It’s not new. My understanding is that this has always been the case:
Agreed.
I don’t know if I’m arguing more against UltraVires or more against the board’s definition, as written. Maybe an ATMB discussion is in order.
Then stand: trolling isn’t about saying lies to deliberately rile people up; trolling is about deliberately riling people up.
I believe that the US has an almost religious reverence for the military, and that this attitude does not serve us well at all. However, I recognize that few folks share this belief of mine, so I mostly stay quiet about it.
If I went into threads about military service and dropped cryptic comments about how, “Where’s your respect for garbagemen?” or “Whoopee, you can shoot people, have a medal,” that would be about the most obnoxious way possible for me to phrase my sincere belief. It wouldn’t be an effort to open conversation about how we should regard military work; it would just be using my beliefs to shit on people, confuse them and anger them, and then feel amused and superior at their bewildered fury.
That’d be trolling with sincere beliefs.
I think you were correct to say sincerity is irrelevant in the sense that the ultimate test is always whether the principal intent was to antagonize.
But viewing the sincere/insincere cases separately maybe sheds some light for UltraVires on why it makes sense to frame it that way.
It could possibly be off-topic or threadshitting in certain instances, but if it was on point, say a thread about why veterans should get 100% free healthcare, and you said something along the lines of “Good for you. You did 4 years at Ft. Bragg marching and drinking beer. Why are you different than a garbage man?” and you did that consistently throughout relevant threads, I am not at all seeing the problem.
Should, once you recognize that you are a significant minority, just keep your yap shut? It is trolling to express a far minority viewpoint? Or can you only express it a couple of times and then shut up? I disagree, unless you are bringing it in to unrelated threads.
But, yes, we could all express our views in a more courteous and respectful manner, but heretofore this ruling, that has not been a rule, and would require a sea change in the way GD is moderated.
Based upon the responses, however, I’m still not sure if it was the sentiment or the word that was moderated.
Your own prior post from this thread is not a very good cite. The rule that was posted earlier seems to contradict this.
I thought we’d pretty much narrowed the issue down to the warning being based on the vocabulary used in this satire. And thus the question of whether there exists some range of vocabulary (such as “negro”) that is unacceptable if used as an unironic racist epithet, but which is not so inflammatory that it is disallowed even in a satiric mockery of racism.
Essentially, I see your position as wanting to elevate “negro” to taboo status, because you think it’s too difficult discern satirical/nonsatirical usage. I disagree, I don’t think that it’s difficult to recognize satire, and I think we should only narrow the range of permitted speech if there is a compelling need to do so.
If I don’t like peanut butter but post online that I do, that’s trolling???
Agreed.
No, but since you’re you’re posting this just to antagonize me…
The same debate has been going on since at least 2008.
The Two and a Half Inches of Fun: can’t we just ban his troll ass and be done with it? thread might shed some light. Particularly post 35.
No.
Here is what the actual rules say (some of this was only partially quoted upthread):
To use your examples, the first example (insincere just to rile people up) is clearly trolling.
Your second example, where the poster in question really believes what they are posting, isn’t so clear. And this is where the last line in the rules matters - “Trolling is posting solely for the purpose of riling others up.” And this is where motivation comes into play. If the poster in question is sincere and really wants to discuss the issue, then it isn’t trolling. However, if the poster knows that the post will rile people up, and they post anyway, that is a form of trolling. If you go to a pro-choice board where you know everyone is pro-choice and you know that you aren’t going to change their opinions, and, as a pro-lifer, you post what you actually believe anyway just because you hate them and want to get them all stirred up, that is also trolling.
It’s the intent to rile people up that makes it trolling. Insincerity is not a requirement for trolling.
There’s a difference between that and what asahi did, but I’ll point it out again - asahi wasn’t directing his satire at any poster on this board, but at an outsider.
Oh, no. I wasn’t comparing the two, just making an example for my argument that sincerity isn’t a requirement for trolling.
I don’t think that asahi was trolling, either.
It seems like under that example, if a poster here said that he supports President Trump and supports the construction of a border wall, that he would be guilty of trolling.
I mean, granted I am somewhat of an authority on the matter. Here are a few more:
Nothing about sincerity there.
As to your example about the border wall…it’s kind of silly. We have extensive discussions about the wall with people able to express their views without being admonished for trolling. Your observation is contradicted quite clearly.
I understand that it is not modded, but under your “sincere trolling” rule it could be. The sincere trolling rule, which before today was foreign to me, seems to say that you may not hold a minority viewpoint, or that you may hold it so long as you don’t say it too much or too forcefully.
I understand also the conundrum expressed in the previous rule: that the mods cannot tell if some extreme viewpoint is real or is simple trolling so sometimes you err on the side of trolling. But your rule has no bounds which can be recognized.
How does arguing for Trump’s wall not fall within the confines of the rule? A poster knows that 95+ percent of posters here not only oppose the wall, but viscerally opposes it. Isn’t any further argument simply an attempt to get a rise out of other posters, even if sincere?
ETA: Your further cites do not support your rule. If I am arguing a position, I am not doing it solely to incite others, even though others may be so incited.
First, there is no “sincere trolling rule”.
Second, there is an element of judgment to this as is stated explicitly in the rule:
Third, we do not err on the side of trolling. If anything, given that warnings for trolling make up around 6.5% of total warnings, I’d say that most posters would think we don’t give warnings for trolling enough.
And on that note, as I said in post #99, I’ve thought about it. I’ll rescind the warning, though somewhat reluctantly. I have my doubts, but given the comments here in this thread and ashai’s posting in this thread, I’ll choose to construe the comment in a more favorable light. Please be more judicious in the future to avoid potential misunderstanding.
Cosigned.