Actually, I hate to burst your bubble, but not everyone does that.
Apparently not, if the shitstorm over TPE tells us anything. Of course, when it’s your ox that’s gored, it’s an injustice. How telling.
As for “unpopular opinions”, that’s a necessary but not sufficient part of the troll playbook, yes. In case you’ve forgotten, trolling means posting to get a rise out of people. Most things that get a rise out of people are also unpopular opinions. Posting the things he did about black people got a rise out of people pretty consistently, and he knew it. He was warned of it and told that exact thing. If he weren’t a troll, he would’ve stopped doing it, but he never really did, not until his last suspension anyway (if even then–I mostly stopped paying attention to him at that point).
That said, I’m not coming down really strongly on his being a troll. I think all or most of his warnings were justified and I think it was stupid to keep abusing the rules that he agreed to since he was on thin ice, and in that wise, I think it was pretty much inevitable that someone had to use the banhammer on him. I don’t know if the Jekyll and Hyde thing makes it better or worse, frankly.
Revtim’s opinion here was starting to sound reasonable to me until I saw both of those threads. That’s just blatant trolling, and the two threads were within about 30 minutes of each other, no less. How many times do you have to be warned before you figure out what’s going to be considered trolling and what isn’t? The most generous interpretation I could give him is that he had no idea he was going to stir up shit, which is just not acceptable for someone who’s been around as long as he has and been warned as many times as he has. I mean, how long does it really take to get a clue?
If “trolling” doesn’t mean “deliberate attempts to piss people off”, what does it mean.
Ok, that’s different to what you said before.
I asked “All right then, here’s another question. How many warranted warnings should a poster be able to receive befoe s/he is banned?” (italics added)
And you answered: “How about infinite?”
I saw your analysis of the warnings and your disagreeement with them. You of course have the right to your opinion. I don’t know if those are all the warnings given or not. In any case, some of these warnings will of course depend on your interpretation: was s/he trolling or not? This will always be a judgement call. If we wait for a troll to admit to their actions, then we would be waiting for a long time. My personal opinion is that s/he was trolling, but as I said before, I have no hard evidence for that.
In any case, I think if more people who think that someone is trolling would just adopt the DNFTT principle, it would be beneficial.
I have no idea what you’re on about. I have never, ever called for anyone’s banning here. I have never reported a post. Not based on their opinions, their lifestyle, their bigotrys, their assholishness. Never. I listened to others’ opinions, and I gave my own. I assume that you agree that’s allowed here? If you believe that I was inappropriate in any of my exchanges in those threads, please feel free to report me.
I agree with this, and with Sarahfeena. The guy could be an ass, and did repeatedly break rules after being warned. But I’m going to miss him. Last fall, we were getting people together for a Chi-Dopefest, and he considered coming, but said he might be welcome because of his rep. He and I traded a couple e-mails, and my impression was that he was a pretty normal, funny guy.
I’m torn - he broke rules, but some people here are a lot more hostile to others.
For those who find what is below too long to bother with, the short version is: I don’t think VCO3/TLDR should have been banned.
In my opinion, he engaged in trolling behavior, but he was not simply a troll. I believe that he started many threads with the full knowledge and intent of provoking strong reactions from posters, and that his protests to the contrary were disingenuous. Examples of these would be the several threads he started with questions or comments about the habits and behaviors of black people. I believe that he deliberately mischaracterized the stories that provoked some of his pit rants to enhance the level of response that he got. Examples of this would be the thread that got him banned, and an earlier one on a young delegate. I believe that he vastly overstated his reactions to things for effect and reaction. I sometimes found these things amusing, sometimes irritating, sometimes entertaining. I share the view of several other posters that this was a form of performance art. I don’t think it did this community any harm to have this performer among us.
I also believe that there is some sort of underlying illness or instability in VCO3/TLDR. IANA shrink, and I’m not trying to serve as one. Underneath the amusement or irritation that I felt was generally a sense that I was reading the words of a disturbed or unbalanced person. This sometimes had a moderating effect on my responses to him, and sometimes made me turn away from his threads entirely.
I gather that quite a few posters found value in his posts in other forums here. I read some of his threads on music. Like him, I’m a musician, although we definitely do not like the same music. He seemed to have heart-felt and informed opinions on lots of bands, and he engaged in what appeared to be intelligent conversations on music. He could go a bit overboard in his praise or condemnation in that area, but that’s no sin.
I’m a regular reader of the pit. One of the fascinating things that happens in the pit is the thread which turns on the OP. The dearly departed started pit threads with, I believe, the full knowledge that they were going to turn on him. I think that he really wanted to achieve a train wreck like the Scott Plaid pitting Frank started back in 2005. While I think that trying to start a train wreck is trolling, I don’t think it should be bannable trolling. The pit will be a less interesting place in his absence.
So, if a person holds a genuine position that he knows is in the minority, and will cause a lot of people to disagree, they are to just shut up about it or be banned from the board?
I always thought the most important benefit of an anonymous message board was that these types of opinions could be discussed here.
If somebody comes up with evidence that the banned party was did not actually hold the views s/he was posting, I agree that’s trolling and bannable. But it looks to me like people are simply labeling posters with unpopular opinions as trolls and/or “shit-stirrers” and complaining until they are banned.
I didn’t mean to imply that you had called for other people to be banned, I meant that your indignation at the silencing of controversial opinions smacked of only applying to your opinions.
You didn’t ask this of me, but I’ll give my answer. I think he really thinks that some people place too much importance on their children, that too many accommodations are made in the US for Spanish-speaking people, that service workers are treated poorly, that laptop computers suck, and that people with $500 K in their 401Ks are wealthy assholes. I also think that he enjoyed overstating these beliefs and foaming at the mouth for our amusement and his. And I don’t see anything wrong with that.
I’m a bit surprised at the banning too. I never saw him as a troll – at least not the garden variety kind of troll. He struck me as someone who just couldn’t keep his cockamamie notions to himself. “I have this thought – it’s not much of a thought but I want [need] to take it to the Dope. But how will I get them to pay attention?”
The discussion he generated – I think he perceived that as a sign of success, or what passes for success on a message board.
Again (and for about the fifth time), NO. No matter how many different ways you word that question, the response is always going to be “No.” You keep searching for some blanket rule that is going to apply, instead of accepting that they’re usually considered on a case by case basis. If you think about it, I’m sure you’ll see why.
I think that depends on the manner in which they’re discussed, don’t you? Is the subject being put forth honestly, with the intent of having an open dialog about a controversial subject? Or is it being put forth just to piss people off? If the answer is B, then it’s being a jerk and trolling.
I have no problem with people holding divergent opinions. That’s what every forum on this board is about (except, of course, for GQ). If you state your opinion and I state mine and they’re different, maybe one of us can learn something–maybe even both of us.
In TLDR’s case, however, I don’t think that’s what it was about. For him:
I don’t think he honestly believed what he wrote in many cases
When he did believe it, he exaggerated it greatly to make it more inflammatory
His posts weren’t intended to educate himself or others: they were intended to start fights
He would never back down, no matter how much conflicting evidence he received
I know. My reading comprehension is just fine, thank you, and therefore I knew that’s what you meant. If you have ANY evidence whatsoever that I want anyone’s opinion silenced or that I would not be equally indignant if anyone’s opnion was silenced, I would like you to produce it right now. Otherwise, I would like a retraction.
In case YOUR reading comprehension is compromised, I disagree with VCO3 on many, many topics. Review his threads and you will see that plainly.
If “trolling” doesn’t mean “deliberate attempts to piss people off”, what does it mean.