Tonari no Kyuuketsuki-san - Vol. 6 Ch. 56 - Homura's Friend

[Oeconomist]

@Yautja—

Look up the word “mere” while you're at it.

I'll give the mathematical point one more shot: I said that most of the perpetrators trouble-making was within the rules. You tried to refute that by claiming that much of his trouble-making broke the rules. So, let's say that a perpetrator engages in exactly hundred acts of trouble-making that are outside of the rules. That would be a lot of trouble-making. But if he engaged in more than two hundred acts of trouble-making, then plainly most of his acts of trouble-making are within the rules, even if he has broken the rules too often.

The uploading of spoilers did not violate the rules, and most of the trouble-making comments of the perpetrator across these incidents have not violated the rules. (For example: His comments about people ignoring the gap are just trouble-making, because he knows that people coming from a Follows page aren't positioned to see the gap; but these comments aren't against the rules. His comments about unidentified “beggars” are just trouble-making; but these comments aren't against the rules.) Most of his trouble-making actions did not violate the rules. I was simply correct, yet you insulted me after posting a mathematically fallacious response.

I indeed don't know that you were trying to do anything but ventilate; but your ventilation made the perpetrator ecstatic. If and when he reads these comments, he'll probably love your attacks on me.

No, I don't much like promoting myself, which is exactly why the comment at which you first took inappropriate offense didn't mention what I'd done at all, why I've only talked about what I did where it has been relevant to responding to you, and why I've not gone into specifics.

 

[Yautja]

@Oeconomist
I will once you've referenced that evidence. So yea, mere conjecture.

And yet you've still not explained how I was wrong in classifying things as I did, or pointed to what he did and quantified and sorted it. You've stayed purely hypothetical with no supporting evidence or examples. That entire fun hypothetical and useless mathematical point is just that, useless. You've still not defined that trouble making and how it was not breaking the rules, whereas I have done the opposite, you've just asserted that it is what you say it is and tacked on a paragraph which says nothing to make it appear like you've argued something.

I guess I'll need to reiterate the rules and go into more detail.

First off, troll: Someone who deliberately pisses people off online to get a reaction

2.3.5 - Joke or troll releases are not allowed, except on April 1st.
These sorts of releases, that skip ahead, snipe endings and such, especially when they have choice words such as "fag" or "feces" in them can be categorized as trolls. Especially when the comments by the uploader on that chapter taunt those complaining by insulting them, calling them choosing beggars, etc. So the chapter itself, when considered with the accompanying comments and past actions, breaks this rule, as well as 5.3 & 5.2 which will be addressed shortly. This upload is arguably overtly breaking a rule in letter, and unarguably breaking it in spirit.

5.1.4 - Other Terminology: This category includes everything else that does not neatly fit under the above categories. It includes, but is not limited to, rape jokes, homophobia, transphobia, and direct personal attacks.
5.1.5 - Direct Personal Attacks: We encourage users to criticize the content of a post and not the poster themselves.
Examples include:

what kind of gigachad complains about free shit? go switch your avatar with a soyjak.

no way, fag

That's 2/8, one quarter, comments that overtly break the rules and were actioned. I'll get to the others next. Zero arguments here I hope.

5.2 - Don't Be Disruptive

Why are there so many entitled choosing beggars here?
Simply walk away and don't read this free content if you don't want to read it.
You guys aren't 5, are you?

Very ironic since you bunch are the ones throwing child tantrum over free contents lol

I didn't want to continue, but now I'm thinking about translating the chapter where Homura first appeared 😄

Now we're at 5/8, and why are these a problem you might ask? You say they aren't, but are obviously ignoring context, and context is king. In the context of this upload, and the other comments, they clearly indicate a desire to agitate readers, inflame comments, and start fights. These comments are trolling, they're intending to and succeeded in eliciting negative resposnes. On their own, on other uploads, they may not be breaking rules, but here, they are. That's 5/8 comments, the majority, IMO, breaking the rules overtly. And you've not made an argument beyond "because I said so" or even referenced a rule or how I am wrong for mentioning these rules and associating them with what I have.

5.3 - Don't Make the Staff's Job Harder
The purpose of these troll uploads, as evidenced by not only those quotes, but almost every single comment show him trying to inflame a response from the readers. His conversation with MisakaxMisaka, calling people CBs (which brings the count up to 7/8), children, threatening to translate more chapters after people complain, etc. That is making the staffs job harder. Creating a situation where the mods need to present by intentionally inflaming negative comments and anger, and promising to do so again. The exact actions that have already resulted in one code change to the website.

Now, considering these comments, and rules broken, and the conversations had, the entire purpose of this upload, past uploads, etc, this asshole is clearly violating rules in almost everything he does on this upload and the others like it. I've listed rules, listed quotes, explained the context, and what have you done? Nothing.

