This is one of the rules which I find difficult to fathom, in the context of it having any benefit. The definition of a troll is someone who posts off topic, extraneous or inflammatory material to get an emotional outburst from the reader.
It is not so much attention seeking or seeing their name in print. The method I see adopted is a solution looking for a problem.
I would have imagined it would be less work for a short note attached to a closed thread rather than having mods individually answer a number of PM’s.
You’re comparing situations that are handled differently. We announce suspensions and bans of longtime members because it’s reasonable to inform people about those actions. We don’t announce bans of socks and trolls because we’re trying to deny them a little attention in the hope it’s a disincentive to further socking and trolling.
Face it, most people who get banned do so for being a jerk, continuing to be a jerk after being warned or even suspended about it, and finally getting banned for it.
Do you want a bunch of threads from TPTB that say “X was banned for saying mean things even after being told to stop”?
Or would you prefer a thread with links to all the mean things X said, and the PM’s that went back and forth?
Or, what I really suspect is that there are a bunch of people who would complain “But whhhhhyyyyyyy?” after Hitler is banned for pro-Nazi sentiments and Jesus is banned for criticizing Pharisees without adequate cites.
I think that when you deny a troll the teaspoon of attention it would get with a locked post saying “Imatroll has been banned fro trolling,” you are guaranteeing it a liter of attention when one of our hundreds (thousands?) of posters inevitably–whether because they are new or because they slip up and forget the rule–posts a thread titled “Why was Imatroll banned?” Not to mention that people will start talking about it in whatever pit thread the troll was last trolling in.
So the persistent trolls keep coming back despite this rule. Yeah, seems like a good system.
What makes you so sure that people talking about them is what they’re going after? I’m no expert in trollery, but my understanding of it is trolls just like to fuck with people. What makes you think they’re not just getting their jollies by fucking with you guys, making you track them down and ban them? They probably don’t give two fucks if someone starts an ATMB thread about them. In fact, I’m sure they don’t, because we’re not allowed to and they still come back.
I can see the reasoning behind this rule and I think it’s valid. Trolls enjoy nothing so much as attention. To ban them and then perhaps spend a whole long thread discussing their posts is tantamount to saying, “Hey, we banned you but please stick around a while, someone is sure to open a thread on you which I know you’ll find pleasing. And be sure to revisit us regularly for new responses to the thread!”
No, casting them into the dark backward and abysm of time makes far better sense.
I do think one of the drawbacks of this policy (which I agree with) is that it reduces awareness to the rest of the posting population. Every time someone mentions one of the more…prolific socks on the SDMB, there are invariably some long-time dopers who respond with “Who?”. The lack of attention doesn’t seem to stop the sock from repeatedly returning, and there are fewer people aware of the issue who can keep an eye out in the future.
Maybe try a test case at some point? Next time someone starts a thread asking, “what happened to AnnoyingSockPuppetX?”, let it run its course, and see what the results are. If the added attention draws that sock back in for another pass, then the mods/admins can say in the future “Nope, we’ve tried that, and it didn’t work. Case closed.”
