Pit Trolling And Friendly Crumudgeon

If the standard for trolling and banning for trolling is a misrepresentation that makes someone mad 1/2 to 7/8 of the those who regularly pit folks would qualify as trolls. This reminds me of the Huey banning (among others) where it wasn’t a general offense that was the problem but who it offended.

It was a gross misrepresentation. No doubt. But that’s standard behavior in the pit.

Do you have any examples. I posted that I would expect to be censored in some way if I started a thread “Trump used N-Word in State of the Union Address.”

An intentional flat out lie seems pretty rare, even in the pit

I’ve seen a zillion threads about “hurr durr Obama thinks there are 59 states lolz.” That’s obviously and manifestly bad-faith lying, and nobody ever got banned for that. As it should be. The video was vague but not spoofed; there’s legit (though very weak) case to discuss whether Obama thinks we picked up 9 extra states somewhere.

In this case the individual posted a clearly faked video to make it sound like Biden said n***er, and doubled down on spreading misinformation when challenged on it. Even in the context of the video it made no sense.

Fortunately for… uh… some people, you can get away with a considerable amount of lying and trolling, but some stuff is beyond the pale even in the Pit.

It was also insisting on the lie in his ATMB thread. Please don’t overlook that part. You’re stating only half at most of the issue that led to the banning.

Colibri did mention that in the announcement thread.

As the issue should now be cleared up, would you like me to close this thread for you @octopus?

Not to nitpick, but was it really faked? It seems like a genuine video where there was just a genuine slip of the tongue. As pointed out, by context the N-word would make no sense.

It’s fine to say “Biden just happened to make n’eager sound like the N-word” without having to argue that it was faked.

I’d agree to some point with the OP and Friendly Curmudgeon, though, which is that the notion of a forum (the Pit) where trolling and flaming is invited, but a certain type of trolling is ban-worthy, makes things awfully confusing.

It’s as if the admins are saying, “Pigs are welcome to wallow in the mud!”…but then ban a pig for wallowing in mud that is 14 inches deep, as opposed to 13 inches deep.

I’d say that the difference is not so nuanced as that.

It’s more like, you can wallow in the mud, but don’t shit in the mud.

Calling the stuff coming out of his ass “mud” doesn’t fool anyone.

For the record, here’s a link to the banning thread.

You can troll by posting inflammatory opinions, and then it becomes somewhat subjective what’s over the line.

And obviously many people make objectively false claims, either in good faith or without definitive ill intent, and on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance this would not result in mod action, but rebuttal with facts and evidence.

But it seems to me that this was a case of trolling by deliberately lying, and that’s not what @Velocity likens to 14" of mud vs 13" of mud, it is qualitatively worse.

From the Registration Agreement:

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use the SDMB to post any material that you know or should know is false

That sets a standard that you cannot deliberately or negligently lie. I’d certainly advocate giving the benefit of the doubt when any doubt exists, but there was absolutely no doubt here. Deliberate lying with intent to troll.

These threads are always like, “But how can a person possibly parse these rules! They’re so confusing! Also, bias!”

Instead, they should be, “Does this person on balance add to the board?”

This dude was flat-out lying in a way that added nothing to the board and instead made the board a worse place. Why would we mourn his passing?

Only reason he came to ATMB was because his particular instance of misrepresentation was flagged to the point the thread got closed and a mod responded. At which point the rules change since he’s in an ATMB. But that’s a bit besides the point, it’s that some trolling in the pit is tolerable and some isn’t. Because, it’s quite often the case gross misrepresentation are made in the pit and that’s just part of the environment. It was trolling because who got mad. Which is very similar to the farcical situation that got Huey banned.

What Friendly posted was eye-rollingly bad in terms of a pitting attempt but it’s bizarre that that would be warning or note worthy much less ban worthy.

To clarify, the video wasn’t faked. It was on the CBS Television site, so is apparently an accurate recording. If it had been faked, it would have been clearer.

Which is part of the point. What Biden said was distinctly different from the n-word. It takes deliberate bad faith to interpret it that way.

But he wasn’t in the pit when he made his argument about how he was right and the mods were wrong and people were making up rules. In fact his title in the ATMB led me to believe that we were in the Pit and I responded as if I were in the Pit. Then I noticed we weren’t and backed away from his shitholyness.

As I said in the banning thread, that was an exacerbating factor. Even though the correct explanation had been given to him in the Pit thread and the ATMB thread, he made no attempt to justify his interpretation or refute the alternative explanation. He simply repeated the lie. That convinced us beyond any doubt that was not posting in good faith.

Most comparable prior example is here. It’s obvious that neither Biden nor this person intended to say a racial slur. But a lot of people out there believed it then (a petition to fire her got 150K supporters), nor did the thread receive any moderator sanction.

Obviously all true. However, the missed point is similar behavior never generates flags, thread closures, and a foolish ATMB thread because the target of ridicule and ire based on deliberate misrepresentation is an acceptable target. It’s the same behavior.

Let’s see an example, then.

“A lot of people believed it” is hardly an argument, much less a good one.

I’ll also note that the OP of that thread eventually did get himself banned for trolling.

Would you have examples of “the same behavior” going unpunished for the reasons you’ve described?

This tactic of claiming “everybody else gets away with it” is so tired; it should get an automatic warning when offered without a minimum of 2 distinct examples of the comparison being made.

Oh, please. I’ve provided examples of 100% similarity before. That’s a farcical demand and I am not wasting any time on participating in that form of a farce.