What I am doing is calling your bullshit, something you've still not answered. I bet what he loves is some idiot defending him, you, and thinking they have a point when they still have not pointed to a single action, or rule or justification beyond vague hypotheticals and baseless assertions. And me, the idiot arguing with the original idiot even though you have still yet to substantiate your claims. I bet he loves the show which you're helping to enact, and if you were ever intending to be "effective" or help, you'd have shut up by now and stop letting your superiority complex and ego get the best of you and admitted you were wrong or actually pointed to something tangible which supports your beliefs.

Exactly because you haven't done anything; I very much mentioned what you've done wrong, you've made claims without supporting them (claims about code changes, admin decisions, what will happen down the line), and made an obviously untrue statement (him not breaking rules). After that initial offence you've put out more baseless conjecture and failed to remedy that, you've insulted people who are upset with these sorts of uploads, and very much painted yourself as a person with a superiority complex. You've failed to respond to a single rule I've listed and how they've been broken. You've still failed to quantify and categorize those "trouble-making"s that haven't broken rules. You've not gone into specifics because I'd guess there are none and you didn't expect anyone to call you on your bullshit and so instead have elected to dance around and try and get me to give up, just like you're doing now by essentially saying nothing.

 

[Oeconomist]

@Yautja—

You're still trying to substitute the idea of his breaking rules many times for the idea that most of his trouble-making actually broke the rule. Yes, he broken rules many times, some of them important. But most of his trouble-making was within the rules; that's why he was able to get away with it for months. Not seeing the distinction led you to make unwarranted insults directed at me. Now, you see the distinction quite well, but you're ignoring it; that behavior just makes you look worse.

I'm not defending him. I've called his trouble-making just what it is. I'm amongst those who have been personally attacked by the perpetrator. (See also his next comment.) I've responded in ways that he did not enjoy: here and here. He attacked me because I was recruiting people to support a coding change that would end his game. (I also engaged in private recruitment.)

Beginning months before these most recent spoiler uploads, I was pushing for that code-change, which would sterilize the problem of uploads with deliberate gaps, and I've been promoting it at every natural opportunity. When a developer rejected the change that I advocated because of what he regards as its computational expense, I drew his attention to an alternative that he regarded as acceptable; he coded it, and it's just waiting for final approval.

(If the perpetrator were banned without a change like that, then he could use different IP numbers, create a new account and new group (assuming that he doesn't already have both!), be a bit less obvious in his comments, and go back to uploading installments with deliberate gaps. With the new code, doing that will gull far fewer people.)

When Holo joked that a signed confession would be needed to prove ill-intent, I linked to something pretty close to a signed confession. (It doesn't prove a breaking of the rules, but it helped to establish the nature and size of a problem.)

That's not the sum of what I've been doing (because I still dislike writing about what I've done), but alone it's plainly better than the nothing that you claim. While you shouted in the wake of each of the spoiler uploads but went quiet after a bit, I've been engaged in a sustained effort for months, with results.

 

[Yautja]

@Oeconomist
No, what I've done is point out how all of his trouble-making (skipped chapters and comments) are rule breaking. What you're doing is going "nuh-uh" and failing to any of prove to that. Him not being punished does not prove him innocent. There are countless comments and uploads that have broken rules that do not get actioned until far down the line. Since we're talking about fallacies, no, I don't see that, you haven't made that distinction other than asserting it, and no, the "insult" that your wounded ego is so slighted by wasn't unwarranted.

Boo hoo. You wanna complain about fallacies, you being a victim of negative responses from him is entirely fallacious and unrelated to anything said or done here that in no way proves you aren't defending him.

You're overly focusing on you being a victim and your great work instead of substantiating the big claims about which rules are or are not being broken and what actions the admins have decided to or will take down the line. Good job, you've finally linked to what code you're talking about, now you're at 1/3 things you need to substantiate. Not including all your ridiculous claims about the majority of his actions in relation to these sorts of chapters being rule breaking, which you haven't substantiated in any way.

No shit. It's about the principal. You don't just not ban someone because they're are ways around bans.

Signed confession, or repeated actions and comments. There's enough cases to either outright prove or assume intent and Holo may just not be aware. Something I noticed Holo failed to respond to. You haven't proven or disproven rule breaking, but I think I sure have made a better argument than you.

There it is, exactly as I said, you've overly focused on your great achievements, how helpful you've been and how useless everyone else is instead of doing to most difficult thing that you cannot do, quantify and codify those actions of his that do not break rules. You keep saying "They don't break rules!" and considering I've pointed out how they have, it's your turn to point out how they don't. You don't get to keep saying "Nuh uh, they don't!" in response to someone showing how they do and have it be treated the same as or superior to.

The overwhelming majority of the comment you're replying to deals with how his actions break rules, and which rules are broken, and you haven't even touched that. You've just stroked what you've done and said "wrong" instead of actually proving how it's wrong. I'd tell you to grow up again, but it seems the opposite might be necessary.

