Why are there always replies to obvious “first time poster, long time troll” threads like this? Even if there’s a minuscule chance they’re sincere, how many posters who show up with massive drama threads as their very first post stick around for more than a day?
Can Discourse make it impossible to start a new thread until they post X replies somewhere else?
(Mod note: I’ve broken the direct link to the thread, as per the rule about not insulting posters in thread titles, as the Discourse feature of back-linking is putting this thread title in the other thread, effectively calling them a troll outside of the Pit. Below is the URL, broken, so people can still follow what the OP is referencing.
Who cares if they don’t? Unknown rando asks for advice, a few or more of the long-term posters find it moderately interesting to kick around the possible consequences of the hypothetical they put forward, unknown rando disappears and the rest of us move on. Not really a problem IMHO.
I don’t see any need to mandate some kind of “probationary” period for new posters to establish that they’re sufficiently committed to the SDMB before allowing them to start threads.
Less than 1 minute read time. Just pops in out of the blue to ask a bunch of randos about a deeply personal matter involving a fist fight, two guns and clutching pearls, while all the family is either just inside or just outside.
Well I replied to that thread because it was short and easy, but I get what you’re saying. I had the same thought about this recent thread. I’m less concerned that these are threads by some newbie than that they might be copied from other sources or perhaps completely made up to establish a sock. I see similar stories on Reddit (like r/AmITheAsshole) often. Sometimes the poster gets caught making things up or copying a story there, too.
I don’t mind if it isn’t. I personally think the ethical thing is to be truthful and discreet about personal information, even on an anonymous messageboard, and my default assumption is that everybody else is trying to be truthful and discreet too. But I don’t actually know any of these people (okay, maybe one or two IRL) and should not get personally invested in any assumptions about their honesty.
In the long run, even if we’re all just talking about fictional scenarios it can still be interesting to discuss it. Honestly, I would rather have it not be true that the OP of that thread got violently assaulted and knocked to the floor by her sister, so if it’s all just a fairytale, that’s okay by me.
The counterargument is that it’s not good to reward people for making up stuff or trying to create drama.
And while it would be nice if everyone was commenting with the understanding that this person is likely not telling the truth, I’ve seen thread after thread where people do get riled up. One of the easiest ways to rile up people on this board is for someone to be given advice that they don’t take.
I’m not myself for saying people should be prevented from responding. But you asked what the harm is and this is exactly what I see. It is why I closed the thread two sentences in.
If you can read this drama bait without getting emotionally involved, more power to ya. If you can keep the perspective that it’s probably fake, then I can see why it would be interesting.
But I tend to think these types of threads are a net negative.
At various times in the past when I’ve weighed in on one of these sorts of threads and I included some disclaimer like “Assuming any, much less all, of the OP is true”, I’ve been mod-noted for, in effect, calling the OP a liar. Logically, I have to admit the mod-note is correct. Logically.
But from a practical POV, the impact on the SDMB is that wacky fantasy or deranged OPs end up handled with kid gloves as some regulars try to engage with the post as real, and others try to engage with the post as hypothetical, and any mention of this unmentionable issue is subject to censure. Meanwhile, the disparate POVs of the two “teams” of responders ensures friction between them. Not good.
My personal bottom line is I see negligible value in these sorts of “Dear Abby, [insert crazy probably-BS story]. What should I do?” psychodrama threads. They serve simply to set the regulars up to bicker at each other.
At the same time I don’t know that the OP’s solution is the best one. Creating obstacles to new posters posting will chase away some fraction of what few newbies we do get. I suggest the OP’s proposed cure is probably worse than the disease.
My own modest proposal is that as soon as a mod becomes aware of some heat between regulars, the thread is moved to the Pit. With a very obvious mod note about the reason for the move [wacky / implausible Dear Abby-like OP], and no mod-note about the heated posts. As well, any comment by a regular that the OP is fake should not cause censure of the regular, but rather a thread move to the Pit.
Those who so choose can have fun fighting the OP as a person, fighting the OP’s content as a hypothetical story, or fighting each other. But that can’t happen under ordinary forum rules; only under Pit rules. So the Pit is where they belong.
Exactly. Which is why I make it a point to respond to trolls only in the pit, where I can do so at least on an equal footing. Though some of them I don’t even respond to in the pit, because they’re just that inconsequential.
Not sure whether you’re responding to me or to this thread as a whole but assuming the former. …
You make a good point. There’s plenty of drivel posted here every day that’s not worth my time. Or yours. Most of which I don’t read and all of which I don’t reply to.
At the same time, there often is some thread that I’d like to respond to but the particular forum rules make it impossible for me to respond in the way I desire. And lots of other Dopers appear to feel the same way. Some of whom are skirting a modnote or warning for doing more or less what I’d like to do.
That seems counterproductive. Our rules should serve our members, not vice versa.
Mods routinely move other new threads from forum to forum and are always bend-over-backwards courteous to newbies when they explain the reason for the move. FQ to IMHO, MPSIMS to CS, etc.
Perhaps oddly, many of these threads have common indicia: new poster, some element of crazy / abuse, explicit call for help / advice, etc. I’m merely suggesting another limited potential reason for a move: Apparently disingenuous threads that cannot be, or are not being, responded to sincerely under no-Pit rules.
As someone who responded to this particular “obvious troll,” if the post was an attempt to stir up board drama it was a pretty weak one. Pretty much all of the responses are in agreement – get a lawyer. There’s been some interesting information posted regarding court procedures and domestic violence statutes. If all of this was in service of responding to someone whose OP is insincere – so what?
When I see a wall of text posted by a brand new poster, especially with “family drama”, I just say to myself “whatever” and move on. I don’t want to call out a brand new poster for being a liar if they are genuine, but if they’re just some random attention whore I don’t want to be giving them any feedback. If they stick around for a while and don’t turn out to be a drama queen, then I might be inclined to engage. If they stick around and do turn out to be a drama queen, then I’ll just continue to ignore.
A couple of the latest spamers I caught had made a couple of non spam posts before they started their spam thread. I don’t think what you propose would make the slightest difference.
That’s good to know. Maybe it’s better that there’s a big warning at the top of the thread that this is the new poster’s very first post, to clue people in that the giant wall of drama is likely manufactured.
I didn’t respond to the latest one, but I have in the past simply because the situation described, real or hypothetical, interested me. Also, I leave it up to the Mods to handle that stuff. Mocking or accusing someone new of being a troll without any real proof is “attacking the poster”.
Miller broke my link because I forgot about the back-linking that happens in Discourse. But yes - I am attacking the poster. That poster is a troll, and people should ignore it. It’s obvious, and it’s funny to me that people try to engage with it. If anyone who has engaged with similar posts feel like I’m attacking you as well, you’re also correct. It’s not the end of the world, and I don’t think that people who do so are morons or anything. But we’re all here to waste time in some manner of speaking - but don’t you want to reduce the chances that your well thought out response won’t be sent off to the cornfield when the troll is ultimately banned and its history wiped from the board?