REQUEST FOR RULES CLARIFICATION VIS A VIS POLICY [closed]

[saxitoxin]

Recently I started a thread which others chose to read and post in.

These "others" now say that I am violating the rules against being "intentionally annoying", all the while I continue to post only in the thread I started.

Setting aside, for a moment, the fact that I have no intent to annoy, my thread just seems overwhelmed by spammers -

QUERY:

(1) Is it possible to "intentionally annoy" someone who is making the choice to continually return to, and post within, a thread the purported annoyer has started?

(2) I understand the above would apply if someone started pooping in other threads but how can someone "intentionally annoy" another person in latent fashion? This is like if I were dancing naked in my house with the doors and blinds closed and my 67 year-old neighbor broke into my house and started watching me dance naked, then called the police to claim she was annoyed (which, in fact, has happened to me before). It is not like me walking into the middle of the street and dancing naked or leaving the windows open and dancing naked.

THANK YOU FOR THE RULES CLARIFICATION.

PLEASE - NO THOUGHTS/OPINIONS FROM THE "USUAL SUSPECTS." MODS ONLY, PLEASE.

[colton24]

pooping? wth this is BS

[Kotaro]

Spam is posting for the sole intention of being annoying.

Congrats

[saxitoxin]

Spam is posting for the sole intention of being annoying.

Congrats

annoying : "irritating, tending to repel with disgust"

you posted 8 comments in a thread I started - you're obviously not repelled; if you were repelled you would have posted 0

next?

[Kotaro]

Your existence is repelling, but your idiotic statements need to be rebuttled. And pretending to be dead and then hacked is quite irritating. Oh, and spamming up a normally pleasent forum with your bullshit is LARGELY annoying.

[saxitoxin]

Your existence is repelling, but your idiotic statements need to be rebuttled. And pretending to be dead and then hacked is quite irritating. Oh, and spamming up a normally pleasent forum with your bullshit is LARGELY annoying.

Mods - please lock this thread until a rules clarification can be provided. The spammers have, once again, circulated an "attack" signal via PM and will now start swarming here, as you can see.

[colton24]

i doubt it i think kot has me on FOE

[Kotaro]

Foe list doesn't block PM's.

sax - don't make a spam, useless shit thread if you don't want it spammed.

[the.killing.44]

Recently I started

I thought that your sister or brother made the post, not you? Hmm…

.44

[Kotaro]

Recently I started

I thought that your sister or brother made the post, not you? Hmm…

.44

Oh snap!
Didn't notice that.

[saxitoxin]

Recently I started

I thought that your sister or brother made the post, not you? Hmm…

.44

I explained this in my related post in the "RIP Saxitoxin" thread in which I said I was taking ownership of the post for ease of clarification since my "account" started it.

If you insist on posting in a thread in which I've asked only mod feedback, please bring yourself up to speed on the issues first.

Thanks, .44!

[Kotaro]

You're not doing so well at shutting up.

[oVo]

I explained this in my related post in the "RIP Saxitoxin" thread in which I said I was taking ownership of the post for ease of clarification since my "account" started it.

Um... I don't get it. Owning up to a failed prank?

This is the Cheat & Abuse Forum, if you require some sort of genuine RULES CLARIFICATION I suggest PMing a Mod with your inquiry. I suspect this thread was created with other intentions.

[Night Strike]

Your existence is repelling, but your idiotic statements need to be rebuttled. And pretending to be dead and then hacked is quite irritating. Oh, and spamming up a normally pleasent forum with your bullshit is LARGELY annoying.

Mods - please lock this thread until a rules clarification can be provided. The spammers have, once again, circulated an "attack" signal via PM and will now start swarming here, as you can see.

Then why didn't you just PM a global mod or an admin? If you don't want the public posting, don't make a public thread.

[sinctheassasin]

You are fighting a losing battle. Admit defeat, and we might forgive you...
Kinda

[sinctheassasin]

I just received a creepy pm from saxitoxin. I do feel kinda threatened. Especially since this was specifically sent to me (or so I see)

Hehe - you have no idea how close to "winning" we actually are ... all will be made clear "soon."

