Calling someone a troll in The Pit

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

I hesitate to step into this, I’ve already got a headache, but it seems to me that:

(1) Outside the Pit, calling someone a troll, an idiot, a parasite, a pinko knee-jerk-liberal commie sympathizer, a troglodyte, etc etc, is prohibited by the rules. Those are all personal insults.

(2) Inside the Pit, calling someone a troll, a bird-brain, a red-neck right-wing fascist, a sycophant, etc is NOT prohibited by the rules. Personal insults are permitted in the Pit forum.

(3) Publicly accusing someone of behavior that is a violation of the rules (whether in the Pit or outside the Pit; whether trolling or personal insults or whatever) gets into fuzzy areas:

• Note that such a public accusation will NOT attract moderator attention. If you spot a rules violation, you need to REPORT it (hit the small ! in the red triangle in the upper right corner of the post) to get the attention of the mods.
• Note that such a public accusation could be considered “junior modding” – trying to usurp the role of moderator, by telling someone that they have committed a rules violation. Whether they have indeed committed a rules violation is for the mods to decide; whether you were “junior modding” is also up to the mods to decide, and, like everything else, depends on the individual circumstances and situation. (As an obvious example, pointing out that a link is not workplace-safe is a courtesy to other posters, and NOT “junior modding.”)

Does that summarize what I’ve thought was always obvious?

Historical footnote: we used to prohibit the use of the word “troll” in the Pit, because it was an accusation of jerkish behavior requiring mod attention. That was then, this is now, and if you can call someone a shit-eating sunnabitch in the Pit, then why not call 'em a troll?

[aldiboronti]

That’s the nub of it. By calling someone a troll in the Pit you are accusing them of breaking forum rules and hence you are junior modding, which is frowned on. But, of course, the rules say that you can call someone a troll in the Pit.

There’s a contradiction here that won’t go away, however much it’s massaged. Having said that though, as long as mods aren’t going to turn around and give warnings for troll accusations in the Pit, the point is academic. That was my main concern.

[samclem]

[QUOTE=aldiboronti]

There’s a contradiction here that won’t go away, however much it’s massaged. Having said that though, as long as mods aren’t going to turn around and give warnings for troll accusations in the Pit, the point is academic. That was my main concern.
[/QUOTE]
Well, thank OG for something.

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

[QUOTE=aldiboronti]
That’s the nub of it. By calling someone a troll in the Pit you are accusing them of breaking forum rules and hence you are junior modding, which is frowned on. But, of course, the rules say that you can call someone a troll in the Pit.

There’s a contradiction here that won’t go away, however much it’s massaged.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, absolutely. That’s why we originally had the rule of not calling people “troll,” not even in the Pit. After some years, however, we decided the contradiction you point out was fairly weak compared to the other contradiction (that you can call people any other freakin’ thing you want in the Pit, only just the word “troll” is too vicious/evil/obscene for use?)

So, caught on the horns of contradiction/dilemma whichever way we turn, we decided on the rules change.

[tomndebb]

[QUOTE=Shodan]
I have a feeling most of this is after the fact rationalization. Kalhoun admitted to posting so as to irritate, Carol Stream complained, they don’t like Carol Stream (and they will tolerate anti-religious behavior for longer than other forms of trolling) and now they are trying to square the circle of 'calling someone a troll is OK except if it is isn’t".
[/QUOTE]
Your statement regarding Kalhoun’s behavior seriously overstates her actions while deliberately ignoring the specific response to Carol Stream’s complaint and the even more explicitexplanation provided when she persisted in her false charges. There are many behaviors that are known to annoy other posters that we tolerate on the grounds that, if they are not direct attacks, the annoyed posters should suck it up and behave like adults. This includes pet references to specific political parties in (almost) veiled insulting terms, the use of code words to express bigoted views, sigs that have received negative comments, and the use of catch phrases that are supposedly neutral or non-specific when all readers know that they are targeted at specific posters and are intended as slams based on beliefs (often falsely attributed).

Your claim that we “tolerate anti-religious behavior” is a red herring, in that we also tolerate behavior that is “anti-” a lot of things, such as constant, mindless, partisan harping–even in GD.

I am not sure why the issue of the staff “liking” Carol Stream is in any way relevant, given that any number of posters who are “liked” are admonished when they break rules (or try to twist rules to their own purposes in order to beat up other posters) while many posters who are “not liked” are allowed to post without intervention as long as they follow the rules.

[Shodan]

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Your statement regarding Kalhoun’s behavior seriously overstates her actions while deliberately ignoring the specific response to Carol Stream’s complaint and the even more explicitexplanation provided when she persisted in her false charges.
[/quote]
(Emphasis added.)

It’s unfortunate that a moderator (in particular) cannot discuss a point without making accusations of bad faith.

