Now, I’m not going to confuse Reddy Mercury for Jonathan Swift. No offense meant, Reddy. But does a satirical thread that actually has a point merit a warning for trolling. I mean the quality and number of political threads that fill the boards about each and every tweet of President Trump are full of language as over the top and frankly ridiculous as Reddy’s satire.
Sometimes pointing out how the premise of an argument is actually absurd when applied to a slightly different medium is useful. Why is it trolling if some people think he isn’t 100% sincere in advocating what is clearly satire and an attempt to demonstrate the ridiculous principles of the point of view expressed?
We don’t see warnings for the advocating or support of actual criminal activity. People calling for doxing and violence aren’t noted or warned. If it’s a serious post I was under the impression that that was against the ToS with regards to advocating criminal activity. If it’s not serious would that not be trolling?
Advocating violence is advocating a criminal act. I don’t make the rules. And doxxing is pretty general and encompasses illegal doxxing. But I’m not here to debate all that.
I disagree with the OP. IMHO the warning was justified, and I personally see it as a confluence of more than just one factor.
First, Reddy Mercury is an obsessive thread starter. Just about anything that comes into his head results in a new thread. On this one topic alone, or on topics very closely related, he has started half a dozen threads in GD and Elections, most of them redundant and ill-advised, and at least one other one was also closed. That’s strike one. He should have been mod-noted or warned on that alone.
Second, this was way over the top, and no, I don’t agree that this happens all the time in an equivalent way, about Trump’s tweets or anything else. Satire needs to be clever and on point, not just simply outrageous. Strike two.
Third, look at where the thread went. It turned into a dumpster fire, and was led there by further provocative posts by the original thread starter, who clearly wanted it to go in that direction. Strike three.
It didn’t meet the standards of “satire”. Not even close.
Perhaps all threads should have to be approved by you before they are allowed to be posted. Just because you don’t approve of a thread doesn’t mean it has no value.
Complain all you want about RM, nut at least he creates threads. If you are unsatisfied with the threads being created start a few.
Good call by Bone. What other reason is there for posting a thread where:
The OP takes no stand as to whether or not he agrees with his own thesis, and subsequent posts indicate he doesn’t.
There is 100% certainty no one here will agree with the thesis because it such an over-the-top straw man that there is no basis for debate.
It’s one thing to play Devil’s Advocate, when you are putting yourself in the shoes of someone on the other side, but there is no “other side” here.
Also, there’s a bit of a problem with posting in threads like this one here. By agreeing with Bone’s moderation, are we not accusing a poster of trolling?
Look at the third post in the thread - k9bfriender actually responded and posed a series of objections and questions, as if it were actually worthy of debating. Reddy then threw even the slightest pretense of legitimacy out the window with his response.
**Bone **did exactly the right thing. He recognized that the OP, in a vacuum, might spawn a debate. It didn’t, because Reddy didn’t actually want one.
It seemed like satire to me. I’m not too concerned exactly if Reddy Mercury’s post meets everyone’s test for valid satire. I’m concerned with the usage fo satire as a rhetorical device to illustrate a point and if it is in general acceptable or is in general trolling.
The satire is still there – anyone can read it if they like. There was just no chance of a productive discussion, and this became very clear after a few people tried to honesty engage the argument and the OP responded as he did.
He made a similar post in the Confederate Symbolism; Time to Stop Nursing Grievances and Relitigating Past and only got mod-noted. That one was better qualified for a warning: it contained an insult and implied violence. The posts are fine for the Pit. In fact, aren’t all joke threads and satiric threads supposed to go in the Pit in any case? No equivalents are ever allowed in Elections or GD, though, not even satiric insults.
Could there ever be a theoretical similar thread that is allowable? That was unlikely from the start. With this as a precedent it’s hard to imagine any such thread ever slipping through.
It was a pretty bad thread and it didn’t make much sense. But that said, I don’t feel it should have been closed for trolling. It should have just been moved to the BBQ Pit where it belonged. (I’ll admit I actually thought it was a Pit thread when I read it. I didn’t notice it had been posted in Great Debates until it was pointed out in this thread.)
Not all parody threads need go into the Pit. Parodies of other threads or parodies ridiculing other posters should go there, but other parodies could go in MPSIMS or another forum at the moderators’ discretion.
Satire is fine. Devil’s advocate is fine. ‘Let’s all you all fight’, or ‘let’s you and him fight’ is not fine and that’s what I thought the thread was. I saw it before there were any replies and while I thought it was rather silly, that’s not something I typically moderate. The subsequent responses convinced me that the thread was primarily a means to provoke an angry response.
