Here’s what happened in this particular situation.
I knew there were rules against calling somebody a liar or a troll. I was not aware that there was a rule against accusing somebody of sealioning.
When I made my post, a third party sent me a message informing me of this. I then flagged my own post so a moderator could review it.
It’s a form of trolling, so it’s an accusation of trolling.
Others have told me this. I didn’t think it was the case.
I felt a troll is somebody who posts things they don’t necessarily believe in order to provoke responses. So calling somebody a troll is essentially calling them a liar, which is against the rules.
I do not feel damuriajashi is being deceitful. I feel he is expressing views he sincerely believes in, even if I disagree with some of his views.
I didn’t feel that accusing somebody of sealioning is an accusation of deceit. I don’t feel a person who is sealioning is being deceitful; they are just using a questionable technique in their argument. I felt it was the equivalent of saying somebody is making a strawman argument or cherry-picking their evidence or confusing correlation with causation. I see it as an attack on the argument itself not an attack on the person making the argument.
But I have been clearly informed that accusing somebody of sealioning is against the rules, so I will not do so in the future.
This is a well-trod path. You can be 100% sincere in your beliefs and still be a troll. Trolling is about provoking responses. Truth and fiction are secondary. If I went to a far-right forum to post about how gay people are human beings worthy of respect, just to get a rise out of them, that would be trolling. Doesn’t matter that I’m sincere.
Then you don’t understand what the term means.
If they’re being sincere, it’s not sealioning.
If by that you mean, the mods notice if they’ve had to write a lot of notes to the same poster recently, then yes, i suppose there is.
In the vast majority of cases, when i wrote a mod note, posters follow the instructions and i quickly forget who prompted me to write the note, it never comes to the attention of other mods, and we all move on. But sometimes a poster immediately does the same damn thing again and the next time it’s a warning. And sometimes a poster does the same damn thing all over the board, and the mods talk about it.
AFAIK, that happens by default when you’re the OP, as da was for that thread.
Doing it a month later is the hassling part.
It’s not a statement that requires evidence.
I’m not the one being modded…
If it was “double secret”, how would I, a non-mod, know about it?
That very much explains why it was a Note, not a Warning.
The problem is you can easily end up defining any post which upsets the people who read it as trolling by following that path. I would prefer that the board uses a narrower definition of trolling because it places the offense on the poster and because it doesn’t restrict the free exchange of opposing views.
I disagree.
I would not. I’m glad your definition of trolling is not the board’s definition of trolling. The Paradox of Tolerance is a very real issue, especially on the internet.
Yeah because politicians that agree with you are honest and politicians that disagree with you are dishonest. Your statement is emblematic with why this board is so much worse than it was 20 years ago. If you go to a conservative site, you will see magats posting almost identical sentiments about why there aren’t any liberals on their site.
Then how do you know someone is doing something just to get a rise out of someone?
It seems to me that truth should be an absolute defense. If you make a statement and someone presents a fact that contradicts your statement then you should either explain the contradiction or admit you might be wrong. If reminding someone that they are wrong is trolling then I don’t think we end up with debates, we end up with ideologues talking AT each other.
No, you won’t.
There are things called jerks. They suck. There are things called moderators. Their job is to make subjective decisions about who is being a jerk, call them out for being jerks, and get rid of them if they won’t stop being jerks.
Since moderation is inherently subjective and since I am not a jerk, I don’t stress over it even one iota.
I don’t know that definitions are a matter of opinion.
I didn’t even know what sea lioning was until you brought it up but a quick search shows that every definition of sea lioning involves insincere attempts to overwhelm people with questions by feigning ignorance.
Sealioning refers to the DISINGENUOUS action by a commenter of making an ostensible effort to engage in sincere and serious civil debate, usually by asking persistent questions of the other commenter.
Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning ) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a PRETENSE of civility and sincerity (“I’m just trying to have a debate”), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter
A subtle form of trolling involving “bad-faith” questions. You DISINGENUOUSLY frame your conversation as a sincere request to be enlightened,
The problem is that if you accuse someone of a misbehavior, and you disagree with the accepted meaning of the term, your personal definition is meaningless.
If I accuse someone of being a racist, but to me that term means “someone who obsesses about race cars”, how do you think people will react? If I don’t further clarify what I mean by my accusation, everyone will (understandably) assume that I’m accusing them of bigotry and they’ll respond accordingly.
Words matter, especially on a message board where everything is words. If you make up your own definition of a term, don’t be surprised when people assume you mean the accepted definition and not one you made up.
Between this and your multitudinous other posts shitting all over the board’s quality and posters, I wish you godspeed in your future endeavors and give you permission to find somewhere better to hang out. If you continue hanging out here, I’ll wonder what’s drawing you back to a place for which you have so much contempt.
But I’ll only wonder a little.
No, I think it’s the reverse for many people. There are honest politicians and dishonest politicians. And some voters seek out the honest politicians and choose to support them because they are honest.
Other people choose to support dishonest politicians. And they then claim that all politicians are dishonest to excuse that choice.
It’s not just an issue of honesty and dishonesty. Voters have other agendas and they support politicians who support those agendas. But I feel it is generally true that people who choose to support dishonest politicians pretend that all politicians are dishonest and they had no other choice.
I posted the link to the original cite for the term. There’s nothing in there about dishonesty or deceit. So the meaning you are citing is not the original one.