knapplc and archy - P&R besties

[Enhance]

I'm planning to suspend Archy until the start of fall camp; frankly, he's a massive headache in the P&R forum. Several people are. But he is consistently one of the most egregious violators and I'm tired of telling him to knock it off. This will make it his third warning since early May.

The below quoted posts are not in chronological order. Just examples of some recent posts that I'm taking issue with from these two.

What I'm struggling with is knapplc. He is being ever-so slightly better behaved. He isn't make it as personal as archy. But the way knapplc talks to people... he contributes to the problem. He's just more cloak and dagger about it. So it's hard for me to just punish Archy.

I think Archy has earned a longer punishment based on my eval of his recent behavior. Maybe knapplc has earned a week?

Does that seem fair? Unfair?

Tell me you are clueless about today’s ruling without telling me you are clueless about today’s ruling.  

And this is why no one takes you seriously and for good reason.

And this is how a question is dodged. Because he asked for specific examples with specific criteria, and whoosh off we went into another tangent.

It's a pattern we're all familiar with.

You insinuated you had knowledge of "what else was settled law and Precedent before getting overruled" and he asked for examples. Not only is that not a stupid question, it's a great question.

Of course, a person who doesn't actually know the answer to that would dodge the question, then try to make the conversation about the question without ever actually answering the question... and here we are.

 

[Mavric]

Rape, incest and ectopic pregnancy abortions are banned thanks to the people you vote for. Own your vote.

This is the issue I have.  This is not only inflammatory, but also exaggerated nearly to the point of being an outright lie.  So Archy's response was actually right on point - he was noting that knapp was being (probably deliberately) untruthful about what was actually was going on so he could make his point and mock people who disagree.  So from that standpoint, I don't think it's probably fair.

But I'm only speaking of this one specific example.  I haven't looked into the other examples that you posted. 

And I know that Archy has been blamed for stirring the pot.  So I'm not claiming he doesn't deserve what he got.  But the people who complain the most about him do the exact same things that he does - ignore the facts and refuse to even contemplate that there could be opposing viewpoints that are valid - they just do it from the other side of the aisle.

 

[Mavric]

Speak for yourself. I don't lie about my opinions.

Yes, you do.  You are just too arrogant to realize it.

 

[Enhance]

That’s why I think it’s fair to give Knapp a break too, even if it is a couple days later than Archy’s. Doesn’t seem fair to just target archy (even though I think he’s a slightly larger issue).

Maybe something along the lines of fostering a somewhat hostile environment and/or flaming other posters? It’s clear Knapp is just trying to get a ride out if those that disagree with him.

Truthfully I would just like to see what the board/forum is like without those two for awhile. 
 

Any thoughts on length of a timeout?

 

[Enhance]

He’s perhaps our most popular and well known poster so it’s not lost on me the potential risk of him not wanting to come back if suspended but I just can’t in good conscience let him slide by any longer while simultaneously sending archy on vacation for equivalent behavior. Knapp has lost any good graces he once had.

Maybe I send him until fall camp as well, just overall detrimental conduct to the board @Mavric? Kind of where I’m leaning but would love any thoughts you’ve got.

 

[Mavric]

I honestly don't know what to think.  I really don't feel like I know enough about what goes on in P&R to really have an opinion.  It seems like it's a bit small to warrant a big suspension.   But Archy's was kind of a "lifetime achievement award" so it from that standpoint I suppose it fits.  Because every time I look through Archy's posting history I honestly don't see much of anything that I think is out of line.  It more just the intolerance of those - like knapp - on the other side of the issues.  Which is not lacking in irony.

So I can support whatever.

 

[Enhance]

Thanks for the feedback Mav. It's just kind of a s#!t show thanks to those two in particular. Archy I think was easy to knock out first because he's been a more recent and overt pain in the a$$. knapplc is a pain in the a$$ but he's often doing it with more charisma.

@BIGREDIOWAN @Saunders any thoughts?

 

[BIGREDIOWAN]

Thanks for the feedback Mav. It's just kind of a s#!t show thanks to those two in particular. Archy I think was easy to knock out first because he's been a more recent and overt pain in the a$$. knapplc is a pain in the a$$ but he's often doing it with more charisma.

@BIGREDIOWAN @Saunders any thoughts?

It's hard with Knapp because since he was a moderator he knows how to skirt that line. They both can be insufferable at times but knapp has a longgggg history of it. I think he's a pompous a$$ and has gotten worse over the years because he gets away with it so I'd support a short ban until fall for both of them. Archy has always been combative in the P&R Forum. 