There is a sticky in GD that lays out the line not to be crossed - that of “questioning the intent of another poster in making an arguably false statement”. It doesn’t mention whether this rule applies in fora other than GD, so perhaps that is the distinction.

But you tend to do this, and I think it is unfortunate. If it has a bad effect on the level of discourse in GD, I would expect that it would have no better on the level on the rest of the SDMB. Obviously you cannot see into my head and know what I “deliberately” did or did not do. Yet you make the accusation.

I can’t put you on my ignore list; you are a moderator. When I call you on it, you get huffy and retreat behind your moderator status and shut it off with warnings. I get the feeling you tend to regard Pittings as rather a validation of your positions.

But it is a bad thing anyway, and I wish you could debate without getting personal. Of course, you have already said quite clearly that you make your criticisms of other’ posting styles personal. So I guess you are doing it with intent, and are not interested in change.

That’s too bad. It would help the tone of the boards if you did.

Regards,
Shodan

[Carol_Stream]

[QUOTE=Shodan]
calling someone a troll is OK except if it is isn’t.
[/QUOTE]

That does appear to be the rule. Maybe they can add it to a sticky, just so.

[Heffalump_and_Roo]

[QUOTE=Carol Stream]

@Shodan

calling someone a troll is OK except if it is isn’t.

That does appear to be the rule. Maybe they can add it to a sticky, just so.
[/QUOTE]

bold added
OK, but maybe they can leave out the double “is”. It’s confusing enough already!

[tomndebb]

[QUOTE=Shodan]
It’s unfortunate that a moderator (in particular) cannot discuss a point without making accusations of bad faith.
[/quote]
I figured that an accusation of steering the discussion, (I did not call it bad faith), was better than other accusations based on the way that your decription did not conform to the actual exchange in that thread. Should I presume that you were willing to comment without bothering to read the posts to which you referered? Just how should I view a synopsis of an exchange that leaves out key elements?

[QUOTE=Shodan]
I can’t put you on my ignore list; you are a moderator. When I call you on it, you get huffy and retreat behind your moderator status and shut it off with warnings.
[/quote]
I find this claim interesting in that I have never issued a Warning against you. Perhaps this is why I feel confident that I know your intentions; I have drawn specific conclusions about your manner of posting based on observing your posts for many years.

[QUOTE=Shodan]
Of course, you have already said quite clearly that you make your criticisms of other’ posting styles personal. So I guess you are doing it with intent, and are not interested in change.
[/quote]
This would be another example of selective reporting. The specific posters about whom I admitted making personal comments were that very tiny subset of the Teeming Millions who have made personal attacks on me in my capacity of Moderator, lying about both my actions and my intentions. More specifically, it was limited to those posters who have falsely claimed that I have or that I would invoke Moderator sanctions to oppress them simply because they claimed I did not like their message. Anyone who wishes to read that statement and stand up to announce “Tom is talking about me” is welcome to do so.

I have (as have most Mods) been insulted on numerous occasions by posters who disagreed with either my opinions on topics or with my Moderating. I do not respond personally to them in Great Debates and only rarely respond to them in the Pit. When a poster who has been protected by my actions on various occasions chooses to launch the specific calumny against me that I am persecuting him, then I admit to having responded personally, (generally, but perhaps not always, in the Pit rather than in GD).

[Shodan]

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
I figured that an accusation of steering the discussion, (I did not call it bad faith), was better than other accusations based on the way that your decription did not conform to the actual exchange in that thread.
[/quote]

Well, that’s part of the problem. My description of Kalhoun’s posting is completely accurate, and not overstated in any way. Kalhoun said quite clearly that she was not capitalizing references to Jesus and God in order to irritate. That is what she said she did, and that is what I said she did.

The other part is that you are not responding to the part that I mentioned was unfortunate. Why is is necessary for you to impute bad faith to me at all? Why is it necessary for you to accuse me of “deliberately” posting dishonestly? Why can’t you disagree without impugning my motives? And does this not approach the line that you supposedly want to be respected, that of not making accusations of what another poster’s intentions are?

I find this claim interesting in that I have never issued a Warning against you.

Actually, what you often do is what I described you as doing - issuing what amounts to a warning that if I don’t stop posting in ways that irritate you you will issue a Warning. So I have the choice of ignoring your warning and then incurring a Warning.

If that is the distinction you want to cling to, it is a rather weak one. It’s rather like your semi-warning of Carol Stream for “trolling” because he* accused Kalhoun of trolling.

Which brings us full circle. Guinastasia makes an explicit accusation of trolling against Two and a Half Inches of Fun, and calls for mod action against him. Sure enough, he gets suspended (coincidentally). Carol Stream makes an explicit accusation of trolling against Kalhoun, and calls for mod action against her. No suspension, and you accuse Carol Stream of trolling. So it is OK to call someone a troll and ask for mod action against that person. Except when it isn’t.

