I was then promptly dinged with a warning by Hari Seldon:
I would like to point that I was not trolling in the least; I was absolutely serious about what I said. Now, I will readily concede that I was way off in numerical terms - I was just typing up “two hundred thousand” as a whatever figure on the spot, and yes, I do agree now (when it’s too late to edit) that that figure is way too high and that perhaps even 20,000 would be too high. But I am not kidding in the least that if you have a situation where the entire election has come down to Pennsylvania to decide the electoral outcome (ala Bush v. Gore in Florida,) and it is a known fact that one of the two main candidates is trailing by a known figure - say, a mere 2,000 votes - and the state is now accepting ballots that are arrive up to three days after Election Day is over, that there will now be immense temptation and incentive by the losing side to make up ballots to cover the gap.
However - that’s not my main point. (Since that is a political topic, it should stay in P&E.) My point is - how was that comment “trolling?” What is the criteria for trollery? It was a comment made in absolutely good faith and sincerity. I do agree that I was wrong about the numbers - as I point out above, 200,000 was way too high a number for the scenario - but is that what I am getting dinged for, putting up an implausible number? Or am I getting a warning for suggesting that vote fraud could happen?
I am not a mod, have never been a mod, and do not play one on TV, so take this with as large a grain of salt as necessary: I believe the mods have stated in the past that genuinely held beliefs, if expressed in a way that’s designed to rile people up (as opposed to offering honest debate), is still considered trolling.
Having said that, I see nothing trollish or even flirting with trolling in your post. I see nothing in your post that is designed to rile up those that don’t agree with you or, indeed, anyone. I don’t necessarily agree with your prediction, but I see no trolling there. I see a position put forth, an opinion stated, that opens the floor to debate. Not a post designed to piss people off.
So is simply posting something that many disagree with trolling now? Surely not. If someone posts an opinion that flirts (or fully embraces) conspiracy theory territory, is that trolling? Hopefully not. Considering the contentiousness of this election, theories such as yours, while not likely to come to fruition, are not beyond the pale.
Therefore I also await some clarification from a Real Life Mod.
The numbers aren’t the problem. The argument overall shows no thought or insight into how elections work and how such a scam might be accomplished. It was a turd thrown into a good discussion about the case. The factually incorrect statement that all mail can be delivered within a state in “1-2 days” is further evidence that you weren’t attempting a helpful contribution to the thread.
But I’m just a random poster, so my opinion counts for little. What did Hari Seldon say in response to the PM you said you were sending? Is there a reason you presented your side here, but not his?
Velocity, it’s such a ridiculous post that it’s indistinguishable from an insincere post. You really think a conspiracy to forge 200,000 votes in 3 days could not only be pulled off, but could go undetected? That post was sincere?
Oh, dear.
I can’t blame a mod for assuming you knew better.
Edit: oh, wow, you left out this quote from later, when you were challenged on the silliness:
Obviously not speaking for the mods, but I certainly saw it as a variety of trolling. It has been my impression that you have a pattern of starting threads on controversial topics with minimal factual or logical basis, and then often disappearing once pushback occurs. In this case, leaving aside the issue of numbers of manufactured ballots, your argument depends on:
The cheaters having access to large numbers of blank ballots
The cheaters having a list of registered voters who did not vote
Knowledge of the checks that are mad to find invalid ballots and the skill to overcome them.
The ability to do all of the above and get the ballots postmarked by midnight on Nov. 3.
IMHO, that goes well beyond laying out a reasonable hypothetical, and gets into conspiracy theorizing and trollery.
Postmarked from the appropriate post offices. That is, if I live in zip code 27514, my ballot should have a 27514 postmark. If it doesn’t, it looks a little odd. And if 20,000 votes from across the state suddenly show up with non-matching postmarks, it looks a bit more than a little odd.
If we want to discussion election technicalities themselves, we can do that in a P&E thread (as I stated above, I don’t want the politics themselves to sidetrack from the main topic of trolling, which is why this is in ATMB.) But this is ATMB. I am just asking for some more official clarity on what is and isn’t trollery - not just politics, but about the 500 other threads on which one might run afoul of the trolling rules.
