# 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:** 4
**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, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474/61 "2019-11-15T18:36:59Z")
> [@](#): > > 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 Seems clear to me that he wants Moderators to moderate according to how **JohnT** wants things moderated, and he’s using a flimsy economical argument to try to persuade them. ---
**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, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474/62 "2019-11-15T18:38:31Z")
> [@TheCuse](#): > > 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. Honestly i don’t remember and im not gonna go search for it. But i think it was in a poll about abortion. And it was a very mild joke. ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474/63 "2019-11-15T18:39:13Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > By my reading, the quotes in the OP don’t qualify as warnable, except for maybe the “his own ignorance” one which might be borderline (the rest seem like characterizations of arguments, and in my understanding, negative characterizations of arguments have generally been allowed). But there are numerous other posts in that thread that did seem warnable, to me – sealioning, egregious misogyny, and what appeared to me to be blatant trolling. > > 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? I have to agree- if it’s ok for HD to make his comments without censure, why can’t JohnT say someone’s arguments are weak without catching a warning? Can I say that moderating was weaksauce, or will I get a warning for that? ---
**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, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474/64 "2019-11-15T18:40:06Z")
> [@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) No, his name was mentioned (by me in the headline of the Washington Examiner article) in post #4302, about 2.5 hours and one page, prior. And it was a direct response to **Procrustus** asking me “Do we have any evidence that would meet any standard to establish who the whistle blower is?” ---
**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, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474/65 "2019-11-15T18:43:31Z")
> [@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? It was because of the call to not respond to a particular poster. Weak sauce as a characterization of an argument is not a problem. Implying that a poster isn’t worth responding to is personalization in a way that characterizing an argument as poor is not. ---
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474/66 "2019-11-15T18:46:01Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Thank you for this. Given how often we are accused of bias by right wing posters, a post like this is an affirmation that the moderation is even handed. Being accused of bias by both the far right and the far left is a pretty good indication of a lack of bias. Or a split-personality disorder. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474/67 "2019-11-15T18:48:20Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > It was because of the call to not respond to a particular poster. Weak sauce as a characterization of an argument is not a problem. Implying that a poster isn’t worth responding to is personalization in a way that characterizing an argument as poor is not. Yes, for Heavens sake. Why is it so difficult for people to realize that no poster gets to preclude others from participating? That includes encouraging other posters not to interact with another poster. ---
**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, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474/68 "2019-11-15T18:50:46Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > Yes, for Heavens sake. Why is it so difficult for people to realize that no poster gets to preclude others from participating? That includes encouraging other posters not to interact with another poster. Really? Because it seems to me like a certain group of posters has done a fantastic job of precluding others from posting here. ---
**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, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474/69 "2019-11-15T18:53:48Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > It was because of the call to not respond to a particular poster. Weak sauce as a characterization of an argument is not a problem. Implying that a poster isn’t worth responding to is personalization in a way that characterizing an argument as poor is not. > [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > Yes, for Heavens sake. Why is it so difficult for people to realize that no poster gets to preclude others from participating? That includes encouraging other posters not to interact with another poster. Given that context, could we briefly revisit something from earlier in this ATMB thread that irritated me: > [@galen\_ubal](#): > > … I will not engage with him anymore, and I suggest that every poster do the same - except, of course, for the moderators. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474/70 "2019-11-15T18:53:54Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Because it is impossible that one side is correct and the other side isn’t? This is so utterly wrong-headed that it deserves further comment. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the role of the moderators, which is very surprising coming from a former moderator. Our role is _not_ to decide which side of an argument is right or wrong. It’s to serve as referees between the sides. Even in GQ, if someone posts something that is blatantly factually incorrect, it’s not my role _as a moderator_ to correct it. Instead, I will correct it _as a poster_, or leave it to other posters to correct it. If moderators started to moderate based on their personal views of what is right and wrong, I can guarantee you wouldn’t like it, especially considering there is a diversity of views on the moderation staff. ---
**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, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474/71 "2019-11-15T18:58:25Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > This is so utterly wrong-headed that it deserves further comment. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the role of the moderators, which is very surprising coming from a former moderator. > > Our role is _not_ to decide which side of an argument is right or wrong. It’s to serve as referees between the sides. Even in GQ, if someone posts something that is blatantly factually incorrect, it’s not my role _as a moderator_ to correct it. Instead, I will correct it _as a poster_, or leave it to other posters to correct it. > > If moderators started to moderate based on their personal views of what is right and wrong, I can guarantee you wouldn’t like it, especially considering there is a diversity of views on the moderation staff. That’s not what the post you’re responding to is about. The post is suggesting that maybe one side of the complaints about moderation might be correct. That your insistence that because both sides complain about bias in moderation, that means that the complaints are baseless, is ridiculous. If “both sides” are complaining about bias from, say, the governor of Illinois, that doesn’t logically mean that the complaints of both sides are invalid. Some of the complaints might be totally correct, and the existence of complaints on the “opposite” side doesn’t invalidate those complaints. I’ll note again that I think the moderation is pretty good. But your justification for dismissing these complaints is just nonsense, IMO. ---
**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, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474/72 "2019-11-15T18:59:35Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Given that context, could we briefly revisit something from earlier in this ATMB thread that irritated me: Context. That’s rich. ---
**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, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474/73 "2019-11-15T19:00:22Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > That’s not what the post you’re responding to is about. The post is suggesting that maybe one side of the complaints about moderation might be correct. That your insistence that because both sides complain, that means that the complaints are baseless, is ridiculous. If “both sides” are complaining about, say, the governor of Illinois, that doesn’t logically mean that the complaints of both sides are invalid. Some of the complaints might be totally correct, and the existence of complaints on the “opposite” side doesn’t invalidate those complaints. Forget it **iiandyiiii** , if my complaints are worthless because I’m on the “far left” (lol) I don’t even KNOW where that puts _you_. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474/74 "2019-11-15T19:05:04Z")
> [@snfaulkner](#): > > Context. That’s rich. No, he’s right. I can go report 10 posts right now from people saying “don’t engage with HD,” just from the last 2 days. If that’s what JohnT got warned for why is it being selectively enforced? ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474/75 "2019-11-15T19:06:06Z")
> [@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. > [@Skywatcher](#): > > [This certainly isn’t.](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21973996&postcount=10) Care to explain why _you_ referred to a specific post as “sea-lioning”, which goes specifically against your colleague’s instructions, but did not issue a warning? Apparently not. ---
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474/76 "2019-11-15T19:06:26Z")
> [@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. It’s interesting that there’s a thread in Elections with the explicit title “Who is the Whistleblower?”, up for 4 days, with 44 responses, and not a single objection in- thread or directed to the OP. I would think that if people had strong opinions on identifying whistleblowers such as “participating in the terrorizing of possibly uninvolved people”, they would be commenting in that thread instead of piling on an individual in this one. ---
**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, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474/77 "2019-11-15T19:10:26Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > No, he’s right. I can go report 10 posts right now from people saying “don’t engage with HD,” just from the last 2 days. If that’s what JohnT got warned for why is it being selectively enforced? I have the same question, but … I don’t think **JohnT** was warned. This thread got started not based off a warning he received but as an announcement that he has decided not to renew his membership. ---
**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, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474/78 "2019-11-15T19:11:01Z")
> [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > It’s interesting that there’s a thread in Elections with the explicit title “Who is the Whistleblower?”, up for 4 days, with 44 responses, and not a single objection in- thread or directed to the OP. I would think that if people had strong opinions on identifying whistleblowers such as “participating in the terrorizing of possibly uninvolved people”, they would be commenting in that thread instead of piling on an individual in this one. The difference being that A) we can opt to not read that thread and B) in no way did Ditka drop the WB name in the impeachment thread to be informative. He did to act in ways counter to board rule #1 ---
**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, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474/79 "2019-11-15T19:11:09Z")
> [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > It’s interesting that there’s a thread in Elections with the explicit title “Who is the Whistleblower?”, up for 4 days, with 44 responses, and not a single objection in- thread or directed to the OP. I would think that if people had strong opinions on identifying whistleblowers such as “participating in the terrorizing of possibly uninvolved people”, they would be commenting in that thread instead of piling on an individual in this one. It’s especially interesting that the name is mentioned in post #23 of that thread, a full 3 days before **HD** listed some sources that mentioned the name, sources that include a post on this message board that explicitly mentions the name. ---
**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, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474/80 "2019-11-15T19:15:45Z")
> [@snfaulkner](#): > > The difference being that A) we can opt to not read that thread and B) in no way did Ditka drop the WB name in the impeachment thread to be informative. He did to be a jerk. It abso-fucking-lutely was to be “informative”. It first got mentioned as a direct response to this query by **Procrustus** : > [@The Trump Impeachment Inquiry](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4293): > > Do we have _any_ evidence that would meet _any_ standard to establish who the whistle blower is? I don’t visit Brietbart’s web site, so maybe I missed it. If this were really about the whistleblower, at least some of your anger ought to be directed at **Procrustus** for asking about it, but I don’t think it really has much of anything to do with Ciaramella’s identity. I think it’s mostly posters mad at me and looking for an excuse to try and have me silenced. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economics-of-trolling-the-sdmb-and-moderator-decisions/843474.md?page=5)