Until then, everyone is playing the parts they've been assigned magnificently - even those who don't know they've been assigned parts!

Subject: REQUEST FOR RULES CLARIFICATION VIS A VIS POLICY ON "ANN..."

You are fighting a losing battle. Admit defeat, and we might forgive you...
Kinda

[saxitoxin]

Very obviously I sent no such message.

Mods - please see the outrageous similar accusations made by others in General Discussion in which it was claimed I've been sending them "postcards" showing "homosexual bestiality."

Mods - do I really have to be subjected to this type of incessant abuse when I simply and politely asked for a rules clarification?

I just received a creepy pm from saxitoxin. I do feel kinda threatened. Especially since this was specifically sent to me (or so I see)

Hehe - you have no idea how close to "winning" we actually are ... all will be made clear "soon."

Until then, everyone is playing the parts they've been assigned magnificently - even those who don't know they've been assigned parts!

Subject: REQUEST FOR RULES CLARIFICATION VIS A VIS POLICY ON "ANN..."

You are fighting a losing battle. Admit defeat, and we might forgive you...
Kinda

[sinctheassasin]

Psst, don't tell him that the mods can read everything we send and receive

[sinctheassasin]

Another pm from this guy, I wonder if he has ever hears of screenshots. I can prove all of this

Candy Apple - don't worry, we're 7 steps ahead of you. Nothing we write or transmit hasn't been gamed 3 ways from Sunday. Even these very words ...

You've waded into the 12' end of the pool, Candy Apple! Hang on - this ride is about to get wild!

XOXO,
STX

Subject: REQUEST FOR RULES CLARIFICATION VIS A VIS POLICY ON "ANN..."

Psst, don't tell him that the mods can read everything we send and receive

[sinctheassasin]

Yet another pm.. I'm going to have to sleep soon man, so stopping this whole nefurious "plot" of yours would be nice


I don't really feel like quoting this one, but I'll give you all the gist of it and send you the screens tommorow ( I'm on my iPhone now)
He says he wouldn't send anything he doesn't want seen, and that I am utilitarian.

[saxitoxin]

Yet another pm.. I'm going to have to sleep soon man, so stopping this whole nefurious "plot" of yours would be nice


I don't really feel like quoting this one, but I'll give you all the gist of it and send you the screens tommorow ( I'm on my iPhone now)
He says he wouldn't send anything he doesn't want seen, and that I am utilitarian.

I never wrote any PM to anyone and if this individual were to have the audacity to continue this thread by posting 3 or 4 more "messages from me" it would be absolutely infuriating and I would immediately report him. There is absolutely nothing that would make me more irate or madder than that.

[sinctheassasin]

Hey, what a coinky-dink you old geezer, I have not 3, not 4, but 5 pls from you after that. However, I do not need topost them, since it is just more insesent rambling by him.

I will post or coward these pm' s to anybody who requests them.

Hopefully puberty will end soon for this old, Medicare disaster we call saxitoxin, and then we will be able to sleep a little bit easier.

[Rustovitch]

(1) Is it possible to "intentionally annoy" someone who is making the choice to continually return to, and post within, a thread the purported annoyer has started?

Maybe if said thread was intended to attack or provoke the... annoyee (for want of a better term).

[Woodruff]

Recently I started a thread which others chose to read and post in.

These "others" now say that I am violating the rules against being "intentionally annoying", all the while I continue to post only in the thread I started.

This is not accurate, as a quick check of the forums will clearly show.

[saxitoxin]

Recently I started a thread which others chose to read and post in.

These "others" now say that I am violating the rules against being "intentionally annoying", all the while I continue to post only in the thread I started.

This is not accurate, as a quick check of the forums will clearly show.

Woodruff - I am allowed to participate in discussion. Woodruff is not the judge of who participates in discussion and when they participate.

The thread to which I was referring was not the thread to which you are now referencing. If you choose to inject yourself into a conversation you should make an attempt to first educate yourself about the background to that conversation so you are not fumbling around trying to figure it out "on the fly."

I hope all is well with you, my friend,
- STX