I agree too, and even more as FX in this thread also used that accusation, and nothing was said to him, what it was clear that even Colibri reported that it is clear what FX is doing.
What I want to ask here is: So do we agree on what the poster is doing, and we agree that that behavior is allowed in the pit, but it is verboten to mentioned it even when discussing rules?
I then think that then it is impossible to discuss this in ATMB and then FX and a Mod already ignored that rule so I agree with Fenris and I think FXMastermind just found yet another way to play the refs.
I understand what you are saying, and your intent, but the nitpicker in me thinks this should also follow the KISS Principle. To wit:
For me this is more clear, unambiguous, and to the point. Parsing thoughts with parenthetical expression is wordy, and can be confusing outside of the grammarologists and Nitpickers of America members here. To that end then, this should also be accurate:
Exactly the kind of evidence you describe. If you were to make a plausible case that someone was trolling in the strict sense, we’d certainly look into it. Even if in the end we disagreed with you, we’re not going to go after you if you’re being reasonable and civil. As it is, when people make unfounded accusations of trollery, the most that generally happens in the first instance is they get mod-noted.
The above having been said, in all my years with the Straight Dope, during which time we’ve had countless accusations of trolling, I can’t recall anyone ever systematically making the case that X was making inflammatory posts on both sides of an argument and was therefore a troll. On the contrary, claims of trollery typically boil down to: the rest of us disagree with X and we can’t get him to shut up. In itself this isn’t evidence of trolling. Please don’t try to persuade us that it is.
[QUOTE=Colibri]
While trolling is against the rules, as I said in the Pit thread we do accept a certain degree of trolling in that forum. In my judgement as a moderator, FXMastermind is engaged in trolling in his global warming Pit thread. He is posting rubbish of the sort that he is aware has been thoroughly refuted in both GD and the Pit, as far as I can tell purely to annoy people. However, since it’s in the Pit we’ve allowed it to continue, since part of the purpose of the forum is to allow people to be annoying.
He appears to be upset that I am reminding people that he is only trolling, so it’s pointless to try to respond to him substantively. If he’s upset about it, it would be better if he would just stop trolling.
As has been said, accusations of trolling in the Pit are not against the rules, whether by posters or moderators. And moderators are allowed to identify behaviors as trolling anywhere.
[/QUOTE]
Incidentally, nothing was said to FX regarding him breaking this rule in ATMB that is being enforced against Lamar Mundane. BTW in the thread in the pit Miller did comment on the jerkiness and just the attempt of getting a raise from others (ACA trolling) as the reason why that thread was moved to the pit, and other mods did not mince words, hence my point that many posters and mods do agree what is going on, it is just that we can not talk about it in ATMB.
See my post above. If you honestly think someone is a troll in the strict sense and can present persuasive evidence of this in ATMB, we’re happy to hear you out. No one has ever done this that I can recall, but I concede the possibility, and that’s why I’m not going to say there’s a blanket prohibition in ATMB against discussion of trollery with respect to a specific person. But whoever starts down this road better have a good argument. 'Nuff said.
Years ago we restricted discussion of board policy to the Pit. The result was poisonous and I ain’t going there again.
I, ultimately, am bored by attempts to “read” the mind of such posters. If someone consistently:
Makes inflammatory statements
Repetitive statements which were already conclusively refuted by others, many times, but they persist anyway
Perform silly little tricks like the one discussed recently where old posts are dredged up where they then…
Tend to nitpick the letter of the replies of others, without ever addressing the substance
[Etc. etc. etc.]
Then I don’t care if they are “sincere” in their beliefs, or not (nor am I sure how you could ultimately come to such a conclusion, either way). Either way, their effect on the board is the same-they inhibit substantive discussion, derail threads, and overall lower the quality of discouse on the board. And thus should be dealt with, if they are, in a consistent manner without these pointless attempts to read minds.
There is no rule saying you have to PM a mod. I’m just pointing out that it can be effective. In a PM or email you can call another poster a troll and a rapscallion in your question without having to tiptoe around the rules.
