In what way is this -
not an answer to the question?
Regards,
Shodan
:smack:
I will try to put this in simpler terms, that we might achieve communication.
Your “question” was "Do you believe merely being annoying, deliberate or not, to be sufficient grounds for a warning or ban? "
This question cannot be answered with a “yes” or “no” any more than the question “Is it ok to call someone a troll on the SDMB?” can be answered with a “yes” or "no. The answer to the “troll” question is “Yes, in the pit, no anywhere else.”
In the same way, "do you believe merely being annoying, deliberate or not, to be sufficient grounds for a warning or ban? " is incomplete.
The answer is clearly:
[ul]
[li]Yes, if announced as deliberate and if it’s done outside the Pit[/li][li]Maybe, if not announced as deliberate and outside the Pit[/li][li]Maybe, deliberate or not, inside the Pit[/li][/ul]
To use an old example, but a classic one, Lissner was warned or at least mod-noted for announcing that he was going to call Liberal “Liberaltarian” from that point forward. He was told it was not ok inside the Pit or outside of it either.
To use another, somewhat newer, example, posters were told to not use the term “buckeyes” or…some acronym that I don’t remember (it ended with “Crazy Assed Bitch”) around or in reference to Opalcat inside the Pit or outside.
However these examples are few and far between, but there’s just enough of them that I don’t know the “inside the Pit rules”. But I do believe, as a poster, that there is a large body of evidence (the Lissener/Liberal’tarian’ thing comes to mind) saying that posting “Ha-ha, I’m going to post “such-and-such” outside the pit, simply to annoy you and teach you a lesson” is absolutely forbidden…both the threat and the action.
If this is not your understanding of the current rules, then I’d like to hear your take on them. I hope I’ve clarified my position to your satisfaction.
Let’s cut to the chase. Are you going to answer Colibri’s question or aren’t you?
Geez, someone better. This shit’s keeping me up nights.
Where I come from, not answering someone’s question is liable to cause a knife fight to break out.
Where I come from not participating in a knife fight is likely to cause someone to ask questions.
Well, yes. Why do posters get banned? For being a jerk. Why is being a jerk considered worthy of banning? Because it interrupts the conversation others have and that interruption is annoying. If it weren’t annoying, we wouldn’t care and wouldn’t have rules against it.
Oh thank god. I’ve had to pee for like four hours now.
Honey Badger don’t give a shit.
Clear the courtroom. Seriously.
Well personally I don’t think being annoying should be a sufficient grounds for a warning or a ban in any forum. For one thing lots of people find being corrected to be annoying and the board’s core mission can make such events all but inevitable. There will be casualties during the War on Ignorance, moderator sanity being only one such example.
So what is trolling? Basically, IMHO, it’s being inflammatory for the sake of being inflammatory as opposed to when annoyance is a side effect or artifact. What should be banned? Jerks who can’t suppress their jerkishness should be banned.
What about the accusations cast at BigT? I think you need to match a post that is disruptive to a confession of trollery. If somebody confesses to being a troll, but there exists no example of unacceptably disruptive posting, then I can’t see how that should be a bannable offense. IMHO.
I perceive more lawyering than substance in this thread, though admittedly I lack a detailed understanding of the posting history of the various players here.
Just caught up with this thread. What’d I miss?
Moderator Note
Leo, don’t bump threads pointlessly. This is closed.