Read the OP (specifically, 4th paragraph). There’s a bit more nuance than “trolling is not allowed in the Pit”, but it is official, and it is applied.
Trolling requires more than the exchange of a few names between posters. It requires an agenda to piss off as many people as possible for no other reason than to piss them off. That same agenda would have survived in the pit if the departed had bothered to address those responding to him by defending his position, however wrong that may have been.
I did read the OP…and even the 4th paragraph. Your categorical statement is wrong, and I agree with the OPs more nuanced statement of reality wrt the Pit. It is obviously a place for trolling others and insulting them to your hearts content, which is what I said. Obviously there are bounds and lines that can be crossed even there. I’m unsure if this is one of them…which is why I’m on the fence. Overall, I think the board is a better place without HH as I don’t know of anything he ever contributed positively to the discussion, but that’s really beyond the bounds of either this question or what the Mods should be using for criteria for keeping or expelling posters (and I doubt that WAS a criteria in this case, regardless).
And I’ve seen that sort of trolling in the Pit as well, so, again, it’s not a hard and fast rule. It’s about oxes and gores…people on this board are pissed off by an obvious fascist/Nazi agenda, while not being pissed off in the same way about a Stalinist/Maoist/Communist one. How many pit thread were about anti-vaxing, which is agenda based? It just happens to be a GOOD agenda and one I (and most other ‘dopers’) agree with. How many Pit threads were about evil Republicans/Democrats or stupid or silly things they do? Lots.
It’s more like pornography…the Mods know it when they see it.
Please forgive me for not reading this entire thread before posting but I want to get this in before it is locked…
Did HH actually admit to being everything that everyone thinks a Nazi is or did he simply label himself?
If I were to admit to being a “racist” am I at risk of being banned?
… again if this has been asked and answered just ignore it and I will find my answers when I get a chance to read the thread.
The thing that makes it trolling, in my eyes, is that he started a thread to call out something said 6 years ago, amd even when asked questions, declared that he wouldn’t discuss it all on SDMB. Not just in the Pit, anywhere on the board. Then why bring it up? Just to hurl invective at all and sundry? Yes, that’s kinda what the Pit is for, but deliberately posting inflammatory views, in order to agitate, while simultaneously refusing even reasonable discussion in another, more polite venue, reeks of troll.
To me, anyway, not that my opinion matters at all.
It wasn’t what he admitted to or not, the trolling was how he was engaging with posters. Even if he had admitted to be a Nazi in all it’s facets, that would not, in and of itself, have gotten him banned.
Emphasis added. No, that is wrong.
If there are bounds, then you can’t do it “to your heart’s content”. You seem to want to have it both ways.
Custom. Tradition. This sets a very bad precedent.
Of course I want it both ways. 
But I don’t see how I’m wrong there. You can, of course, do it to your hearts content…unless you get banned seemingly arbitrarily for trolling the entire board on a hot button subject. My WAG is that if someone equally unpopular decided to troll the board saying they are a Stalinist they would most likely not get the same treatment.
However, as I said earlier, reviving a thread 5 years old to harangue a poster who doesn’t even post anymore to defend their Stalinist ways might just trigger the ban hammer. Or, maybe not. That’s my own issue with this…it seems kind of arbitrary and I have a sneaking suspicion that what REALLY happened is a flood of users reporting the post/thread that made this a Mod hot button issue. I’m not even sure I’m not ok with that in this case. But trying to say you can’t troll in the Pit is, to me, silly and completely counter to the reality of this board. If people were banned for trolling, even agenda based trolling in the Pit then there would be very few posters, since it happens all the time. Again, it’s all about who’s gore is being oxed.
If you’re planning on rule breaking and/or trolling it might be. But honestly, the vast majority of us probably don’t feel our longevity on this board is threatened in any way by this application of the rule.
-
When did the Pit turn into great debates? If someone chooses to vent why should they have to provide justifications when jumped on by people of other persuasions.
-
Why would you enter into conversation with people who are leering at the gleaming tines of their pitchforks in slavering anticipation of loosing them?
-
Trolling is now defined as choosing not to waste a bunch of time talking to people who won’t hear until a subjective decision is reached regarding the sincerity of your beliefs.
-
Saying, “I doubt certain aspects of the accepted narrative” opens you up to vitriol and venom. People claim they are willing to engage in frank and fair discussion but come out knives flashing.
-
It is perfectly reasonable to not respond to everyone. In face, if you have a life it is impossible to reply to everyone. I make a post and then leave for an hour. I come back and there are 20 replies. I reply to all twenty and in the meantime there are 15 more. Not all voices warrant a reply.
-
Perhaps the Pit should be renamed Great Debates XXTreme if the rule is civility and required cites plus profanity.
I think the insta-ban was ham-fisted and primarily partisan.
Zeke (not a Nazi)
'Cuz honest people have no reason to fear constant surveillance right?
Nope. Just the trolls.
But doth a troll, by any other name smell as sweet…?
Did you miss the point/analogy on purpose.
To lay the definition of “troll” on whether or not we subjectively think you are sincere or not is to throw open the doors to abuse.
For those that make the decision there is all benefit and no risk to this policy. To us serfs there is all risk and no benefit.
I didn’t miss your point. I’m just not paranoid.
That’s just silly. *Sincerely *defending a point by telling everyone who questioned it they are too dumb to understand it? Refusing to provide cites because the teeming masses don’t have what it takes to find them on their own?
Yep, that’s an open door to abuse alrightie.
But that’s precisely what trolling is: insincere postings made just to provoke a reaction. Any and every determination of trolling is ultimately based on subjective judgments about sincerity. To demand objective proof before moderating someone for trolling would effectively mean that we don’t moderate trolling at all.
I’m just surprised at the insta-ban for a longtime user. If you google site:boards.straightdope.com “warning for trolling” you’ll see there’s plenty of precedent for such action. Even for folks who haven’t been here that long. And some of them went on to earn a full banning, of course, but there was at least a warning shot fired first.