 

[Oeconomist]

@Yautja—

There's no point in arguing with you; and this comment is really for whomever has kept reading despite it all.

My original comment, which so angered you, wasn't about me at all. It made the points [ul]that the perpetrator might not be banned, because it takes a lot of work to effectively ban someone, and because, though he had cause a great deal of trouble, he'd mostly stayed within the rules while doing so, but
that he was soon to lose the means by which he'd cause so much unhappiness because of an impending code change, and
that if he looked for some other way to cause trouble, then he'd be more obvious and more quickly stopped than he has been.[/ul] You got enraged by the first point. In your mind, saying that he might not be banned and that most of his trouble-making behavior had not broken the rules meant that I was on his side. So you just started attacking. You've seen your reasoning as such rebutted from the beginning, and factual refutations on other points, but because you over-committed from the outset, you've just escalated, and thereby increased your commitment to attack.

You lack the strength of character to admit having been wrong, so this discussion cannot continue except to see your behavior get ever worse, or one of the administrators step-in because you're in violation of Rule 5.2, and administrators will probably regard me as likewise in violation if I continue responding to your attacks. (Their advice would be for me to block you.)

 

[Yautja]

@Oeconomist
I agree, namely because you still haven't answered and told me how his actions, uploading this chapter and the comments posted by him on it, are not rule breaking even though I've given my reasons for thinking they are and the rules that indicate such. I wonder how many times I'd have to ask for you to actually do that.

And what I questioned your original comment on was what substantiated those beliefs, and you have still yet to answer or back any of those points.
1: You said "the administrators might allow him to remain. But if he then seeks-out some new way to cause unhappiness, they will surely act more decisively." and never sourced any sort of justification for that. And you never answered how he was within the rules even though in every single comment I've told you how he perceivably isn't and asked for you to tell me how he is or how I'm wrong. Something you've never done beyond garbled hypotheticals or word soup comments.
2: The only thing you've mildly substantiated, after I badgered you for a dozen comments.
3: Another thing you've not substantiated, which also seems dubious considering this is like 4th time he's done this exact sort of thing.

Enraged. Oh wow. Yea, saying you're stupid is clearly enraged. Let's go back and read my first response to you, and let's see where I indicate "rage". Please do tell me where, I'd love to see your justification for that claim, though, considering you don't seem to think you have to prove your claims, that they have to be taken as fact even when refuted and you've justified almost none of your other claims, I doubt you'll do that.

No, in my mind claiming that the admins may allow him to remain, but may ban him if he continues to cause issues without sourcing a quote from the admins is an issue. As is claiming he's broken few to no rules, since A) he's been comment banned in this very thread and B) I've listed a laundry list of rules and aligned them with his actions, none of which you've refuted and continue to ignore.

Maybe I'd admit I'm wrong if you took the time to point out how those rules I've listed are not broken or perceivably broken, or if you actually backed any of your claim that he's not broken rules beyond vague hypotheticals. Do I have to get a hammer and chisel, and chisel it into your skull before you answer? How has he not broken any rules in posting this chapter, and inflaming the comments? How am I wrong in aligning his actions with the rules I've repeatedly listed, that you've repeatedly ignored?

Man, what an ego. "You lack the character". I can't tell who's worse. The troll who uploads these sorts of chapters, or the narcissist who actually goes around questioning other people's character, effectiveness and the like while insulting such people from a non-existent ivory tower with no grounding for any of his claims while stroking his ego by claiming how helpful he's been.

 

[SteamedBunInvasion]

Very nice discussion, guys.

 

[Holo]

We have rolled out an update warning people about chapter gaps, no matter how you enter the chapter. This should be sufficient warning to prevent people from getting accidentally spoiled.

For the record, if the uploader is uploading future chapters for the sole intention of pissing people off, then that it is a dick move. However, it is near impossible to have a rule which covers these situations, because "uploading in bad faith" can't be proved, and "uploading future chapters" also covers legitimate cases where it is necessary to do so (official chapters, groups who have pulled out, etc)

Therefore we believe that this new function that warns about gaps should be sufficient. If the reader goes on to read it knowing that there's a massive gap, then that's their fault. It should be impossible to get spoiled accidentally now.

Rule breaking within comments will be dealt with in the usual way.

 

[Sukoyan]

Lol at the comment section actually full of taks about tls instead of the content.

Haha Mahiru being jelly is so cute she wants her bestfriend, also Homura is shocked that Mahiru become closer to them faster than she would, and I think she will be jealous, too in the future.

They are both enjoyable.

 

[eviljackspicer]

God damn the comments are squealing harder then a stuck pig in a fence.

Holo, you really need to calm down. Get a sense of humor FFS

 

[Tsukinotaku]

... "fag" ? Who translated this ?