forums

Kill Trolls Dead Thread

OBLIVION said:
Everything has a 1 point warning base value. That doesn't mean an extreme case won't warrant a permaband.

Nobody is going to post" I'm going to catch you at the game and shoot your ***" and expect a 1 point warning.
Click to expand...
When if it's a gaytor or NJtoFLACane?
 
Advertisement
No_Fly_Zone said:
C'mon, man. This is a pretty disingenuous argument. The implication of the second clause following the first is that NYSOM trolls for d1ck, and OP is not counting "trolling for d!ck" as a legitimate hobby.

You're also assuming OP's command of the written English language is sufficient, despite acknowledging at least one basic grammatical mistake in the sentence. I know you know better. People don't always say (or type) precisely what they mean, and they don't always mean precisely what they say (or type).

All of that being said, as I recall it, NYSOM started off as a typical mopey troll around these parts. A couple of years ago, after catching some flack for that, he changed his shtick and had the dueling accounts (NYSOM and NJSOM), that included a "rosier" outlook from the Garden State. In my opinion, that was actually pretty funny and much appreciated during a particularly sad time in Canes football. Pretty sure I advocated on his behalf at the time.

Unfortunately (IMO), as the shtick developed, it evolved an odd homoeroticism that would probably be interesting to a behavioral psychologist, but is often less-than-funny for my tastes. Some people get upset and engage, others think it's funny and engage, and others simply ignore it. To each his/her own.

When NYSOM is at his best, he's bringing news to the board and providing some light comic relief. When he's at his worst, he's spamming the board with OT nonsense or making individuals cringe via relentless homosexual innuendo. Do with that what you will...
Click to expand...


First, I started off by saying that NYSOM (internet) trolls for d!ck. That's not disingenuous, that's what he does. He trolls, and he does it using a fake-***-persona. I also acknowledge that "trolling for d!ck" may also be used as shorthand for calling someone ***. Not disingenuous.

Having said that, I still don't see it as an attack. And it also goes back to my earlier point about NYSOM "drawing a foul". He has a fake-***-persona. He makes *** jokes. Let's say someone makes a *** joke back at him. And then NYSOM takes issue because he is not, in fact, ***. Why should that be held against the person who plays along with NYSOM's trolling?

Or, earlier, when NYSOM called me a "redneck". Am I allowed to say something that references his fake-***-persona? Does it matter that I know NYSOM is not ***?

I'm not defending Austin. I would not have written what he wrote. But I also don't see it as some sort of awful "attack" that necessitated a grossly disproportionate attack that led nearly everyone to believe that Austin was down-low hitting up NYSOM for d!ck-pics. And if we are trying to talk about context here, we need to acknowledge that NOT everyone knows that NYSOM's fake-*** schtick is fake.

And that's a point that I've made before. If NYSOM fake "comes on to a guy", some guys don't know that it's a joke. And some guys are more upset by *** come-ons than other guys are. Same thing with *** jokes generally, some guys can roll with *** jokes, others are offended, and others get angry. And if a person came on this board with "fake-black-schtick", posting as Harlemstateofmind and making a bunch of fried chicken and watermelon jokes, you'd see many people on this board who would VALIDLY lose their ****e over that.

That's all. NYSOM could easily drop the fake *** schtick. He's already "made his point" to the moderators who banned him previously.

My suspicion is that he will keep on trolling us all.
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
First, I started off by saying that NYSOM (internet) trolls for d!ck. That's not disingenuous, that's what he does. He trolls, and he does it using a fake-***-persona. I also acknowledge that "trolling for d!ck" may also be used as shorthand for calling someone ***. Not disingenuous.

Having said that, I still don't see it as an attack. And it also goes back to my earlier point about NYSOM "drawing a foul". He has a fake-***-persona. He makes *** jokes. Let's say someone makes a *** joke back at him. And then NYSOM takes issue because he is not, in fact, ***. Why should that be held against the person who plays along with NYSOM's trolling?

Or, earlier, when NYSOM called me a "redneck". Am I allowed to say something that references his fake-***-persona? Does it matter that I know NYSOM is not ***?

