Start a pit thread, and then we’ll know.
I apologize in advance for this brief hijack but I must say something here.
I have been noticing it for some time now and had my eye out and this is the first correct spelling of “judgment” I have seen in a long, long time. It seems everybody and their grandma spells it “judgement”; even those whose spelling is otherwise impeccable. I submit “judgment” as the most oft-misspelled, common word out there. /hijack over :o
It depends on the country. There are two spellings. Without the e is the favored US spelling. With is the favored spelling in the UK. I don’t know about other countries.
Ahhhh, then nevermind. 
I think at least some people don’t want to pit an obvious troll because that’s what trolls want.
What trolls don’t want is to be shut down before they have the chance to disrupt lots of threads.
Can we have a few links here please? For those of us not in the know?
That’s exactly why I didn’t pit the user in question. I can’t tell whether they’re legit or not, but their presence seems to have the same effect on the board either way, and I didn’t want to give them more exposure.
I think people are talking about this thread on same-sex marriage, which was moved to the Pit within the past hour.
Which I believe is this user’s fourth hijacked thread on SSM, if Marley23’s count is correct.
Ummm, I’m sure this has been pointed out, but the title of that thread was “Anti-SSM argument goes from stupid to… what the heck is this?” I’d argue it is not a hijack 
Thanks. That’s why I hate bizarrely cryptic OPs. I had no idea what he was talking about.
And the poster in question (I’m just taking a wild guess at it) was warned for, among other things, being “trollish”. So, I don’t see how this qualifies as falling within the scope of the OP.
Jesus, Fenris, I mentioned both threads on your board.
I don’t get it, he’s just repeating the same idiotic arguments everyone against SSM makes. What make you think he’s trolling?
Moderator response may not be public, or even in a PM-reply, but we do debate such reports behind-the-scenes. Sometimes, it’s just a case of someone holding a (very!) minority opinion but holding it sincerely, and we don’t want to quash dissent even if it’s aggravating to a majority. However, every such report is noted, and the person in question in examined: when we find a repeated, regular pattern of inflammatory comments that don’t really seem to represent an honest belief, we do act.
Sometimes, when someone reports a suspected troll, we give that person a PM or email warning that they need to change behaviors. Those who do change behaviors, great. Those who don’t, get bumped. But we’re (intentionally) slow to lower the ban hammer for provocative comments; we prefer to give benefit of the doubt… until the point that there is no doubt.
That’s kind of the definition, isn’t it?
Using a different definition? Wouldn’t that make it cargo-cult trolling?
Not an argument.
(sorry, couldn’t help myself)
No, I don’t think so. Unless you assume that everyone against SSM is only looking to get a rise out of people by holding that position.
How about, everybody against SSM who’s using idiotic arguments? I’m okay with the people making reasonable arguments not being trolls.