I hope that’s not true because, if it is, it is the worst modding ever. Bullshit in response to bullshit is no vice.
Well I ain’t lyin. I’m just not very keen on stirring up the whole saga of which this formed part.
The mod’s position was that Mr G did not believe that what he was spouting was bullshit, while Mr S knew what he was spouting was. So Mr G may have been an idiot but he wasn’t a troll, whereas Mr S, who is and is known as being smart as a whip, was (to my mind) held to a higher standard. I disgreed with the mods and said so…
Sorry, I didn’t mean you might be lying. Just hopefully misunderstanding. From the description you give, it sounds like Mr S offered parody, the banning of which is understandable at a lesser board, but not here.
Not if Mr. S did it purposefully to “get” Mr. G. That takes it right out of parody and square into fucking with someone to get a laugh. I can see where that could be considered trolling.
And if I may get on my soapbox, these alphabetical feuds need to stop. They are hurting the country and confusing kids in elementary school.
I think you’ve all been whooshed by the OP.
Possibly. 
Starting with Kalhoun’s post #37 and then with your reponse a few post later (#41).
I, too, thought he was wooshing us at first.
Even though Kalhoun wasn’t whooshing, it shows what could have happened if a poster did break out with a post like that and then never followed up to confirm whether or not it was or wasn’t.
That’s the thread that got me thinking about this. I can’t link to others, but there have been times when I thought a whoosh was a little over the top or too obscure for the ‘hip’ crowd here to even get.
Really? Does a troll have to piss (or attempt to piss) someone off to be considered a troll? Or can a troll be someone who plays the Devil’s Advocate (probably without the disclaimer) in an attempt to get various input that would otherwise not come up in the course of a discussion?
IMHO, a troll is somebody who’s intent is to rile people up, and a person playing devils advocate usually is not doing that, and hence not a troll. The SDMB’s troll definition may be different than mine, of course.
If a person plays devil’s advocate they need to make that clear, on a board that prohibits trolling. The mods can’t read minds, and playing DA without saying so can look exactly like trolling.
FWIW, I never really thought trolling should be banned in the first place. Who cares if a person pretends to take a position they don’t believe? If a message board troll gets a person so riled up, likely non-trolls will too and that person is better off not on the board to begin with.
[Kermit]This just in. Celebrity letter L was gunned down in a drive-by shooting outside a popular Los Angeles nightclub. Police are looking for the letter A, the letter W, and the number 5. More news at eleven.[/Kermit]
I admit it. I’m Mr S. I will neither confirm nor deny any guesses at the identity of Mr G. My intent was to show anybody reading the threads that my crap was just as internally consistent, logical, and supported by evidence as G’s crap. I also hoped that G would be made to see that the flaws and weaknesses who pointed out in my BS were the same things other posters had pointed out in his BS. It did show myself and a few others that Mr G was incapable of performing a simple web search and discovering that I had taken many names and concepts from a series of books (Note-I do not consider this copyright infringement as the various authors, and the publisher encourage fan creations in this manner. Their website even features a long section of links to fan sites with new work based on official material).
The moderators disagreed on whether I should be allowed to continue. The final ruling was that I must stop. I told them I disagreed with the ruling, but would abide by it. I have since avoided threads with Mr G. He is impervious to logic and evidence. Not being allowed to rebutt him with elaborate fictions, I fear I would respond with the cold, hard truth. As this would be equivalent to telling a pig ‘You’re not a beloved king. You don’t control the people on this farm. You’re fine meals are garbage and leavings. You exist only to be killed for meat. When you die, not a single tear will be shed.’, I’m reluctant to do it.
I remember those posts, DocC. I’m ashamed to admit it, but you had me absolutely fooled. Glad to know you are not, in fact, insane.
Miller Part of Swift style satire is to keep a straight face and never admit you’re not completely serious. I received a few e-mails from Dopers who wanted to know if I was engaging in satire.
Back To The OP
Intentionally whooshing another poster is IMHO rude, but not a bannable offense. It is more similiar to a group of posters suddenly switching to posting in French.
Unintentionally whooshing another poster isn’t even an offense.
I don’t believe the jury has returned a finding on that just yet. 
The problem is that, among all the sterling qualities of all our wonderful posters, theree are still a number of (otherwise excellent) posters who either cannot resist trying to correct a troll or who enjoy bating a troll to see who can get the other to melt down first. Once these people have joined with a troll to overwhelm a thread, the majority of posters who are quite willing to ignore the jerk are forced to scroll through post after post of nonsense or invective looking for the increasingly rare genuine contributions.
If we try to take aside the troll-baiters or the earnest posters and point out that they are not helping things, we are immediately faced with the problem that they respond “Why are you picking on me when there is this troll sitting on the thread?” Even if addressed in e-mail, such disputes inevitably come back to the board and we get into an uproar over jackbooted thugs, “picking” on the “wrong” posters, and any number of other complaints.
Eventually, a troll can cause us to lose membership as people decide that they would rather go elsewhere than put up with the aggravation.
It is bad enough with the “true believers” who interrupt and derail threads on religion, science, or particular political themes to the point where few threads can make it to 100 posts without being seriously derailed. Such posters cause quite a bit grief already and they are not doing it for the purpose of merely having fun at our expense. I see no reason for us to tolerate people who are being disruptive for the fun of it.
No you’re not. I was talking about someone else. Egotistical bastard.
I have no idea of who you could be talking about, btw.
Probably not. I’m sure such posters never interrupt your threads.
Though he keeps a straight face, Swift tips his hand from time to time.
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html
“I grant this food will be somewhat dear, and therefore very proper for landlords, who, as they have already devoured most of the parents, seem to have the best title to the children.”
"I can think of no one objection, that will possibly be raised against this proposal, unless it should be urged, that the number of people will be thereby much lessened in the kingdom. "
“Therefore let no man talk to me of other expedients: Of taxing our absentees at five shillings a pound: Of using neither cloaths, nor houshold furniture, except what is of our own growth and manufacture: Of utterly rejecting the materials and instruments that promote foreign luxury… Of introducing a vein of parsimony, prudence and temperance… [etc, etc]”