I assume you want them so you can learn what trolling really is, right? If so, then I am also interested. Pointing to a couple standout trolling posts would be sufficient. And it’s perfectly fine if you want to give it in a PM, not to bring attention to them.
I mean, I think I know what trolling is, but seeing it in action would be nice.
Wildest Bill. None of our current crop comes anywhere his level of gotcha ya.
Every single Report is taken seriously. Some are not acted on; we examine the situation and decide it was not, in fact, a rules violation. Sometimes we let you know that we’ve taken action, or that we’ve not taken action and why. More often, things are busy and we’d rather spend time killing spammers than sending thank-you notes for reporting them. In an ideal world, you’d get more feedback, and I wish we could.
On another topic: Do I have a quick trigger finger? Yes, sometimes. Depends on the situation. I really think that we need to cut down on the personal insults outside the Pit, and I’m tired of “friendly reminders” not to call someone a douchebag (or whatever.)
To be fair, Dex and other members of the staff leaned over backwards to avoid giving official warnings as people familiarised themselves with rules that had recently been changed or newly introduced. They would simply point out a breach and say, No warning issued.
Now we should all know them, and JFTR I don’t think any of the mods are ‘trigger-happy’.
It always has been. I don’t mean to play junior mod; I’m just giving you the benefit of my long experience, including my own suspension.
Look at it kind of like this: there is no ethical difference between a man coming up to you with a gun and taking your wallet -versus- a man coming up to you and simply saying, “Your money or your life.” The threat of force is tantamount to the use of force.
In the same way, insults couched as loaded questions, implications, and third-party references, etc., are tantamount to actual insults. Implication, explication — same same.
Anybody remember Rev Mykeru? I’m not sure if he was banned for trolling, or banned because he was a meanie pants and hurt people’s feelings.
Badchad was banned for trolling and for stalking. He followed Polycarp from thread to thread, no matter the forum, just to rile up Poly and intimidate him. But most of the trolls have been unremarkable and quite forgetable. Like flashpaper, they flame up and then die quickly with a ban.
I don’t have the email anymore but IIRC Lynn got him for trolling and using his website as a mini-snarkpit.
I don’t see how the Pit has improved from the removal of this ban, and I see many of the same issues you do.
Being a troll is against the rules, and trolls are banned. This, IMO, makes the accusation more significant than another insult. It smacks even of junior modding - “you are a troll” almost necessarily implies “you should be banned”. And since it has become shorthand for “I don’t like your opinions” it becomes “people who express opinions I don’t like should be banned”.
It seems weird that we can call each other trolls but not say “fuck you”.
Regards,
Shodan
It can also be a warning: “I don’t like your opinions but I like you so you might want to knock it off before you get banned.”
I’ve never seen it used that way. I’m not doubting you; I’ve just never seen it.
Regards,
Shodan
This seems pretty disingenuous, since I know you are able to think logically enough to separate the two.
Teh Pit is a place where insults are permitted. Calling someone a troll is an insult. Therefor, the place where you would call someone a troll is in The Pit.
We are not allowed to use the epithet “fuck you” directly at someone not because it is an insult, nor even because it is a very nasty insult. We are not allowed to use it because it is a level of discourse that the powers that be do not wish to see. It’s crude, rude, and socially (around these parts anyway) unacceptable. There is nothing about the term “troll” that is crude or rude, let alone socially unacceptable.
Well put, DS, thanks!
As an aside, a list of persons banned for trolling would not, in fact, be interesting. Usually, these folks are uncovered fairly quickly and gone, leaving little or no lasting mark. Some of 'em are gone after two or three posts. It’s extremely rare that a long-time member gets warned for trolling. Also, it’s rare that someone is banned for the direct accusation of “trolling.” Usually they accumulate other warnings as well, and other misbehaviors; their sole purpose in coming to these boards is to stir up mischief, in variouss ways. Finally, it would be a lot of work for us to go through the list of all banned folks and try to decide which ones were banned for that particular reason.
So, basically, lots of work with very uninteresting results.
Speaking personally, I dislike the term “trolling” as being ill-defined. There’s a fine line between taking an unpopular view in a discussion, and simply stirring up the pot for the sake of watching people react. The term is used in the Pit between members to mean, “You don’t really believe what you’re arguing, do you?” or “Stop being obnox.” Neither of those are bannable offenses, per se.
