# The Economics of Trolling, the SDMB, and Moderator Decisions. **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [November 15, 2019, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474 "2019-11-15T03:57:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474/41 "2019-11-15T16:40:09Z")
This thread is embarrassing. Now that I’ve posted in it I feel my avatar needs a bag on its head. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474/42 "2019-11-15T16:41:51Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > Just a quick preventative intervention, here. > > This thread will not turn into another long-term debate about the definition of ‘sea-lioning’. > > I hope that’s clear. OK, fair enough. How about calling other posters “assholes” and “virulently unpleasant” in ATMB? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474/43 "2019-11-15T17:13:21Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > But the OP’s “weak sauce” post was also, quite specifically, a characterization of arguments. So I’m not sure why that was warned but the other ones weren’t. Maybe because it was broader and not aimed at a specific argument? As the target of _that_ post, I’m not angry at **JohnT** and if I had pardon power I would pardon away his warning. I think we’re all on good terms now, and I harbor no ill feelings towards him (then or now). Political issues such as the impeachment inquiry are sure to rile up the emotions and sometimes you slip. I didn’t report it. I was a little sad that John thinks/thought my arguments were the weak sauce of weak sauces, though. But I don’t think that’s an insult, I did not feel _insulted_, and I wouldn’t have warned him for insulting me. I don’t think **JohnT** implied that I was trolling (which would be an insult), just that my arguments were so “weak” as to not warrant responses. I think the warnable part of that post would be the “Don’t bother”. As in, don’t bother replying to **Max S.** - in my opinion, a form of “threadshitting” or rather, “post-shitting”. I actually think _I_ made a warnable post in that thread, back when someone had asked me to stop participating if I couldn’t meet certain conditions. After admitting that I would not meet those conditions I asked them to confirm that they want me out of the thread, since I think they misunderstood my position. I wasn’t trying to get that poster in trouble. In hindsight, such a confirmation would probably get them in trouble - I was being sincere, but my post could be construed as trolling. I fully apologize to **Aspenglow** for [POST=21898308]my actions[/POST]. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474/44 "2019-11-15T17:42:59Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > There was a thread started in October asking who the whistleblower was. Zero reports. HD posts a name that is already in the public sphere and there are a dozen reports. This is so willfully ignorant on multiple levels. First, the post that names someone is infinitely more harmful than a post that doesn’t, even a child can see this. Second, since the name hasn’t been officially released, we don’t actually know if that’s the name of the whistleblower. It could be fake shit from Breitbart, famous for its fabrications. But it doesn’t actually matter if it’s the real name or not. The consequence of the release is that person will be exposed to terroristic threats. This is exactly why people want the name released, so that others will be tempted to stay silent. By letting this stand, SDMB is not only participating in the terrorizing of possibly uninvolved people, it’s also lending credibility to a news outlet known for confirmed politically-motivated fabrications. And all of this from a poster with a history of working the refs and who cheerfully admits he’s only here to aggravate political opponents. We should bookmark this thread the next time someone says this site is oh so hostile to conservatives. You let chronic offenders get away with participating in large-scale harassment of a private person without so much as a slap on the wrist, and in justifying it you are complicit. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474/45 "2019-11-15T17:49:21Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > This is so willfully ignorant on multiple levels. > > First, the post that names someone is infinitely more harmful than a post that doesn’t, even a child can see this. > > Second, since the name hasn’t been officially released, we don’t actually know if that’s the name of the whistleblower. It could be fake shit from Breitbart, famous for its fabrications. > > But it doesn’t actually matter if it’s the real name or not. The consequence of the release is that person will be exposed to terroristic threats. This is exactly why people want the name released, so that others will be tempted to stay silent. > > By letting this stand, SDMB is not only participating in the terrorizing of possibly uninvolved people, it’s also lending credibility to a news outlet known for confirmed politically-motivated fabrications. And all of this from a poster with a history of working the refs and who cheerfully admits he’s only here to aggravate political opponents. > > We should bookmark this thread the next time someone says this site is oh so hostile to conservatives. You let chronic offenders get away with participating in large-scale harassment of a private person without so much as a slap on the wrist, and in justifying it you are complicit. Thanks for proving **Colibri** ’s point! Guess there really is no issue here 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474/46 "2019-11-15T17:54:58Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > This is so willfully ignorant on multiple levels. > > First, the post that names someone is infinitely more harmful than a post that doesn’t, even a child can see this. > > Second, since the name hasn’t been officially released, we don’t actually know if that’s the name of the whistleblower. It could be fake shit from Breitbart, famous for its fabrications. > > But it doesn’t actually matter if it’s the real name or not. The consequence of the release is that person will be exposed to terroristic threats. This is exactly why people want the name released, so that others will be tempted to stay silent. > > By letting this stand, SDMB is not only participating in the terrorizing of possibly uninvolved people, it’s also lending credibility to a news outlet known for confirmed politically-motivated fabrications. And all of this from a poster with a history of working the refs and who cheerfully admits he’s only here to aggravate political opponents. > > We should bookmark this thread the next time someone says this site is oh so hostile to conservatives. You let chronic offenders get away with participating in large-scale harassment of a private person without so much as a slap on the wrist, and in justifying it you are complicit. Seconded. There was no legitimate reason to bring up the WB’s name (or maybe just some unfortunate bystander’s name) in that thread. I think the mods have the judgment capable of identifying why it was done, and AFAICT it’s clear that the reason it was done would violate a myriad of board rules – trolling and being a jerk, most obviously, and possibly even putting the board in legal jeopardy. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474/47 "2019-11-15T17:57:02Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > This is so willfully ignorant on multiple levels. > > First, the post that names someone is infinitely more harmful than a post that doesn’t, even a child can see this. > > Second, since the name hasn’t been officially released, we don’t actually know if that’s the name of the whistleblower. It could be fake shit from Breitbart, famous for its fabrications. > > But it doesn’t actually matter if it’s the real name or not. The consequence of the release is that person will be exposed to terroristic threats. This is exactly why people want the name released, so that others will be tempted to stay silent. So let me get this straight - you want the board to censure people from speculating on who the whistleblower is? Do I have that right? Because as you say, no one knows for sure as it hasn’t been officially released. So when people speculate that it is Kelly Ann Conway, that should be warnable too? Previously, there was a thread on who wrote the anonymous NY Times (?) op-ed saying they sabotage actions in the Whitehouse. Should that also be verboten? The standard you’re asking for is ill conceived and unworkable. But please, elaborate on what you think I’m ignorant of. > [@](#): > > …who cheerfully admits he’s only here to aggravate political opponents. I’m going to bet you’re wrong. Feel free to provide a cite and I’ll demonstrate it for you. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474/48 "2019-11-15T17:57:43Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > Oh, you mean like this totally reasonable non-trolling post by fellow Pinniped **Octopus**? Because that’s not a response to anyone, that’s just a free gift. In response to a thread about a Chinese man who was set on fire by protestors: > > Eta: this was in response to Bond’s last post. Seems pretty clear **octopus** is trying to create parallels between Hong Kong protesters setting that guy on fire, and the argument promoted by some posters on this board that violence by American protesters against “fascists” is acceptable. There are many ways to characterize that argument, but “trolling” really isn’t one of them. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474/49 "2019-11-15T17:59:39Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > This is so willfully ignorant on multiple levels. > > First, the post that names someone is infinitely more harmful than a post that doesn’t, even a child can see this. > > Second, since the name hasn’t been officially released, we don’t actually know if that’s the name of the whistleblower. It could be fake shit from Breitbart, famous for its fabrications. > > But it doesn’t actually matter if it’s the real name or not. The consequence of the release is that person will be exposed to terroristic threats. This is exactly why people want the name released, so that others will be tempted to stay silent. > > By letting this stand, SDMB is not only participating in the terrorizing of possibly uninvolved people, it’s also lending credibility to a news outlet known for confirmed politically-motivated fabrications. And all of this from a poster with a history of working the refs and who cheerfully admits he’s only here to aggravate political opponents. > > We should bookmark this thread the next time someone says this site is oh so hostile to conservatives. You let chronic offenders get away with participating in large-scale harassment of a private person without so much as a slap on the wrist, and in justifying it you are complicit. Just to correct the record again, I don’t recall ever cheerfully admitting that I’m “only here to aggravate political opponents” and I don’t consider it an accurate characterization of why I’m here. And secondly, I have no idea why Breitbart keeps getting brought up. None of the sources that I cited in this post were from Breitbart: > [@The Trump Impeachment Inquiry](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4303): > > Here’s a couple of sources you can read. > > [SDMB](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21965831&postcount=25) > > [Federalist - Schiff’s Committee Published Name Of Alleged Whistleblower Last Week](https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/10/schiffs-committee-published-name-of-alleged-whistleblower-last-week/) > > [RealClearInvestigations - The Beltway’s ‘Whistleblower’ Furor Obsesses Over One Name](https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/10/30/whistleblower_exposed_close_to_biden_brennan_dnc_oppo_researcher_120996.html) > > [Washington Examiner - GOP senator names alleged whistleblower: ‘Eric Ciaramella needs to be pulled in for testimony’](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/gop-senator-names-alleged-whistleblower-eric-ciaramella-needs-to-be-pulled-in-for-testimony) ETA: ninja’d by **Bone** ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474/50 "2019-11-15T18:02:03Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Seconded. There was no legitimate reason to bring up the WB’s name (or maybe just some unfortunate bystander’s name) in that thread. I think the mods have the judgment capable of identifying why it was done, and AFAICT it’s clear that the reason it was done would violate a myriad of board rules – trolling and being a jerk, most obviously, and possibly even putting the board in legal jeopardy. Uh, the legitimate reason is the people want to know. Is there some law that prevents private individuals from giving out the name? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474/51 "2019-11-15T18:07:15Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Uh, the legitimate reason is the people want to know. AFAICT, this was the first time a poster mentioned his name in that thread, and it wasn’t in response to anyone asking who the WB was: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21971505&postcount=4362](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21971505&postcount=4362) ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474/52 "2019-11-15T18:13:13Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > AFAICT, this was the first time a poster mentioned his name in that thread, and it wasn’t in response to anyone asking who the WB was: > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21971505&postcount=4362](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21971505&postcount=4362) So? I’m sure people were wondering who it was. [Here’s](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=856859&highlight=hardwick) a thread where the very first post is a guess about who the author was writing about. Nobody was asking for that either. If there are unnamed people in the news, most people are curious about who they actually are. That’s not new. Neither I, nor any private person, owes anonymity to the whistleblower. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474/53 "2019-11-15T18:17:33Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > So? I’m sure people were wondering who it was. > > [Here’s](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=856859&highlight=hardwick) a thread where the very first post is a guess about who the author was writing about. Nobody was asking for that either. > > If there are unnamed people in the news, most people are curious about who they actually are. That’s not new. Neither I, nor any private person, owes anonymity to the whistleblower. In this case, there was a push from political factions to out the WB for intimidation purposes. IMO that clearly crosses a line that’s not present in other cases of unknown actors. I’m not saying it’s forbidden to discuss unknown actors on the Dope, even in such circumstances – I’m saying that bringing up such an incendiary “outing” in a thread not specifically about that mystery, in the way that it occurred in that thread, was not done for legitimate reasons of debate or discussion, but rather to troll (i.e. to deliberately piss people off while having no value to the discussion). ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474/54 "2019-11-15T18:22:43Z")
Not to derail the thread, but this is as good a place for the question as any, I guess: I’ve been a non-paying poster for 5 years. What benefits do you get by being a paying Charter Member? What am I missing out on? I never gave it thought but am curious. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474/55 "2019-11-15T18:24:45Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > In this case, there was a push from political factions to out the WB for intimidation purposes. IMO that clearly crosses a line that’s not present in other cases of unknown actors You’d have a stronger argument if HD was the original source of the name and posted it in a thread on a message board before anywhere else. > [@](#): > > I’m not saying it’s forbidden to discuss unknown actors on the Dope, even in such circumstances – I’m saying that bringing up such an incendiary “outing” in a thread not specifically about that mystery, in the way that it occurred in that thread, was not done for legitimate reasons of debate or discussion, but rather to troll (i.e. to deliberately piss people off while having no value to the discussion). This only holds if a reader is pissed off by seeing the name of the whistleblower. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474/56 "2019-11-15T18:26:59Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Not to derail the thread, but this is as good a place for the question as any, I guess: I’ve been a non-paying poster for 5 years. What benefits do you get by being a paying Charter Member? What am I missing out on? I never gave it thought but am curious. I got tired of the ads. ---
**Author:** ![TheCuse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thecuse/32/2854_2.png) [@TheCuse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheCuse)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474/57 "2019-11-15T18:27:48Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’m not saying it’s forbidden to discuss unknown actors on the Dope, even in such circumstances – I’m saying that bringing up such an incendiary “outing” in a thread not specifically about that mystery, in the way that it occurred in that thread, was not done for legitimate reasons of debate or discussion, but rather to troll (i.e. to deliberately piss people off while having no value to the discussion). Just because you don’t like someone’s post or how it was made does not make it trolling. ---
**Author:** ![snfaulkner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snfaulkner/32/433_2.png) [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474/58 "2019-11-15T18:30:14Z")
> [@TheCuse](#): > > Just because you don’t like someone’s post or how it was made does not make it trolling. I made an abortion joke and got a warning for trolling. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474/59 "2019-11-15T18:32:51Z")
In answer to the OP ( **JohnT** ,) I am not sure what you are suggesting should be done. Are you suggesting a moderation approach whereby those who pay money get moderated more leniently than those who don’t pay? That would be a very weird way to do it. ---
**Author:** ![TheCuse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thecuse/32/2854_2.png) [@TheCuse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheCuse)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474/60 "2019-11-15T18:35:50Z")
> [@snfaulkner](#): > > I made an abortion joke and got a warning for trolling. What kind of thread was the joke in? I mean, if it was inappropriate in that kind of discussion, maybe the warning was deserved? I honestly don’t know anything about that warning or joke. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474.md?page=4)