The specific posters about whom I admitted making personal comments were that very tiny subset of the Teeming Millions who have made personal attacks on me in my capacity of Moderator, lying about both my actions and my intentions.

No, this is not the case. (And you, of all Dopers, are nearly the last one to have any right to complain about other people lying about your intentions.)

Do you need to have the exchange quoted back to you? Here it is -

@Zoe

Tom, although I think that criticism of Brazil84’s style of debate is justified, your comments were so tactlessly phrased as to be personally insulting if not malicious.

@tomndebb

I used exactly as much tact as the situation required.
If anyone takes offense, perhaps that poster should consider improving their manner of posting.

@Zoe

But don’t kid yourself into thinking that you aren’t making those criticisms personal. You more recent criticism of one poster there would require that you mind read his intent. And of the other poster involved, you claim that you know what he knows.

To which you responded

Of course I am making them personal.

Your characterization of your warnings as a response to personal attacks is false. It is a response to a style of debate that you find irritating.

Which, apparently, is forbidden. Sometimes.

Regards,
Shodan

*For some reason, Carol Stream, I thought you were a guy. My apologies if I am mistaken.

[tomndebb]

[QUOTE=Shodan]
Well, that’s part of the problem. My description of Kalhoun’s posting is completely accurate, and not overstated in any way. Kalhoun said quite clearly that she was not capitalizing references to Jesus and God in order to irritate. That is what she said she did, and that is what I said she did.
[/quote]
However, that is not “completely” accurate. Kalhoun noted that she declined to capitalize divine names to annoy various people (making no specfific reference to whether she performed that act only on the SDMB or throughout her writing). Carol Stream then made an accusation of trolling to which I pointed out the errors in the logic of her complaint. (And you are correct that it was not you, but Carol Stream who seriously overstated Kalhoun’s behavior–although you appear to support that flawed judgment.) In citing that incident, you left out the actual responses that were posted to Carol Stream’s complaints, then inserted a claim that she was ignored or rebuffed based on personal hostility to her by the staff. (You also inserted a gratuitous claim that insults against religion are given extra leeway, ignoring the fact that insults against all sorts of philosophical and theological positions are allowed to pass without comment–as you should know, having authored many of them.)
So, here you are claiming that you were “completely” accurate in depicting an event, despite omitting pertinent information and further imputing motives to the staff, (perhaps reading our minds, hmmm?), and now you want to complain that the behavior in which you just engaged is not appropriate.

[QUOTE=Shodan]
The other part is that you are not responding to the part that I mentioned was unfortunate. Why is is necessary for you to impute bad faith to me at all? Why is it necessary for you to accuse me of “deliberately” posting dishonestly? Why can’t you disagree without impugning my motives? And does this not approach the line that you supposedly want to be respected, that of not making accusations of what another poster’s intentions are?
[/quote]
I responded to you in the manner in which you posted. You accused the staff of dismissing Carol Stream’s complaint simply because she was disliked, despite evidence in the thread that I responded to the actual points she raised–even quoting the rule, itself, and explaining its significance.

[QUOTE=Shodan]
Actually, what you often do is what I described you as doing - issuing what amounts to a warning that if I don’t stop posting in ways that irritate you you will issue a Warning. So I have the choice of ignoring your warning and then incurring a Warning.
[/quote]
It would be interesting to see any example of this claim, much less enough such examples to rise to the level of “often.”

[QUOTE=Shodan]
If that is the distinction you want to cling to, it is a rather weak one. It’s rather like your semi-warning of Carol Stream for “trolling” because he* accused Kalhoun of trolling.
[/quote]
I posted no warning, semi- or otherwise to Carol Stream. Nothing that I posted in that thread could be considered as any sort of threat.

[QUOTE=Shodan]
. . . and you accuse Carol Stream of trolling.
[/quote]
At no point. The closest that could be said in this regards was that I noted that she has frequently posted to irritate other posters–but without making any claim that her behavior has risen to the level of trolling. I observed only that IF her level of deciding a poster was a troll was simply posting to irritate, then her behavior of posting specific comments–which I did not associate with trolling–was more directly addressed by the BBQ Pit rules than Kalhoun’s simple failure to capitalize.

[QUOTE=Shodan]
Do you need to have the exchange quoted back to you? Here it is . . .
[/quote]
And, for some odd reason you managed to leave out the intervening exchange with brazil84 where, before I made the comment that I recognized my remarks were personal, brazil84 had posted

@brazil84

But anyway, I get the message. As long as tomndebb is a moderator, it’s against board rules to go against the liberal dogma on the whole intelligence/IQ debate.

which echoed his earlier claim in GD that I was shutting him down because I disagreed with his position.
And, (without attributing any motive to you, at all), I note that your synopsis has again omitted relevant information.