I’m just curious, what is the preponderance of evidence required to ban someone for trolling? Is it enough to post repeatedly about the same controversial topic, or does there need to be additional corroborating evidence?
I’m trying to keep it vague here though I do have a specific recent moderator decision in mind. I’m more curious about what the general guidelines are, though.
Speaking as a former mod, in general, it’s more tone than topic. Posters who have been on the board for a longer time and have participated in other subjects as a reasonable poster, in general, get more slack, as it is assumed that they have demonstrated interest in the board, and not simply interest in getting a rise out of people on a particular subject. I repeat, in general.
I’ve always, as a poster and a mod, disliked traps like this. If you have a complaint, make it clear what your complaint is. Vagueness in posts like this is not useful.
This isn’t a court of law. Decisions on whether someone is trolling are based on a various factors, and on a case by case basis. I don’t think we can give you an answer without a specific example. If you want to PM me, I can tell you the reason for a decision in a specific case.
I don’t have any complaint. There was a recent banning with no apparent explanation which prompted me to wonder whether there was a set of general guidelines for determining if someone is a troll. I don’t disagree with the decision, I was just curious.
Certainly. If you are curious as to why a particular poster was banned with no public explanation, asking a current mod via PM or email is what you should do.
I’m pretty sure I know who you’re talking about. One of the more prominent board mysogynists, right? He was, as Peter Morris suggested, a sock of a banned poster.