>defining the situation as more than "people said mean things to me on the eightchins :'("
Yeah, that's reasonable, sure. Except that there exists nothing that anyone could possibly put here that you wouldn't be able to turn into an excuse to place the blame, ultimately, with them
. Anyone with a 102 understanding of framing or semantics, anyone who has been on the internet longer than a day, knows this. People have gone after devs for their handwriting
>a lol worthy of the thread
This, after people mentioned "duskfag" and "TF2V poster", explicitly in the context of adding these posts
to their dossiers
. No one's going to stalk you! By the way, which existing target are you?
>When you don't deny it
Either, one: deny that you have ever been banned for anything or, two: allow yourself to be placed on the defensive by allowing the discussion to become your trial - wherein you must prove to someone that their opinions are not what they are
- when they have absolutely zero
incentive to admit that. What's a "Kafkatrap", again?
>yet keep dodging a question where the only thing at stake is your argument
And your privacy, especially given that the practice of stalking people over their opinions is so widely accepted that there are two(?) people talking about doing it upthread.
>the only logical conclusion is that your situation was so indefensible
situation. Personalize and polarize. Make it about the target. There's another logical conclusion, and that's that it's none of your damn business.
>Cops shouldn't be allowed to punch people, ever!
But anyone with half a brain knows
you're just going to turn "shot a pregnant woman and a teenager" into "investigated dangerous white radicals and their illegal weapons" anyway
. Why would anyone disclose anything to you under these circumstances?
>Even when compared to socjus struggle sessions there's a meaningful difference.
Given that this particular case involves dossier management, trying to wedge someone into breaching their own privacy and
opening up an avenue for further investigation, and a spirited defense of the tehcniques actually used
in actual struggle sessions
, viz. "a lot of people scream at you"... Not particularly.
>nice projecting there, buddy
Do you really think that someone with this kind of personality would've been capable of fitting in with that crowd? Really?
Are you sure
you don't just feel like saying that?
>Name an example where that was the only ban reason.
But that's never the stated
reason, because there are loads of rules that can be used to achieve the same effect without being obviously wrong, and those are what they use for the purpose. You are, in essence, asking for examples of people admitting to doing the wrong thing as they do it - and if there aren't any, that means they've never done anything wrong. That's silly.
><he can't even read
>it doesn't stop well thought out arguments from being posted, even if it happens
Chaser. It does, and the post explaining why
it does is the one to which you're replying.
>and is actively called out when it happens or comes to light.
Never seen this. Since the onus is on me to answer the right honorable OTII's howling about "WHAT ARE YOUR CRIMES", is the onus upon you to give examples of this thing you're asserting happens?
>Rarely happens only over disagreement,
Only over disagreement. Only.
This is weaseling. Of course it's never only
over "disagreement", it's about whatever characteristic you can find to hate in the poor sap, and only incidentally about "disagreement". If you disagree
with him, you can be wrong
. If you just hate him, then you never have to be anything but right.
>doesn't stop posts
It in fact does
, because when people are confronted with it, they stop posting
. That's what it is
. That's what it does
. That's why it's done
>doesn't prevent discussion
If it didn't matter, people would not do it
>How about you name a discussion site where dogpiling doesn't happen?
How is this relevant? "Cancer is bad." "Oh really? Name a species that doesn't get it!"
>You're not here to have a good faith discussion on the nature of imageboards
Good faith. This, as a criticism, from someone who's running the level of obvious gamesmanship you are.
>you've made it clear you don't have a good understanding about how imageboards even work
You think that the way they work involves numbers
as a proxy for correctness
and you think it's reasonable for a person to cut holes in their privacy in order to hand you a few feet of free attack surface. I don't think you have any room to criticize anyone, here.