In addition to that, one benefit of the Trolls-R-Us thread was that, as you put it, it lets Dopers do some of the homework and reduces the mods’ workload. It lets Dopers ferret out socks instead of leaving the job wholly up to tired and worn-out admins.
Since it doesn’t look like @Miller linked it here, I thought I’d share:
( if onebox isn’t working for you, Miller’s implemented the ‘no insults / epithets in poster based pit threads’ due to the discussion about how it bypasses the no insulting posters outside of the pit)
For what it’s worth, I think that this is a good rule.
I agree this is a good rule given the limitations of Discourse, but I wouldn’t be in favor of going much farther.
Good rule change.
You’re right that the problem isn’t confined to the Pit, and I know it’s driving existing posters away, plus it’s pretty obvious that the hostility is putting off newcomers. We can all help do something about that.
The Pit is great for ranting about life, the universe, and politicians, so keep it for that and get rid of the attacks on other posters.
The point of the Box is not to promote growth, it’s to keep the rest of the board troll free. And it’s not really considered a different forum. It’s actually fairly active.
From what I can see, the Gweeb doesn’t really care about growth, and it is a pretty active forum.
OK, but the SDMB (from what I’ve been reading) does care about growth of the SDMB. That’s the question I was answering.
Yeah, it’s just about titles, it’s fine. Making a little work for Miller today, though.
And I must admit I am idly curious as to how people who think they’re clever are going to try and ruleslawyer the meaning of “insult”.
I daresay there will be some “If I can’t insult her/him that way, is it alright if I insult her/him this way?”.
I note that the rule is rarely enforced, but there is a rule in the Pit about “not trolling.”
I wonder why deliberately lying about another poster is not against the rules as per this rule? While lying can be subjective, sometimes it is not. For example claiming a poster said something, that poster then asking for a cite, and the poster continuing to make the claim with no evidence, would seem obvious to me an example of lying. Not all forms of lying can be adjudicated, but in a text based forum, asserting someone is saying things they have not said is fairly easily debunked. I would think lying would be considered trolling.
Consider this scenario–and I wouldn’t do this because I think it’d just shit up the boards, but what if I went into pit threads and found any poster I didn’t like and was responding to their post with statements like “This poster is a known pedophile, and has indicated a preference for young boys in other threads.” Under the current rules I don’t see that would be prohibited, but it absolutely should be.
A disagreement about a position is not a lie.
If someone feels that the arguments that someone has made indicate a certain frame of reference that they are coming from, that does not mean that they have admitted that that is where they are coming from.
We used to have scientific racists on this board, who would go on and on about “factual information” that they would use in an attempt to prove the inferiority of other ethnic groups. If you called them a racist, they would call you a liar, and demand to proof that they said racist things, all they are doing is pointing out facts.
So, yeah, if there was someone who was pointing out facts in a way that would indicate that they were trying to make some sort of point, there is the possibility that some posters may get the impression that that poster was trying to make some sort of point, and call them on the point that it seemed they were trying to make.
That the poster in question didn’t admit that they had any reason for interjecting these facts, and had no point at all that they were trying to make doesn’t mean that those who assumed that poster had a point was lying, it just means that the poster was making worthless contributions, for no reason at all.
You would have to understand the confusion of other posters thinking that the poster in question actually had a reason to be posting.
In that case, it would probably be worthwhile pointing out where they had made such preferences known. Would you be needing them to specifically admit that they had a sexual preference for young boys, or would the factual information they offer about how NAMBLA has some good points and intentions be enough?
True- but I have been called one- because sometimes I am a bit of a asshole. I was in a dark place earlier this year.
And of course too many posters call assholes and people they disagree with = “trolls”.
Posters can not do anything about trolls- except feed them and report them. Pitting them just gives them a banquet. It does the opposite of getting rid of trolls.
We could have- in ATMB- maybe a special thread where “I think xxx is trolling in this series of posts”. No name calling, no actual even calling them a troll- just pointing out that these posts look like trolling.
Personally I think that would be useless, but who knows? Some discussion about what is and is not trolling could be useful, with actual examples.
This could be another special thread in ATMB.
Yes, but for rants. Not pittings of posters.
Why do you think that is a good idea?
I doubt if it has ever been of use. Do you really think the mods scroll through “trolls r us” and go- “hey, yeah, that guy is a troll, let us ban him!” Repeatedly they have said they do not read most threads unless involved personally or a report has been made.
I know, and this is why the Pit is not useful. Posters get infuriated with some guys opinions. They then post in the Pit a horribly distorted and really flat out lying version of what that guy said. How can you even start to determine if a guy is really a jerk or a troll if posters can just say things like “he is a Holocaust denier” or “he supports pedophilia”? when neither is true at all?
That puts shut the idea that the Pit can be used to discuss Trollishness, since you are free to lie your ass off.
Right, the way I see it right now I have no reason (other than my baseline respect for rational discussion) that I shouldn’t just be nonstop lying in every single Pit thread, specifically about posters I dislike. As I understand the Pit rules right now, lying isn’t trolling.
Why is an asshole exempt from being a troll? And there are people who we disagree with on whether capital gains tax should be 15% or 30%, and then there are people who we disagree with on whether we live in the same reality. The former are very rarely called trolls, the latter often are trolls.
And by discussing them, we realize that they are trolling, and stop feeding them in other parts of the board.
If they get their feeding off of being pitted, then that’s less feeding they do on more productive conversations, and less derailing.
And also, there have been cases of someone being called out for being a troll by a poster in the trolls’r’us thread, and other posters disagreed, and gave a different perspective to the poster who called them out. So, rather than having a poster seething someone they think is a troll, they realize that they were not seeing the whole picture.
No, that is NOT a troll.
If his beliefs are sincere, no matter how strongly you personally disagree, that is not a troll.
It is to laugh. Only a small % of posters pay any attention at all to things like “trolls r us” and even most of the posters there just buy another 50# bag of Purina troll chow once they are satisfied said poster is a troll.
Belief can be sincere but you can still get a kick out of riling up the other posters. That is still an additional definition of a troll. I’m sure there are many more.
Good example, many Astroturfers are indeed sincere in their beliefs but are indeed one of the worst types of trolls.
I’m not sure why you chose to respond that way. I did not say that they are a troll, I said that they very often are a troll.
There are people out there who truly believe that missiles or thermite were used to bring down the towers on 9/11, or that we didn’t go to the moon, or that the 2020 election was stolen.
But if they are presenting their views here, the chances that they are doing so in good faith is pretty small.
Please cite this stat.
No, I see that once a troll is outed in the pit, the engagement in the other forums typically drops substantially. Sure, they may end up getting more attention and engagement in the pit, but that’s kinda the whole point, IMHO.
Not true. Some of the most creatively entertaining posts have been pittings in the several Trolls’R’Us Omnibus threads.
I can’t help but notice that many of the objections to the Pit are coming from posters who have been pitted there. Which is understandable, but hardly unbiased.
Because it’s a forum that gives you the opportunity to say what you really think without risk of being sanctioned for the way you say it. Freedom of speech is rather a good idea, I think. There are good reasons for having parliamentary-like rules of decorum in the serious forums, but quite useful to have one place that is free of those restrictions.