I’ve seen “troll” used in four distinct senses, and I think it may make a real difference which is intended:
Making posts, especially OPs, for the express purpose of “stirring up shit” – advocating outré stances for no other purpose than to create anger and hositlity.
Advocating a controversial stance which you do not yourself hold, without disclaimer, often but not always for a similar purpose to the Type #1 troll.
Advocating an extremely unpopular controversial stance. Many of the “troll” accusations around here are of this sort – failure to understand how someone could hold a principled position that disagrees with your own.
What I might call “extreme threadshitting” – raising the same off-topic point in multiple threads, often for the purpose of harassing another targeted member.
With vanishingly few exceptions I feel that people of type #3 are not trolls. The exceptions would be those who bring a bete noire into almost any substantive discussion, attempting to hijack the thread into their topic. As an example – and explicitly not an accusation – consider Magellan’s repeated defense of why his “everything but the name” stance was the only reasonable and proper course, and not homophobic, racist, or some other accusation. If he had brought that up, whether appropriate or not, in virtually every thread about gay marriage, civil unions, the Proposition 8 debates, etc. – which he did not – I would consider that behavior the sort of thing I’m talking about here. (IRL, he’s advocating and defending an unpopular stance he believes in strongly – which I do not consider trolling, as explained above.)
Every report is usually at least looked at. If you find that you are reporting posts, and see no action taken, then you are probably reporting posts that are not violations. Just because something offends you in some way doesn’t mean that it violates the SDMB registration agreement.
Now, sometimes a mod will email or PM a poster and say, in effect, to knock it off. In that case, regular posters won’t know that an action has been taken. But generally, if you don’t see a warning or even a mod note, then you’ve reported something that wasn’t worth acting on.
The Pit is a Catch-22. You are allowed to call someone a troll there. But being the Pit, it’s kind of a puss move.
If you really think someone is being a troll, then report it.
Otherwise, sack up.
He was a troll, and he used the SDMB as a place to generate both content and traffic for his own website. That’s why I banned him. We don’t allow people to use this site to generate content and traffic for their own websites, and we ban trolls as soon as we determine that they are trolls.
The Pit is already full of noise, always full of noise, always has been. I’ve no particular animus against “troll”, though my favorite has always been “jerk”.
I’ve just seen entirely too many campaigns to clean up the Pit, or to eliminate the Pit, to which my response has always been, “Stay out of it, then.” If it’s not complaining about one thing, it’s complaining about the other thing, or it’s complaining about another thing.
I honestly do not understand why those who are terminally offended by the style of the Pit cannot simply stay out of it, just as I generally do with MPSIMS.
Saying “fuck you” is also an insult. Therefore, the place you would expect to say “fuck you” is teh Pit. Only, not.
All this is entirely true, and somewhat besides the point. ISTM that calling someone a troll has at least as unfortunate an effect on the level of discourse as saying “fuck you”. I base this on my observations of the Pit back when it was OK to say “fuck you” but not OK to say “you troll”, as compared to today.
Sure, saying “fuck you” is crude. So is asking someone to go felch a diseased emu. The one is verboten; the second OK.
There is no logical contradiction between allowing “troll” and outlawing “fuck you”, but it is a rather odd line to draw. My observation is that calling everyone you don’t agree with, or one of the other ways the term is used and abused as Polycarp discusses, has a more degrading effect on discourse. ISTM.
So I would like a return to the no-troll-calling rule. That would be my preference, based on my tastes and opinions on how discourse is likely to proceed in the Pit. Ed’s tastes and opinions are different.
Regards,
Shodan
Up to a point, I agree with Shodan. And I think t6he great majority of accusations of trollery should be made by report, PM, or e-mail to staff. (And, in the interests of civil discourse, I’d love to see a voluntary dialing back of insult directed at other members in the Pit. Why voluntary? Because (1) I don’t think anyone’s personal standards of taste should govern the conduct of others under all circumstances, and (2) any rule will lead to brinking and to expecting staff to police language, which is an absurd thing to do in a forum designed for venting.
At the same time. I believe that there are occasions when public accusations of perceived trollery are appropriate – particularly when it’s a circumstance where the alleged troll may wish to speak in his own defense. I’d say that any such accusation should be required to be substantiated by evidence that the person accused was in fact trolling – not, of course, expecting an ironclad case, but setting the standard for the accusation as one requiring someone making it to fill in the blank on the topic sentence: “I called him a troll because _______.” In other words, public accusations of trollery should be relatively few and substantiated. Otherwise, Shodan’s point seems valid to me.