Wouldn’t “I don’t care what you say-I know what’s really going on!” be a lot easier to post, Shodan?
Since he had been a member here for so long I think he deserved a warning first for trolling and acting like a jerk. If he kept it up, then ban him.
Alright, everybody back in their bunks. Like nothing happened.
*When they came for the Nazis, I remained silent; I was not a Nazi.
When they came for the Klansmen, I said nothing; I was not a Klansman.
When they came for the bigots, and the racists, and the of the absolute worst humanity has to offer, I said nothing; I was not human garbage.
And when they came for me,
They said, "Hey Johnny Bravo, we’re going to go get some pie and then spend the day watching Netflix. Want to come?
Because, if you’re following, all the dickbags were gone at that point and those guys didn’t really have anything left to do, and they were kind of bored at that point.*
Well, it’s not like there’s an official list, but off the top of my head:
“I’m a Nazi!”
“Osama bin Laden was justified in his actions!”
“I should be able to have sex with five year olds!”
“Star Trek is much better than Star Wars!”
You know, real extremist stuff.
There’s really not much significance here for future moderation decisions. It’s an unusual case, which makes it of pretty limited use in setting any sort of precedent.
I gave a couple in this post. Certainly, “being a Republican” is nowhere near the same ballpark, regardless what some of our more rabid partisans might think.
Well, that’s the question, isn’t it? Was he following the rest of the board’s rules? Or was he trolling? The tricky thing about identifying a troll is that it’s a question about motivations, which aren’t objectively verifiable. There really is no “bright line” that distinguishes a troll from someone who expresses an unpopular opinion forcefully. It’s ultimately a judgement call if a particular poster is doing one versus the other. The opinion of the moderation staff is that handsomeharry was posting with the intent to troll - that is, he was deliberately taking positions and making arguments with the specific goal of becoming a pariah on the board.
Sure it would. But I would rather point out the contradictions in what is said. And also to point out that you have no substantive response, and are simply falling back on blanket denial. Unsurprisingly.
So you took the trouble to explain, but you don’t want to be held to it. Kind of a waste of time then, don’t you think?
So when you said he was banned in part for refusing to make arguments to defend his position, that wasn’t true, correct?
Regards,
Shodan
That was the trolling – proclaiming an incredibly inflammatory position and refusing to respond to questions and discuss it.
Not to mention that there was no objective evidence of his handsomeness at all.
Perhaps Shodan is a secret Nazi and he’s worried he’ll be found out and banned.
[Moderating]
This isn’t appropriate for ATMB. Don’t do it again.
No warning issued.
[/Moderating]
I have some concerns about this action. To be very clear, this is about the immediate banning and how it came about. I think a suspension if there has been a previous warning, or a warning if HH’s admin log was clean. I strongly believe in a step-wise approach to managing misbehavior.
No, you have set a precedent. You may not want to, but forevermore anyone who holds an unpopler position will always have to be careful to explain themselves adequately, or risk the death sentence.
HH was already a pariah on these boards as evidenced by the post he was responding to. When I look at the two together with objectivity, I see no real difference except one position is poplar and the other wasn’t. I really feel from a “fair and equitable” point of view, popularity shouldn’t be a consideration for the immediate banning of anybody.
Are you really ready to immediately ban someone for “posting with the intent to troll” even if you agree with the poster? (c.f. Post #3 and Post #13)
=====
Moderators are never just ordinary posters, no more than a uniformed police officer is a regular pedestrian … if you’re walking down a sidewalk and the policeman tells you to move out of the way and you don’t, running into him … you’re getting a nightstick across your braincase and then charged with not following police orders, assault on a police man and resisting arrest … that’s the nature of positions of power.
Just a Mod Note for* that*?
This isnt the Pit.
The Nazis were responsible for the death of Six Million Jews, and 25 Million Soviet and other civilians. That is unparalleled evil in history.
The Republicans are responsible for Sarah Palin.
Recent documents reveal that the number of people who were executed or died in Gulag or exile in Stalin’s USSR is about 3 million – an order of magnitude less then the number of those killed by the Nazis. Indeed, the Nazi regime was unique evil.
Stalin killed 20 and 60 million of his own people.
Miller presumably knows a joke when he sees one.
I bet if Stalin signs up and trolls the board, he’ll get banned also.
Uh… what precedent? We routinely ban trolls without warning. The only thing odd in this case was that the user in question didn’t troll right out of the gate. Most trolls start trolling immediately and are banned fairly quickly. The point remains that trolling is and always has been an instaban offense.
I know Shodan will refuse to believe this, but handsomeharry wasn’t banned for having unpopular views. He was banned because he used that unpopular view as a trolling device.
Discussions in the mod loop are private and are generally not repeated elsewhere, but I will say this. The point was made very early in the entire discussion that the reason we were discussing a potential ban was for for trolling and not for his beliefs.
You can have whatever unpopular opinions and beliefs that you want. Trolling those beliefs specifically to rile people up however will get you instabanned. This is nothing new. We don’t always issue warnings first.
[QUOTE=SDMB registration agreement as of 12/21/2014]
You are free to express your views in a forceful manner provided you remain civil. Hate speech, insults, and purposely inflammatory remarks (i.e., trolling) will not be tolerated. Do not post threats or state or imply that any individual or group is deserving of harm. We recognize that this rule cannot be strictly applied in discussions of war, capital punishment and the like but urge users to express themselves in moderate terms nonetheless. If we tell you to refrain from behavior that we regard as uncivil, or that in our view detracts from productive discussion, do so or face revocation of your posting privileges.
[/QUOTE]
Very likely… But, still, wouldn’t a mod from another forum have notified you to act, or reported a habitual troll, rather than nasty-gramming the guy – repeatedly! – in the Pit? Because of the way that happened, I presumed trolling was permitted in the Pit…because a mod (if not the Pit mod) said, “You obnoxious troll” over and over, rather than “Reported.”
That’s why it struck me as really odd, here, when it was revealed that trolling in the Pit isn’t permitted. Confusion strikes!