SaidIt Survey: Ban /u/socks and /u/ActuallyNot or keep them around?

submitted by JasonCarswell from self.AskSaidIt

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 7 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 4 fun -  (27 children)

You inauthentic asstroll, for the umpteenth time, it's not about disagreeing with you as a PROVEN LIAR, AUTHORITARIAN, and BIG PHARMA SHILL, it's also that you are a PROBLEMATIC DISRUPTIVE AGENT PERPETUALLY BREAKING THE FEW RULES of SaidIt.

THIS is a perfect example of how, as I'd stated, " They will of course cry /s/Victimhood, distort, spin, lie, deflect, and delay in all manner of ways. "

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (26 children)

Strike 1 for name calling. I'm sorry if you don't understand the rules here, but I'm done trying to explain them to you.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 6 fun5 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 6 fun -  (22 children)

You know if you give Jason strikes for acting retarded that just places a ticking clock on his time here cause it's not like he is going to suddenly act like a normal human being.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 6 fun5 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 6 fun -  (2 children)

If him and socks continue to flaunt the rules for forever, then I'm the retard. They can come back under new accounts if they choose to do so.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 7 fun5 insightful - 6 fun6 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

That's one way of looking at it. Instead consider you're the primary internet caregiver of a bunch of retarded babies. You can warn us not to be retarded but we can only do so much with all these naked women, piles of cocaine, and boxes of the finest wine in our parent's basement.

I think the only reason to ban someone is that they're a clear and present danger to the well being of the site. Skeeter's insane trolling efforts come to mind, although really, if his goal was to hurt the site, I think he actually brings people in. He may be a train wreck, but people love train wrecks.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (18 children)

LOL.
Normalcy is for normies.
Fringe should have been my middle name - but my parents were normies.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (15 children)

Yeah I agree with you there. I would like to see no bans. This was done to me every goddamned week on reddit, calls for my ban. It worked eventually.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (14 children)

Were you breaking the rules?

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (13 children)

There weren't many rules to break. A few people just wanted me gone. This seems very similar.

I wanted to suggest a duel instead, Jas vs. Socko, but there's that pesky no advocating violence rule.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (7 children)

Did you straight up ignore, mock, and belittle the users of Reddit? Did you time and time again make little lies then disappear once someone started calling you out on them?

If so, then no wonder they wanted you gone. If not, then your case is nothing like this one.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (6 children)

Did I do that here?

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

No, you act like a real human. I doubt you faked Gizmo and all those silly situations Gizmo gets in.

I'm talking about Socks. Obviously your case is different from theirs. It's just similar to yours because an unpopular user is getting piled on. Maybe you did deserve some of your comeuppance, maybe not all. Socks deserves it all, especially that which is done peacefully. This thread is mostly peaceful.

I bet when you were chased out of Reddit it was kind of nasty.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

That's how socks operates.

/s/Terminology/comments/8f81/sealioning_a_harassment_tactic_under_the_guise_of/

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

And the anonymity of socks and the people steering that account, possibly unfairly armed secret agency or military assets.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun -  (2 children)

I don't see what you see. Seems like one guy writing to me. There should be a way to test that if u/Socks consents. Why don't y'all just yell at each other over the phone for once, that'd go a long way to verifying an actual human being, wouldn't it. Also the idea seems hilarious, maybe record yourselves for our benefit.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

It's possible socks is a single bipolar neckbeard asstroll sealion with a selectively low IQ or an agenda, but being so prolific, so forgetful, and with so many moods there's a strong case to be made, as others have, that it's not just one person. I didn't come up with this theory though I may continue to speculate until we have more solid info.

I'm done debating the sealions and asstrolls at length. We need to plan future defenses against armies of them, if/when they decide to brigade uncensored places like this.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

LOL - thanks. Perhaps a polite duel. Instead of 'first blood', perhaps first pwnage, or best in rap battle. (I'm joking). But seriously, Carswell is obviously very angry with me, as he's been for months, and he'll stop at nothing to insult me in every way possible. My view is that this is related to serious personal problems (which I don't say lightly), and the need to bully someone online. He actually knows enough about me - perhaps more than other users know - in order to know that what he claims I am is certainly false. If this is not true, than there is a genuine case of paranoid schizophrenia here, [edit: but I wouldn't know. Many of us on Saidit sometimes aren't playing with a full deck, which is why I think it shouldn't be so easy to ban someone, and it's easier to be banned here than on Reddit, ironically. In any event, we're all sometimes playing chess with pigeons, as noted by a previous visitor.]

[–]Tiwaking 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

JasonCarswell[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun - 1 month ago And the anonymity of socks and the people steering that account, possibly unfairly armed secret agency or military assets.

Just do what I do: Assume it is Hilary Clinton and respond accordingly.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

I like talking to socks, as a personal favor would you stop flirting with them so hard, it's making me jealous.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

I like talking to socks, as a personal favor would you stop flirting with them so hard, it's making me jealous.

Put it away, zip up, and put your shoes back on, then go get a room. The produce section of a crowded grocery store is not the place to indulge your stocking fetish.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

Get the fuck out!?

I gave you a bunch of examples of ActuallyNot and Socks name-calling and you did NOTHING!

I intentionally name-called (it's not my normal modus operandi) to see if you'd actually do anything.

Your selective enforcement of the rules is getting ridiculously suspicious.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

I told you like a week ago that I gave socks a strike. He got another one within the last 3 days too, unrelated to interactions with you.

You and actuallynot going back and forth for 10 pages was a heated debate full of both actual arguments and rule breaking insults. Aka not clear rule breaking behavior.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for explaining. I still disagree.