It wasn’t, actually, but that’s neither here nor there. I’m not proposing reinstating the old situation, I’m proposing you allow discussions in the Pit of how people believe other specific posters should be moderated. The moderators would not have to participate if they didn’t want to – anyone who wanted an official staff response could either pose a general question in ATMB that wasn’t specific to any poster or PM a mod.
I can currently open a Pit thread and opine that someone fucks dogs and that their mother is a diseased prostitute, but I can’t open one to opine that they are a habitual breaker of the rules of this message board. Both are attacking another poster, just for different reasons. Allowing the former but not the latter doesn’t make a lot of sense, IMO.
I don’t think that second part is necessary. Sometimes trolls do believe what they are saying. A Strmfronter might decide to open some threads on racialism just to see the “knee-jerk liberal reaction” on this MB. Hah-hah-hah! I knew you guys would take the bait! Now I’ll run back and tell my fellow Strmfronters to come over and share the laughs.
In fact, that has happened more than a few times in the past. (Not sure about the invite to join in the fun, but certainly the yanking of the chain part).
I see a big difference. The first type of insult is just hyperbole, unless the person is claiming to know the other person in real life. It frankly says more about the person insulting than the target. This type of insult is more frivolous and easily dismissed.
Opining that someone is breaking the rules can have a few meanings. If the insulter knows that the target did actually breaks the rules, the insulter should be able to show where it happened.
If the target didn’t break any rules, then the insulter is pretending to have the power to decide whether the target broke any rules and pretending that the force of the board is behind them. That would be false. They could also be indirectly criticizing the mods for not enforcing the rules as they would.
The first type of insult is more straightforward than the second. The second type has potential implications that could be false.
I don’t want to get into a long round of hypotheticals. What you’ve given is the strict definition of trolling without using the T-word. The question we’d ask ourselves is whether a reasonable person would construe what you say as an insult. The staff hasn’t had that discussion so far as I know.
Yeah, but you just today gave me a pre-warning for what was clearly not an insult. Trolling is a clearly defined word in these days and it should be allowed to be used in normal conversation. What other word(s) are we supposed to use in reference to that behavior?
Ya know Ed, it sure sounds like we’re running in circles instead of just dropping anchor. So let me ask this:
Are insults permitted anywhere in the SDMB?
[ul]
[li]If yes, lets assume only The Pit.[/li][li]If no, then insults are banned across the board, including The Pit. We’re done here. No need to go further.[/li][/ul]
Following on from the above decision question if the answer is yes, if one can insult another poster in The Pit, are they any words that are forbidden?
[ul]
[li] If the word troll is a forbidden word in The Pit, we’re done. No need to dance around with the word. Let’s move on and list any other words that would be forbidden in The Pit as well.[/li][li]If the word troll is OK in The Pit, again let’s not dance around by adding potential exceptions for using the word. In blunt terms, shit or get off the pot.[/li][/ul]
I’m sorry but it appears anything more is just a bureaucratic morass that just doesn’t get us anywhere.
he answered your question in post #55 of this thread. Please scroll up, thank you for playing.
on another note, it really bothers me that I can’t call a troll a troll, except in the Pit, where the trolls are let to run free and troll freely. Some people aren’t just trolling here, they’re trolling every human they interact with, through fanatical extreme political beliefs semi-forced on others. Their behavior poisons the well of honest discussion. Allowing them free reign here, as long as they don’t “technically” break the rules, scares away potential members who don’t feel like wasting their energy debating trolls.
Sure, it can be productive to allow a certain amount of trollery. I don’t think a discussion board this big can avoid it, or should try. I think the line is drawn in the wrong place here, though…and I think it actually ends up discouraging discussion, in most cases. There are some members I’d have banned years ago. Not because they NEVER post anything productive, but because the ratio of signal to noise is just too unfavorable, and scares off potential members, or current members from a particular thread or even whole subject.
I say all this as a long-time moderator of my own board, who has to decide where this line is pretty often.