Is trolling against the rules in the pit?

That’s not what “don’t feed the trolls” mean. There is opposition. The opposition is to not engage them and let their threads fall to the bottom quickly.

However, to Bone’s comment, people find it very difficult to not respond to a troll. So as much as DFTT is a wonderful ideal, it’s very very hard for anyone to actually do.

It doesn’t help the cause that they are not labeled as such (except for maybe the BBQ Pit), and even there the label may or may not be accurate. The supposed troll’s threads cannot sink to the bottom unless everyone somehow agrees, without talking about it online, that said person is indeed a troll.

A type of “troll” that is very difficult to apply the “ignore it and it will sink to the bottom” rule to is the political troll, because enough people of the same political persuasion will not see such a person as a problem to get rid of, and will post support, to keep such treads alive.

And that is the problem. Someone always engages, convinced they can make the misguided poster (troll) see the error of his (or on rare occasions, her) ways. It’s like watering a weed and making sure it gets sunlight, yet hoping that one day it will stop being a weed. Even pointing and laughing gives them what they want, and while I don’t do it often, I know I’ve been guilty of doing that (sometimes the desire to call someone a dumbshit is too strong and the Submit Reply button too easy to hit). Don’t worry that outsiders might see uncontested absurdities, because what outsiders should notice is that trolls are routinely left to play only in their own filth with the other trolls.

I assume that this board’s software cannot handle it, but I’ve alway thought a “I’m feeding the trolls” flag would be useful. Then you have the ability to ignore any post that contains that flag. That way, if someone wishes to engage the suspected troll, in the chance that they are sincere, or that they may come around, or just for shits and giggles, they can do so, without annoying everyone else in the thread that already has the troll on ignore and do not wish to see the troll’s stupidity quoted.
(and sure, I’ll take a pony with that please.)

We have a rule here that you cannot call someone a “troll” outside the BBQ Pit.

FWIW, I don’t defend the DNTT strategy because I don’t think it works.

I think it takes a measure of restraint to resist the easy targets of our ire and it is a bit of a tragedy of the commons problem. I think there are different issues to address. The first is how the board should treat these things. The second is how posters should treat these things. The approach need not be the same. For posters the recommendation is as it always has been - to not feed trolls. Report if you suspect, but beyond that there really is no better course of action. I don’t think that’s what this thread is about though. It’s about what the board should do and how it should treat suspected trolls.

So given the definition in the rules for both the board and in the Pit specifically, and **Miller’s **statements on how this rule is applied, what part would folks suggest changing?

The upside is that it Puts to the lie the claim that this is a liberal board.

Fine, just a basic “off-topic” flag. Also be useful for some of the side conversations that don’t quite justify their own thread, but don’t really belong in the host thread either.

And who would be applying this flag? Unless the mods themselves were doing it, such an action could be called “junior modding”.

For the record, I really do know the acronym is DNFTT.

Just wanted to put that out there.

Oy.

Au contraire, there are lots of people who don’t respond, who see the post or thread for what it is and scroll past. It’s just not everyone who can do that, apparently.

I can’t recall such a thread where there was only one side represented that agreed with the troll (which would almost make it by definition not a troll, but for the sake of argument…) but even if there were such a thread it would be easy to ignore it.

I no longer try to persuade anyone, either poster or reader, for any instance where the post is obviously, to me, intending only to agitate. I wish more would follow suit. And for my second wish, I don’t want a pony I want a free gardener.

In a sense it’s a pointless argument, unless you really believe that someone whose sole intention is to troll everybody here will be deterred by banning. You just end up in exactly the same dispute with their next incarnation, or with their other socks that haven’t been banned yet. You can enjoy the illusion that they’re gone, I suppose, but there’s effectively no way to vote some of these pathetic fucks off the island.

Trolling anonymous strangers is probably the closest thing to happiness they have in life, and it won’t get any better than that. Think about that whenever you need a boost.

You left a letter out.

DNFTFT.

:wink:

The poster themselves when replying to a suspected troll, or when participating in a minor hijack. It wold be optional and voluntary, but I would be willing to flag myself as I engage certain posters, to avoid, if nothing else, the complaints about DNFTT.

It’s easy for anyone to do. It’s difficult to get everyone to agree to do it.

DNFTT only works if

  1. Everyone agrees that the person is a troll,
  2. Everyone agrees not to participate, even
  3. Everyone who might agree with some part of what this person is saying.

Troll threads will not sink into oblivion unless all three of these things happen…and even if they do, thinking that this will make said troll go away is nothing but blind faith.

On the SDMB, it’s not the supporters. It’s everyone who has to point out they’re wrong, wrong, wrong.

Regards,
Shodan

I know! Multiple times! (see post #32)

Triple oy.