Close Topic Options

Tortdog Introduction - Page 2

Tortdog, I have not been to your Intro Thread yet, so I will say, "Welcome".

I just want to add that we have a very Comprehensive FAQ Board that may assist you.

Also, you are free to start a new Topic, perhaps one that has a title: "International Weapons Sales" and then in there can be attacked all that you want.

Also, I believe you are using the 'Plain' Skin, you may wish to change it to another so you see more of the features. try 'Executive', or 'Red' or check all until you find one that fits your fancy.

Lastly, you can also Upgrade to get extra features, you are an attorney, so that I am sure is small time coin for you.

Continue to have fun.

Introduction Tortdog

Your last post was deleted for not being constructive, based on one or more of the following:

1. Stay on the topic, see our Constructive Posting Policy
2. Ensure that you use good English, no slang, proper spelling, uppercase letters where necessary, etc.
3. Do not post just off topic messages or lengthy quotes, only Bots may do this, Members must add input.
4. Make sure that you are not just trying to increase your post count by either duplicating or posting vague information, but also add worthwhile replies that are related to the Topic.

Tortdog Introduction Sharing Member & Introductions

Tortdog, I believe after some analysis of your Posting methods, I know why you are always getting hit with the 'Off topic' stick. The problem is you do not continue the actual Topic of the Thread. For instance, if the subject is Oranges and someone briefly mentions Apples as PART of their Post then you will forget Oranges and attack Apples with vigor - that is incorrect. The way to handle it is to CONTINUE the main Discussion by talking about Oranges and then WITHIN Off Topic tags you mention in BRIEF your reply to Apples.

Now here is the important part... if Apples is becoming a subject that is so intriguing that it should be within its' own Thread then you should START a new Thread about Apples and reference the Thread it broke off from. In this way you will be able to 'survive' here better.

With that said it is MORE THAN LIKELY that there are Topics ALREADY in progress for the message you want to mention in Off topic. Therefore a Search should be done first.

Let me know if you understand this concept?

Page 2 Introduction Tortdog

Well, JB. What I see is that people make a point on a topic by bringing in examples. I respond to those specific examples, and then I get called for being off topic.

But if those examples weren't pertinent to the topic, then why weren't they first called out? And since they ARE pertinent, why does my response get called out?

In short, if a person makes an argument about A by bringing up C/D and E, we ought to be able to discuss C/D & E. Because if we knock those out, than the argument about A fails.

In my view, that's logical reasoning. But that view does not seem to comport here, so much, e.g., explaining that U.S. arms exports are influenced by Russian imports as well.

Introduction Tortdog

By your response I see either I am not explaining myself well or you just do not understand. An Offtopic Remark CAN be made within a Topic IF:

The problem as I mentioned is that you choose to focus on the Off topic rather than ALSO follow through with the main subject.

Hence the reason you were questioning Vincenzo's Post being allowed and yours not. He is a seasoned writer here and knows how to touch BRIEFLY on an Off topic and then continue with the main theme of the subject.

This is not unique to that Thread, a lot of your Threads, especially the early ones have edits in it. I am merely pointing out how things work HERE rather than how you think it should work. In this way you will better adapt.

Do note, that everyone, including myself and moderators are brought up on these points from time to time. Words written here are published on a network much bigger than you may realize hence the stringent rules and enforcement.

ALL these things are well outlined in our Constructive Posting Policy and FAQ Board. Please do take the time to look them over. Do tell me if you understand now, or if there is something that still needs clarification?

Tortdog Introduction

No, you made yourself clear. But I tried doing that (including the response to the so-called "off topic" example within an "off-topic" section), but then Persephone called me out for being off topic because I did not have enough "on topic."

But that's silly. Because maybe I don't have something to respond to which is "on topic" because the person didn't bring up anything new BUT the examples. So I want to address the examples given. And mind you, I do not take this as something personal. It's merely the manner of moderation. Hey, it's your place, so fine. Your rules. Live and let live.

But in essence, I've learned that I can bring up examples that are "off topic" when bringing up a point, and happily be sure that the person will be found "off topic" unless he can add something to the discussion. And of course, by not bringing up anything but the example, I can fully control the conversation (assuming Persephone does her job). Any response to my post will be 100% off topic, and squelched.

That's how I see it. And I view it absurd. But...it's your playground. I try to just shut up if I only have a response to an example. In fact, in one post someone brought up only examples that I thought might be off topic. I even suggested it might be.

But no one said anything. Persephone was quiet.

And when I replied...there it came, Persephone.

So be it. Live and learn.

Been there. Done that. I've even advised the other mod of that fact in a post on this board. My reading comprehension skills must have slipped a bit. That or MY view of what is relevant to a topic does not comport with what Persephone believes. I tend to believe the latter is true. ESPECIALLY when Persephone doesn't fully understand the topic, and that discussion of other circumstances in a subject is crucial to fully comprehending the subject.

In essence, sometimes Persephone might not understand that a point is ON TOPIC because she doesn't know the subject well enough. And if she sat silent and let the conversation proceed, she might learn something and actually find out that everything really IS relevant to the topic being discussed.

Lest someone believe that reasonable people can disagree (and that perhaps its more reasonable to allow a conversation to continue before passing judgment), it's fairly common in a court room for one side to make an argument and the other side object based on relevance. Generally, the judge allows the side to continue, to determine if there is relevance to the object. To refuse this is considered a miscarriage of justice. At times, the judge realizes that the testimony is straying, and calls the discussion back.

It's the only real-life experience I can relate to (in seeing what Persephone appears to be attempting). Let's just say I prefer the real-life judges to Persephone.

Edited: tortdog on 21st Aug, 2007 - 1:54pm

Tortdog Introduction - Page 2

Er... this is not really up for debate. You already have been sarcastic enough (something not allowed if you did read our Policy) throughout many of your Posts about our policies here. Let me say it again:

Now if you want to fight against it then that is your choice, I just thought I would point out what you may be missing since you make the mistake over and over again. I believe that original Post I made above was just after Persephone made an edit to a Post you made, you can do a Search to see which one.

Tortdog Introduction Introductions & Member Sharing - Page 2

And let me be clear without any sarcasm.

My view of what is relevant does not always comport to Persephone's. And I shudder to think of a day when it might.* So when I'm found to be off topic and I do not highlight it as such, it is because I honestly believe it to be on topic.

If we are not allowed to have a disagreement on relevance, then advise.** Other than that, I would hope it would be viewed by Persephone (or the other mods) as an honest disagreement.

If not, then the mods err.

*Perish that thought that the understanding of two intelligent people would 100% coincide - assuming that Persephone is a person.

**Meaning that Persephone would continue to "correct" posts to reflect her view of what is relevant. Not that my view of relevance would trump hers.

Edited: tortdog on 21st Aug, 2007 - 3:01pm