No argument with that. But that would be a type 1 pile-on.
I had an interesting encounter on a different messageboard recently.
One member with a mental illness was being a dick–there’s just about no question about that (he posted his issue on three different messageboards, and even on one devoted to his particular mental illness, everyone there, including folks with the same mental illness, told him he was being a dick).
One one of those three boards, he was banned. On a second of the three boards, he was chastized heavily by other folks with the mental illness. It was the third board that was the problem.
On this third board, people started organizing to harrass him. True, the guy was being a dick, but chasing down examples of his being obnoxious, and (especially) creating fake identities to mock him further–that’s just extremely bad form.
I wrote once on this third board saying I thought it was a bad idea, but I was shouted down so heavily and vituperatively that I didn’t say anything else. And the pile-on continued.
Soon afterward, I left the board. But now I think about it and I feel kinda guilty: though it may have been useless, I should have spoken out more forcefully against his treatment. I didn’t because I don’t like the guy, but that’s no excuse.
On these boards, I sometimes see that happening–but generally it’s coming from people whom I don’t much respect. My inclination with such folks is to answer their insults with insults of my own, but I’m trying to fight that inclination nowadays, ignoring it instead. I don’t know whether that’s the right thing to do, especially when it’s other liberals who are being foolish; will it help to create the impression that all liberals agree with the foolishness? But it’s better for me, if not for the board as a whole, not to respond in kind.
Pile-ons, in other words, generally contain so little substance and so much noise that they may properly be ignored, I hope. THat may be hard to do, but I’m not sure what other response works: the folks doing the pile-on often get juiced up by angry responses to them.
Daniel
You welcome 
Well, Liberal, it may be that you’ve performed a significant service to those Dopers who are persuaded by your descriptions of Type 1 and Type 2 pile-ons. In future threads when a Type 2 pile-on is presented as a cite that Poster A is an idiot, one only has to link back to this OP and dismiss the cite with something along the lines of
Of course, that will likely start another argument, complete with cites, as to whether it’s a Type 1 or a Type 2. Whaddaryagonnado? :rolleyes: 
Pretty good OP and conversation so far. Sorry we couldn’t help you out with a little comedy, in the form of a fake pile-on.
Yeah, I’m sorry too.
Daniel
I only think Pile-ons are a bad thing if it’s just post after post of abuse; if people are repeating a point, that’s probably annoying but not really that bad. It’s when it’s just one-line mocking of a poster that it seems a bit too much to me. And I say that as someone who’s failed to resist the urge to join in on several occasions.
The reason I don’t participate as much as I used to is because of the pile-ons described in the OP. Specifically, the kind that are, indeed, related to trolling, because they’re not honest reactions; they’re malicious in intent, and designed only to elicit a specific reaction, with zero intent of making any actual point.
The burning question is when’s Guin gonna chime in?!11
I disagree with your assignment of gender to me. If anyone else supports that, will that constitute a pile-on?
Even with the satanic type 2 pile-on, the pile-on-ee still has the option of referring dramatically to all of the posters who’ve contacted him/her by e-mail to show their support, and/or are too timid to post for fear of being verbally assaulted by the cruel hordes.
The type 2 pile-on also has value in that the poster who feels abused can cite it as an example of why he/she must constantly declaim from the cross, despite snide remarks from others who wonder if the poster might climb down from said cross, as there is a need for the wood.
In other words, even the “wrong” kind of pile-on can meet the emotional/intellectual/metaphysical needs of the purported victim.
Interesting OP. I’ve made a point of not participating in pile-ons here (mostly; I’m sure I’ve broken my own rule once or twice), simply because I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t like it if I were on the receiving end of one, but you make a good (and debatable) point about a Type 2 pile-on being a form of trolling, Liberal. If someone is indeed being an ass or posted something monumentally stupid, and many people have already pointed it out, posting another pile-on post at that point is not to let the OP know how you feel - the OP has gotten the message as loud and clear by then as they’re going to get it; the only reason at that point is to kick someone who is already down and/or jump on a bandwagon.
While I would say that pile-on posting isn’t a great way to behave, I don’t know if I would go as far as calling it trolling. I think people contributing to pile-ons aren’t fishing for reactions from anybody; I think they’re doing it out of a negative reaction of their own.
Well, if everyone else supports it, it certainly would.
And if people cite it in the future to support an accusation that Liberal doesn’t pay sufficient attention to the personalities of individual Dopers to develop reliable mental images of them based on their posting histories, it would be a Type 1. Maybe Type 2 because it represents only a single data point, but we can have that argument when somebody deides to contest the point.
But if somebody uses it to demolish his argument in a thread about the property rights of hyper-intelligent squids, that would be Type 2.
On a re-read: Wait. If they support you in your disagreement, or if they support Lib in his assignment? This is crucial.
I’m sorry. You are agreeing with my disagreement. Ya feckin piler onner.
Well I demand pictorial proof of ETF’s gender. Then we can pile on her. But that would be a whole other type of pile on.
Ah! Now, there we find ourselves in a dilemma of interpretation, inherent in the ambiguity of phrasing! To what, exactly, does the antecedent “that” refer? Yes, yes, gender (re)assignment is at issue, but did I mean to indicate supporters of the OP’s assignment? Or supporters of my disagreement with his* hypothesis?
If a large number of Dopers take my side in this dispute, must they set forth differing reasons and bases for their concurrence in order to qualify their contributions to the thread as type 1? Would several participants posting merely some small variation on, say, “I thought ETF’s a chick too” transmogrify any agreement with my point into a pile-on?
Food for thought, my friend; food for thought.
- This assignment of gender is a hypothesis derived from my attempts to pay sufficient attention to the personalities of individual Dopers to develop reliable mental images of them based on their posting histories. It is a statement of opinion only, based on limited evidence, and is in no way intended as an assertion of fact.
Well! I must respond to this challenge to my veracity, this doubting of my very essence! Here, sirrah, I am – draw your own conclusions.
Oh, wait – Am I the gelding on the left, or the female on the right? And is that actually a female, rather than a male in desperate need of a haircut?
Wow. What a load of rationalizing bullshit.
Trolling-type pile ons are still dishonest and sadistic, with no purpose beyond satisfying the pilers’ need to poke someone with a stick. And as your asinine post affirms, there is absolutely no defense against such a pile on: to simply point out that it *is * a pile on is to open oneself up to accusations of paranoia and martyrdom. As if there’s no such thing as a pile on.
Or a sign of rational perspective, YMMV.
I have never pitted a member of this board, or habitually sought out some vulnerable Defender Of The Faith (political, religious or other) to pile on.
I’ve been on the receiving end of majority disfavor in threads. You take your lumps and move on.
There are personality types who seem to invite and revel in their role as a misunderstood beacon of truth. It’s a bit tiresome, but it’s still just a message board.
Try not to take these psychic wounds so seriously.
You can’t really be shouted down. That’s an illusion. You can continue to speak what you believe. You will probably be out-numbered, but your voice is still heard. And maybe your words are more respected than theirs. (It’s great to see you again!)
Then choose to remain defenseless. If you’ve stated your case, trust us. Correct any twisting, lies or misunderstandings of your position, but you don’t have to defend yourself. Let them have their fun.
ETF, I got the ponytail right in my image of you, but I never imagined a platinum blond! Hey-hey-hey!
The subject of this thread is those posters who maliciously and dishonestly pile onto a poster for the sheer pleasure of torture. So . . . trust who?