Do trolls get a seniority bonus?

Like, is there a certain account age past which being banned for being a troll is just something the mods will not do? If so, how old is that so I can keep that in mind?

If not, what’s the excuse for what’s going on in this thread?

Thanks!

This is a very troll friendly board, not just for senior trolls, but for young trolls as well. No one is permitted to call trolls out outside of the pit, and back in the day you couldn’t even do that there. The mods won’t do a damn thing about it until it becomes so obvious they have to stir themselves. My conspiracy theory is that TPTB know that people will stick around to gawp at and argue with trolls, which means more eyeballs and revenue for the board. It’s just a thing you have to live with.

The moderators bend over backwards to pander to rightwingers, and punish anyone who argues against them too hard. This is a board with very racist-friendly moderation, and has long tended to be infested with blatant racism as a result.

I’ve seen plenty of young trolls nowhere near as egregious get their asses served a banhammer.

Note that the thread in question is Pit thread. You can get a warning for trolling in the Pit, but the bar is very high.

For posts in the Pit?

I don’t see the correlation. A forum can give very little leeway to possible trolls and still forbid any public accusations of trolling.

handsomeharry, anyone? Note he was given virtually NO slack, not even a suspension.

Well, since it has apparently sailed right over your head, I’ll explain it for you:

I’m pointing out that the (vast) majority of people on this board are using a term incorrectly. If you want to call that trolling, knock yourself out.

He didn’t earn any slack.

That’s not really how it works.

You’re going to have to make your case, not just link to two multipage threads and expect us to read both and figure out why you think one is as bad or worse than the other. I’ll just note that in the handsomeharry thread, he was the OP and had 56 posts. In the thread in your OP, the poster in question is not the OP and had 15 posts.

But we should wait for Miller to weigh in since it’s mostly his decision.

What do the worst trolls have in common? That the best outcome of them posting in a thread is everyone acting as though they hadn’t, and the common outcome is the thread becoming completely derailed by people arguing with them/calling them stupid. This is just the most recent example.

So given the outline of Handsomeharry above, I can assume seniority is achieved at some point between 15 and 18 years on this forum?

In response to the three questions posed:
[ol]
[li]No.[/li][li]N/A.[/li][li]Different people interpret things differently.[/li][/ol]

Trying to come up with a blanket rule based on a sample size of one seems to me like an exceptionally silly thing to do.

Newbie trolls aren’t given much latitude, because they have no history of being able to post here productively. Someone who has been here a while has proven that they can be a productive member, and will be given more latitude with respect to all sorts of offenses. Since they have proven that they can post within the rules (at least most of the time), we are much more likely to try to steer them towards good behavior instead of just banning them outright.

If someone has been a productive member here for quite some time and then starts behaving badly, we also take their history here into consideration, because something may be going on in their personal life that is causing them to behave poorly.

On the other hand, if someone has been a long-time member here, but they have been constantly skirting the line of what is acceptable and what is not, it’s clear that they are a problem poster who is trying to be as much of a problem as possible while not getting banned. If their trolling finally goes over the line, they might not get much of a warning before being tossed over the side.

Everything is handled on a case by case basis, so any simple blanket rule you try to come up with isn’t going to work. We consider posting history as well as the poster’s attitude and all kinds of things when we consider bannings. What we are really looking for is how likely is it that the poster will conform to the rules if we give some sort of disciplinary measure like a suspension or a warning. If it is clear that they just aren’t going to obey the rules, they get banned.

The idea that we allow bad behavior after a particular time limit is just silly.

Also, as was previously noted, the bar for certain bad behaviors is a lot higher in the Pit than it is in other forums. I will leave any further forum-specific comments about trolling or other bad behavior to the moderators of those forums.

I’ll just point out that, even for established posters, those who have been suspended generally have been given very little slack post-suspension (thinking specifically of Diogenes and BrainGlutton)…

In this particular case, the poster on a past occasion admitted that he was trolling when he made this exact argument in 2017.

Here is where he admitted it before:

It’s hard to understand how the same argument that he made last year, and he admitted was trolling, is not trolling now. He admission isn’t subtle either. He gloated. He was not slipping in a sly reference. He clearly knew what he was doing. He knows now as well.

Maybe he needs a topic ban?

For the life of me, I still can’t understand how using an ethnic slur, and then claiming you didn’t mean it, amounts to some kind of cunning hoax.

In all fairness they bend over backwards to kowtow to the left-wing of the board too. Usually when (not so) subtly accusing the Republicans on this Board as being racists.

The thing about identifying a troll is, there’s no position so outrageous that someone, somewhere, doesn’t legitimately hold it. When some guy shows up out of nowhere spouting nonsense, it’s pretty easy to say, “Well, he’s probably lying,” and go right for the troll ban. It’s a harder line to parse when its someone who’s been around for a while, and for whom the “outrageous” post is not dramatically out of step with the stuff they’ve posted to date.

Which is to say that, given Clothahump’s history on the board, I found it absolutely believable that he legitimately thinks “wetback” is not a racial slur. Unfortunately, I had forgotten about the thread Sunny Daze linked to, where he straight up admitted it was not the case. Since that led to a suspension, I absolutely should have remembered it, or at least double checked his history sooner, instead of relying on my memory of his posts.

I’m going to issue a warning in that thread, and based on the previous suspension he received for exactly the same thing, I expect we’re going to have a talk about him in the mod loop.

Would have to be two topics: racism and politics.