

Yes, seems to be true:

http://www.dailyindependent.com/news/kelly-craft-named-ambassador-to-canada/article_e35ff690-5150-11e7-b297-dfe10fde83cc.html

pulling out never even occurred to me with this dividend. I'm up 50% on my initial purchase and up 7% on what I bought on Friday. I'm content to collect that dividend for the next two years.

Triggered? No.
Just pointing out a software bug to Patrick.

An abuse of power? No.
You have none.

Would you do it again? Who cares?

Dan8267 says

BlueSardine says

Danny adhominemed me on a thunderdome thread! WTF??

And triggered you! Fair? No. An abuse of power? Yes. Would I do it again? Yes, because you deserve it!

rando says

OK fixed. adhom link is gone again from thunderdome threads.

I've never banned anyone for any reason other than trolling or repeatedly publishing debunk lies and propaganda.

--------------

That's dishonest as hell.

You put me on ignore for taking you to school on how lame your attempt at humor is. And stating too many facts that you cannot refute, and you don't like how said truths make you look.

Bellingham Bill is a troll? Bob numbers? You're delusional.

Actually I looked over your list, and there's not really many trolls, rather people you don't like or disagree with.

Odd, I recall telling you to put Ironman on ignore, and you refused. Likely because you're lonely as hell, and enjoyed the attention he trolled your way, even though everyone else loathed the stupid goat crap and gay porn you shared with him.

Get a life

errc says

That's dishonest as hell.

Just because you trolls don't recognize yourself as trolls doesn't make you any less of a troll.

errc says

Actually I looked over your list, and there's not really many trolls, rather people you don't like or disagree with.

Yet there are more people that disagree with me on many issues that aren't on that list. Hence, you conjecture is wrong.

errc says

even though everyone else loathed the stupid goat crap and gay porn you shared with him.

Actually plenty of people got the humor and clicked liked and even participated in the roasting of CIC. Just because you are a humorless little shit that can't get a joke doesn't mean the joke has no value to other people. Why didn't you just place me on ignore if you despise my sense of humor so much? Then you wouldn't have seen any of it. Hypocrisy much?

errc says

Get a life

I'm sorry. Did I trigger you? Tough shit.

You have just demonstrated exactly why you are a troll and why I have banned you. I don't even know if you and I ever disagreed on something, but you are a shitty person who I would not give the time of day to in real life, so why should I let you troll in my threads? You can't even resist trolling in this thread. You can't even muster up enough maturity to discuss the topic without attacking others. That's the definition of troll.

Once more, stupid trolls demonstrate why they are stupid trolls while trying to claim that they aren't stupid trolls.

Dan8267 says

troll

I don't like the word "troll"--I first heard it in kindergarten in reference to the troll under the bridge in some fairy tale and forever associated it with the word "Victrola", which I think is an insult to the machine and name.

Actually, Dan is in his element here with line after line of fake outrage in reference to the lesser mortals on this forum. He must have had a memory lapse when he left me off the list, but I'm sure I'll receive and honorable mention now.

Dan8267 says

Curious2. He also thinks Islam is a greater threat than Christianity

He's right.

Watch your language!

Once again, P N Dr Lo R like the other trolls demonstrate why they were banned. Straw man arguments are a sign of a weak position.

P N Dr Lo R says

Dan8267 says

Curious2. He also thinks Islam is a greater threat than Christianity

He's right.

Muslim terrorists are like flies, annoying but ineffective. Christian stupidity and delusion actually affects the policies of the most powerful nation in human history and could easily lead to nuclear war or ecological collapse. Because Christianity influences U.S. policy, it is far more dangerous than Islam could ever be.

Je ne suis pas le père.

Fucking White Male says

Problem is, Dan is the sites chief offender, blocking a slew of posters on both sides of the aisle, and then polluting the blocked posters threads.

The problem is Dan is the number 1 offender (now that cic is gone) at many types of trollish behaviours.

Fun list jazz. Thanks for this.

My score: √ yep, O meh, - nope, ? unknown

√ 1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism.

O 2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights

√ 3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause

√ 4. Supremacy of the Military

O 5. Rampant Sexism

- 6. Controlled Mass Media

√ 7. Obsession with National Security

√ 8. Religion and Government are Intertwined

√ 9. Corporate Power is Protected

√ 10. Labor Power is Suppressed

√ 11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts

√ 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment

√ 13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption

? 14. Fraudulent Elections

Can one call Putin's Puppets,Fascist?

I would like to see the satellite that takes pics of other satellites to discover what their real mission is.

Well at least we know what didn't cause it to break free...

Calving is a natural occurrence, but scientists have been exploring whether climate change may have played a role in expediting the rift.
The team of researchers have not yet found "any link to human-induced climate change," Martin O'Leary, a Swansea University glaciologist and member of the MIDAS project team, said in a statement.
Back in November, a satellite photo revealed just 5 km of ice connected the ice sheet to Larsen C.
Back in November, a satellite photo revealed just 5 km of ice connected the ice sheet to Larsen C.
Luckman added, "We have no evidence to link this directly to climate change, and no reason to believe that it would not have happened without the extra warming that human activity has caused. But the ice shelf is now at its most retreated position ever recorded and regional warming may have played a part in that."
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/12/world/larsen-c-antarctica/index.html

Gentle Reader,
The Donald gave the Russians a blow job while holding a mouth full of White Russian on the rocks.
Regards,
Roidy
P.S. Reveal: That wasn't a White Russian though it looked like one.

BlueSardine says

The team of researchers have not yet found "any link to human-induced climate change," Martin O'Leary, a

"yet"
Because there is no evidence in one's possession does not mean evidence doesn't exist.