More hyperbolic bullshit-show me where they defended socking in any way.
Show me where I said they did?
I missed it, FWIW.
Because the mods told him he was wrong about Elmore being disruptive, when socks are inherently disruptive. Yeah, he wasn’t disruptiv*e in the same way *as Huey (who I’m definitely not going to miss, BTW), but c’mon - you telling me you thought he was on the up-and-up? I expect more basic competence from the mods, rather than just knee-jerk defensiveness.
Seriously? He was basically running around with a neon sign saying “troll”, IMO.
Moderator Action
Bone left this open so that the more general aspects of the discussion could continue. However, since then, the discussion has been pretty much specifically about Elmore, or demanding apologies from those who aren’t likely to give them (which I don’t think is terribly productive). Based on that, I will go ahead and close this.
Thread closed.
ETA:
I am re-opening this for now, but let’s not engage in arguments over past arguments. There are disagreeing viewpoints here, and demanding apologies for having a disagreeing viewpoint serves no useful purpose. Focus on whatever actual issues you may have and wish to discuss, please.
I think you are assuming facts not in evidence wrt sock participation. People sock up for a number of reasons. Some of those are more nefarious, like to troll, etc. But others could potentially be users who have been banned, but are seeking a fresh start. Others are trying to push an idea and make it seem like it has more support. There are probably others still. In any event, participating/engaging is not mutually exclusive to socking.
Here too I think you mischaracterize the fact pattern. In my view, I’ve offered no defense of the merits of anything that Elmore had written. This thread sought to contrast the behaviors of two posters, so characterizing what each offered is in line with that. It’s not a defense of that. When I evaluate posts, I try to compartmentalize the criteria I’m using to make that evaluation. I may vehemently disagree with a poster, but also believe it’s within the rules. It’s not a defense of a poster, rather it’s more of a characterization of a poster’s posts. I could be misunderstanding how you’re using that term though.
Our long standing policy is that socking is not permitted. But if a poster was banned in 2001, and then later returned in 2019 - 18 years later under a different username, this would still be socking and prohibited, however I think from a practical standpoint that is not inherently disruptive.
Ultimately I think you’ve drawn conclusions based on not that strong of evidence. That Elmore was ultimately a sock doesn’t necessarily undermine any of the previous rationale. It could inform it, but based on what we know thus far, my positions expressed thus far are unchanged.
I think your focus on generalized mob mentality is misplaced. You’ve made this line of argument many times and I don’t see it. Moderator action isn’t based on popularity or calls to action - and this sentiment really does a disservice to the moderation staff. We each have our own views as individuals and express them in the mod loop without hesitation. You’re free to continue to hold these views of course, but I find them pretty baseless.
Two quick points of fact supporting this:
SqrrlCub (or whatever his name was) was banned for an incredibly jerkish prank (nowdays, he’d get a suspension–a long one–but this was before suspensions). A year or two later, he came back as a sock and was non-disruptive at all for a bunch of years.
Vanilla was banned, came back as another poster (GoodEgg? NewEgg?) and posted non-disruptively for a while and I think she accidentally outed herself and then came back with a third, largely non-disruptive sock.
Socks are against the rules, but not really disruptive.
Here’s the thing- in the last few months a lynch mob has gathered here in ATMB, with pitchforks and torches and the whole shebang , demanding two poster get banned. In both cases they were banned.
Now, I am not saying either banning was undeserved, but it is 'awkward".
Well, if there are a few quiet socks, I guess I just imagined Elmore to be an alt-right troll, then…
What was this particular sock doing? 
The problem with your metaphor is that there’s no analogy to pitchforks or torches. In fact, this is the problem with the “mob justice” metaphor as a whole: mob justice is predicated on violence, and there is no way that people loudly complaining about perceived poor decisions is the same thing as committing violence.
It’s a dumb metaphor, and we are all dumber for its continuation.
The only thing awkward here is trying to have a conversation on what actually happened while trying to push past overreaching hyperbole that does nothing but rabble-rouse. It seems to me that if a large group of people see a problem, dismissing them as a “lynch mob with pitchforks and torches and the whole shebang” signifies that you have no interest in addressing the problem at hand.
Breaking a rule he agreed to follow when he signed up, thus forfeiting his right to post.
I think we’re going down the rabbit hole a little bit and ultimately we may have to agree to disagree, but I want to try and clarify a bit. There’s the overall umbrella rule about ‘no trolling’ in the Pit. The contours of that rule are described with a few guidelines, i.e. ‘solely to get a rise out of people’ or’ primary goal to make people mad’. Based on Huey’s behavior, we made a determination (subjective) that it fell under this umbrella. The evidence for that determination was his posting pattern.
If you are arguing against Huey’s banning, then necessarily you are arguing that he wasn’t trolling. That is a judgment call for sure and this is where we may have to agree to disagree.
The metaphor is quite fine when you realize that one point of metaphors or analogies is to use something that isn’t exactly identical as a point of reference. The mob’s so-called outrage, in this context, does have a correlation with banning.
There are no pitchforks.
There is also no mob, so there no correlation at all.
When it’s the same group going after people for years now? Well, people can read the Pit thread, the ATMB threads, and a variety of other sources and come to their own conclusions.
Yes, but I was replying to Bone who listed many reasons why a person might have a sock. I am curious.