That part was a joke. I did point out - in PMs to Hari Seldon, and in this thread, that I was completely serious about my claim about vote fraud being invited under this scenario.
I am not a mod. But to me, it seemed like that post was a form of trolling known as Concern Trolling:
con·cern trol·ling
noun
INFORMAL•DEROGATORY
the action or practice of disingenuously expressing concern about an issue in order to undermine or derail genuine discussion.
Here’s why. If you were really concerned that the election would be won by a margin of 200,000 in a given state and the 3 day counting period would allow someone to make up the difference by cheating, then your post would not be trolling. But this is a ridiculous idea. It is entirely unrealistic for someone to do this, allegations by our current president to the contrary notwithstanding.
And so when called out you drop your number from 200,000 to 20,000. Yet your argument still holds, you claim! Sure, 20,000 is a narrower margin to aim for, and the idea that 20,000 votes would be falsified is still ridiculous. But what is more telling is how quickly you dropped from 200,000 to 20,000, a 90% discount, with so little thought. Almost as if your argument wasn’t genuine in the first place, so you don’t mind shedding evidence.
And then in this thread, you drop down again. Now the election is only being won by a measly 2,000 votes, of course it’s possible to steal that guys! You have now shed 99% of your argument like so much hot air – perhaps because your argument was never anything but hot air to begin with.
And now you come to ATMB to relitegate the same issue once more. I don’t know why people do this every time there is a warning, nor why they constantly beg for clear lines. The mods have been very clear on this: they aren’t going to paint a clear line for you to step right up to so you can safely thumb your nose at everyone else and continue chuckling when someone crosses it taking a swing at you. That’s not the kind of board they want, so they aren’t gonna paint clear lines on what “trolling” is. Probably the single smartest thing the mods here have done.
That’s pretty sad, dude. It’s a profoundly ridiculous thing to propose seriously. If a warning for trolling when you post something that silly persuades you to up your game, it’ll be a win for everyone, including you.
I (mostly) agree with you, but that begs the question: when does a ludicrous conspiracy cross the line into trolling? If someone posts an opinion on something that has little or no chance of being factually true or ever occurring, does that count as trolling? And if so, why?
Not that I’m disagreeing with you per se, but if someone posts something on the boards that is 1) a genuine belief, and 2) not presented in a way designed to rile people up, does it count as trolling? If so, where do we draw the line?
People are wrong on these boards all the time. People post ridiculous shit on here all the time as well. Most of those posts are just… wrong. They aren’t posts meant to get people in a lather.
Did you actually think that that was a realistic scenario when you posted it? Really?
Trolling? Hard to say, but it was absolutely a threadshit and an invitation to derail, as then everyone would have to stop and explain in detail as to exactly how absurd a proposition that was.
First, I don’t want us to draw a line: this isn’t a court, and drawn lines like that lead to worse behavior.
Second, what’s the danger of labeling something “trolling” when it’s really “ridiculous shit”? Is the danger that people will think twice before posting ridiculous shit? because o noes.
I tend not to pay attention to the poster who starts a given thread, so that may be why such behavior from Velocity never pinged my radar. If this is the case I rescind some of my skepticism. Still, I’m curious what a mod has to say.
Sounds like you’ve already PM’d with the mods, and they already gave you an answer that you didn’t like, so you chose to air your grievance in a public ATMB thread in order to get others on your side. It may be best that you actually make your case.
I technically PM’d only one mod (I don’t know if we’re allowed to reveal contents of PMs or if that is another violation of the rules.) I didn’t hear back from others, so I wanted to consult with more mods at ATMB. Unless there is some PM-all-mods function I don’t know of.
Basically, trolling can often be indistinguishable from extreme stupidity. Whether or not you actually meant that post, it was clearly made without the slightest thought about whether your scenario was plausible or not. Hopefully, in the future you will consider whether something you post might be considered trolling or not before you make it.