 

[Saunders]

Hey @Mavric Can we ban them from certain forums, or just site wide? If possible, I'd just do a P&R time out if we can.

 

[Mavric]

Hey @Mavric Can we ban them from certain forums, or just site wide? If possible, I'd just do a P&R time out if we can.

I don't think individual users can be banned from a forum.  But Groups can.  So we could put them in a separate group that doesn't have access to P&R.

 

[BIGREDIOWAN]

I don't think individual users can be banned from a forum.  But Groups can.  So we could put them in a separate group that doesn't have access to P&R.

That's a great idea if it's possible? 

 

[Saunders]

I don't think individual users can be banned from a forum.  But Groups can.  So we could put them in a separate group that doesn't have access to P&R.

That's my vote. I think it sends a bigger message, and then if their problems spill over, then it makes a true vacation easier.

 

[Mavric]

I mean .. I'm not trying to defend the guy.  But I think there is so much of the pot calling the kettle black that it would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

It caught my attention when he showed up with more nominations in the Political DBag HOF with such claims as the "insanity" of discussing things with him (insinuating it's the same thing over and over), that he "isn't interested in forming new opinions" or having "honest discussion".  I'd really like for those making those claims to have any semblance of proof that they aren't guilty of the exact same things.

I tried looking through his recent post history (which I've done before) to find all of these crazy posts that people keep complaining about.  I still find nothing more than him stating his opinions and pretty much always in a very calm and congenial manner (which can hardy be said for those also participating in those discussions).

Failing to find anything interesting there, I tried going to those threads where he had replied recently, thinking there had to be something to base those claims on if they were looked at in context.  Unsurprisingly (to me), I honestly can't find anything that would make anyone bat an eye if they weren't previously convinced that he was the devil (or Trump, which is probably more appropriate) incarnate.

What I did find was others doing most of what they were accusing him of doing.  knapp scolded him for not answering a question.  Archy was correct in replying that he wasn't responding to that question.  Then knapp proceeds to offer something that also doesn't pertain to the question that he was scoffing at Archy for not answering.  And then quoting from an article that not only doesn't answer that question but is completely based on someone's opinion.  So there is not factual discussion going on whatsoever.  It is two differing opinions. But knapp is so convinced of his own opinion that he sees it as a fact and can't understand how anyone could possibly not understand or disagree with those facts.  Actually, Archy was somewhat conciliatory that he didn't fully read the original source he responded to.  But he is never open to anything like that, according to many.

Then they like to cherry-pick the worst of the other side and portray it as everyone while ignoring the same outlying opinions from their own side.  Archy points that out here and no one has any response, despite many spending pages of pitchforks and torches when the shoe was on the other foot.

Perhaps my personal favorite is knapp chiding him for the "push polls" that supposedly change peoples support for student loan forgiveness.  Yet he makes no mention that the original poll he posted showing support for student loan forgiveness is akin to asking "do you like free money", but he sees nothing wrong with those types of questions.

There is another instance of someone saying how stupid he is for claiming Obama said something then when he posts his proof of it .... crickets.  But Archy is the one who doesn't have a grasp of reality.

I may have been wrong.  This is probably my favorite.

Did gas prices go up under Obama? Did domestic crude oil production decrease under Obama? Did energy prices adjusted for inflation go up under Obama? The answer to all of those is: No! End of discussion.

I don't know why anyone continues to humor someone so intllectualy dishonest by continuing the discourse.

Setting aside that presidents get too much blame (or credit) for stuff like this, gas prices did go up under Obama and the pretty nebulous "energy prices" also appeared to go up under Obama.  So two of ZRod's three assertions are patently false.  But it's the other guy who is "intellectually dishonest".

I guess my point of this rant is I think there are way too many people who mistake "he's not open to new ideas" for "he won't go along with what I say", which makes them at least as bad if not worse than the person they are complaining about.

If someone has other examples, I'd love to see them.  This is by far the most in-depth I've looked into it but I've browsed through from time to time before.  And from what I can tell, most of the claims are pretty much they don't like him because he disagrees with them.

 

[Mavric]

So two of the three people who jumped in to defend the Duke volleyball player hadn't even bothered to read about the investigation results.  Just preferred to believe what they wanted to believe.

And the third (knapp) said there is "no evidence" even though there is significant evidence on one side of the story and literelly no evidence on the other side.  He just wants to believe one side so to him that's good enough to still want to believe the story he wants to believe.

But it's only that backwoods Archy that isn't open to new ideas.