Honestly, if a person can’t tell what is absurd and what isn’t supported by the slightest factual basis, why should I want them posting anything at all? How could such a person provide value to a discussion board?
A poster with such a tenuous link to reality is a time sink, interactions are centered around trying to join them with the real world, trying to convince them that real things are real, and they invariably fight back with more factless absurdities.
You do realize that the pronoun “it” in this phrase refers to literally every possible claim one can make on a message board. They are not all subjective.
It is itself an absurdity to suggest that one cannot describe any claim as absurd because everything is subjective. It’s nonsense.
You might think so, but I’ve been posting here for 20 years, and I don’t post nonsense. I don’t post fact deficient garbage, or try to defend absurd ideas.
Have I been wrong? Stupid? A boob posting out of his depth? Of course!* But none of that is what Hari Seldon was talking about. He was talking about absurd suggestions without the slightest factual basis. You can’t do that accidentally, not if you care about what you post, and have any respect for the people you’re interacting with.
*It’s good for the humility, that moment where you back slowly out of the room because you clearly don’t know as much as everyone else…
I didn’t post for years because every time I had a point to make, someone else would say the same thing, and much more eloquently than I could ever manage.
The thing is, absurd is not a well defined term. Whether a statement is true or false is something objective that we can potentially determine. ‘Absurd’ is a value judgement. Sure, there are things 99% of people would agree are absurd, but there are also things where opinions will differ, because it is an opinion. Maybe we can all agree that a given statement is wrong, but that doesn’t mean we’ll agree on whether it’s absurd or not.
When modding, it’s better to stick to objective facts as far as possible, rather than subjective opinions.
I’ve been a moderator (not here but elsewhere) and that is not how moderation works. Subjective judgment calls are probably the most important role of a moderator and why you need to be careful in choosing one. Also, without subjectivity you are left with bright line rules that allow people to cause all kinds of problems while technically not violating policies.
There is a reason why there is no firm, objective definition of trolling on the board. People will use methods to disrupt discussions in a trolling manner without technically violating the exact wording of the rule, and the moderators would have no tools to stop them.
I saw some repeat posts (posting the same thing to more than one thread, often with an acknowledgement that they were doing so) in some of the threads that sprang up in the aftermath of the January 6 Capitol invasion.
Not as such. There’s nothing wrong if it’s relevant, especially if you acknowledge that you posted it in another thread. However, if you made repeated nonsense posts in different threads, it could be trolling.
Not if the topic is not trolling to begin with. However, cross-posting is against the rules, that is, posting the same or similar threads in different forums. Something can be against the rules while not being trolling.
Some posters stick to a topic or two and never look over other topics. Posting the topic in other forums broadens the scope of possible viewers.
Or so it seems to me