I'm not defending Austin. I would not have written what he wrote. But I also don't see it as some sort of awful "attack" that necessitated a grossly disproportionate attack that led nearly everyone to believe that Austin was down-low hitting up NYSOM for d!ck-pics. And if we are trying to talk about context here, we need to acknowledge that NOT everyone knows that NYSOM's fake-*** schtick is fake.

And that's a point that I've made before. If NYSOM fake "comes on to a guy", some guys don't know that it's a joke. And some guys are more upset by *** come-ons than other guys are. Same thing with *** jokes generally, some guys can roll with *** jokes, others are offended, and others get angry. And if a person came on this board with "fake-black-schtick", posting as Harlemstateofmind and making a bunch of fried chicken and watermelon jokes, you'd see many people on this board who would VALIDLY lose their ****e over that.

That's all. NYSOM could easily drop the fake *** schtick. He's already "made his point" to the moderators who banned him previously.

My suspicion is that he will keep on trolling us all.
Click to expand...
We need more lawyers. I’m not saying if that’s a positive or negative statement for fear of acquiring unwanted points.
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
First, I started off by saying that NYSOM (internet) trolls for d!ck. That's not disingenuous, that's what he does. He trolls, and he does it using a fake-***-persona. I also acknowledge that "trolling for d!ck" may also be used as shorthand for calling someone ***. Not disingenuous.

Having said that, I still don't see it as an attack. And it also goes back to my earlier point about NYSOM "drawing a foul". He has a fake-***-persona. He makes *** jokes. Let's say someone makes a *** joke back at him. And then NYSOM takes issue because he is not, in fact, ***. Why should that be held against the person who plays along with NYSOM's trolling?

Or, earlier, when NYSOM called me a "redneck". Am I allowed to say something that references his fake-***-persona? Does it matter that I know NYSOM is not ***?

I'm not defending Austin. I would not have written what he wrote. But I also don't see it as some sort of awful "attack" that necessitated a grossly disproportionate attack that led nearly everyone to believe that Austin was down-low hitting up NYSOM for d!ck-pics. And if we are trying to talk about context here, we need to acknowledge that NOT everyone knows that NYSOM's fake-*** schtick is fake.

And that's a point that I've made before. If NYSOM fake "comes on to a guy", some guys don't know that it's a joke. And some guys are more upset by *** come-ons than other guys are. Same thing with *** jokes generally, some guys can roll with *** jokes, others are offended, and others get angry. And if a person came on this board with "fake-black-schtick", posting as Harlemstateofmind and making a bunch of fried chicken and watermelon jokes, you'd see many people on this board who would VALIDLY lose their ****e over that.

That's all. NYSOM could easily drop the fake *** schtick. He's already "made his point" to the moderators who banned him previously.

My suspicion is that he will keep on trolling us all.
Click to expand...
QED; or

QEPD?
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
First, I believe that NYSOM is, quite literally, trolling for d!ck.

Second, I just went back and re-read the sentence (two clauses, one sentence) and it reads:

"Home boy needs to find a hobby, and trolling for d!ck isn't one of them"

Setting aside the obvious grammar error ("them" is plural and refers back to "hobby", which is singular), I read that sentence to say that "trolling for d!ck" is NOT a hobby for "home boy" (hereafter "NYSOM") to find.

So where is any accusation of what NYSOM is (or isn't)?

NYSOM needs to find a hobby.

"Trolling for d!ck" is not a hobby that NYSOM needs to find.

Is that an "attack"? Is that a "homo slur"? Have I suddenly, and late-in-life, lost all ability to comprehend the English language?

If I had NYSOM's personality, I would start to believe that this whole thing is a troll on me.
Click to expand...

You have not lost your ability to comprehend the English language. I do suggest considering that communication on a message board, like in conversation, is often not planned out when an user begins writing the message.
 
Re the "First, I believe that NYSOM is, quite literally, trolling for d!ck." statement by TheOriginalCane: is this a one, two, or three point violation?
 
D RevLee said:
I got caught with 157 pounds of Marijuana and 11 pints
Click to expand...
522DC26B-4784-47CD-B3B2-4A6768CA4C7D.gif
 
Advertisement
Back
Top