The “difference that would’ve made” would have been to drive off many, many posters. Many more than SA’s posts ever drove off.
If you succeed here, if you convince the mods that they should be making financial cost/benefit considerations of a poster a factor in their moderation, they won’t even have to do the calculation for me. I’ll leave. And I’m confident I won’t be alone.
I mean public forum as in, a space that people meet to talk about. Not necessarily a government-designated forum where rules are subject to strict constitutional limitations. Nevertheless I think the rules here should turn on content, not viewpoint, which is in line with the Constitutional public forums.
Anyways, you and I can agree to disagree about this. I’m curious as to how much it costs to run the board though, I’m sure the vBulletin license is long since paid for and some 33 million text-only posts would definitely fit on a mid-range dedi, and you can get those for under $2k/mo.
But I’m thinking a major source of funding comes from advertising on the archives, which is quite popular as far as websites go (that’s how I found this place!). It’s not reddit but it’s probably in the top 1% of websites by traffic.
Hmm, it seems that you are right. I was going by the thread:
But the Wayback machine itself says the number for 5/23/11 is 11,167.
~Max
But being Lucifers Barrister as usual — hasn’t that always been the case? I can’t remember the name but there was a far-leftist/communist who was the usual suspect back when I first started lurking here. And a person I would consider an asshole from my own side politically who annoyed me to the point that I bailed for a few weeks; he eventually went away. Odd thing is I believe it was mostly HD responsible for his departure.
Does it look like some of the Trump crowd gets a skate? Yeah. But some of our crowd come close IMHO as well. So the universe settles out. And we’ll always have flurries like this in ATMB.
God help me; I really do love consistency.
Ignoring the current discussion and just providing a little FYI regarding the title, there are economic benefits to trolling. I remember reading an article from a professional troll who made money by stirring up controversy in comment sections of various websites. As was mentioned here, the website makes money on ad impressions, so the more traffic a page gets, the better the revenue. If the website owner wanted more traffic, he would hire the troll to stir the pot to create controversy that would cause people to reply and come back more often. The troll said he made over 6 figures doing this. In no way do I think that’s what’s going on here on the SDMB, but I just wanted to answer the general question about if trolling has economic benefits.
I’m sorry, but could you be more specific in explaining what actions, exactly, were inciting terroristic threats?
I generally avoid political threads and see relatively few posts by those who apparently are the source of much angst among certain Dopers.
When it comes to economics, there are few ways of driving the Dope into the ground faster than forcing out the small cadre of individuals whose views are diametrically opposed to those of the vast majority of posters. Discussions inevitably will become ever more bland and boring without gadflies, and an increasing number of posters will lose interest and leave the board.
Seems counterproductive to me, but if Purity of Essence is your thing, go ahead and push 'em out.
The Trump supporters would count it as a victory, and work harder to ensure everyone else left permanently. If that killed the board that would be fine with them, since a world where nothing but the Right is allowed to be heard is something they want.
Date is going well, thanks for your concern. 
It’s intermission and ducked away for a couple of quick observations before I leave again:
Ditka and other conservatives commonly demand that the government should be run like a business. Akin to HD, I, too, wish the SDMB be run like a business, with actual financial and performance metrics. Like other successful websites. We should be measured on our financial impact.
I have also heard… many, many times… that “Democrats don’t understand business”. I have, I am assured, made my case that the loss of direct revenue-generating customers to non-paying non-customers is real, measurable, and, cumulatively, material and detrimental to the sites financial performance. I eagerly await financial analysis in rebuttal showing that the presence of “negative influencers” generates revenue which exceeds my figures, showing them to be profitable members of what is, in fact, a for-profit enterprise.
Gotta go! Thanks!
You will never get financial metrics, and mods don’t moderate based on overarching financials. I’m a volunteer. I couldnt give two shits about the financials.
Dude. People have been trying to say politely that your notion is as insane as it is impractical. It is to sound business what creationism is to sound biology. Please don’t smear Democrats by association.
You’re posting while on a date?
I don’t believe that’s a common refrain from me, and even if it were, the SDMB isn’t “the government”.
It’s not what you do, it’s who you’re with.
So JohnT, how do you think this should play out in practice? If two posters are insulting and flaming each other on the Dope, Poster A and Poster B, and the first is a paying member and the latter isn’t, should the mods step in and say, “B, you’re out of line, but A, you’re okay since your credit card payments are up to date, keep on flaming?”
I think your overall point is accurate, but narrow. Any executive analysing the SDMB as a revenue/cost centre is first going to look at whether it’s making a profit. IF they take a look beyond that, then they’ll look at the trends of the revenue streams, and whether costs are following the same patterns. So if the SDMB is making a narrow profit or loss and the membership revenue stream is declining while other revenue and costs are holding steady, then declining membership could be the metric that results in a decision to shut down this portion of the business, and allocate resources to more profitable streams.
The reason I think your point is narrow is that it ignores business churn. Businesses gain and lose customers all the time. SDMB customers are essentially message board hobbyists. People switch hobbies when they get bored, or when something new comes along. I’m not going to do a thorough review of the SDMB’s selling points and my perceptions towards their effectiveness, but I will focus on one: the SDMB is a place for message board hobbyists who enjoy engaging in, or at least reading, robust debates. Your premise seems to be that you feel that an individual is consistently debating unfairly or over-robustly, and this is driving off existing members. I suggest that the SDMB needs to focus on attracting new members and readers, and it’s only hope of doing so is by offering a quality product. Making the debates one-sided by driving off someone you disagree with isn’t going to produce robustness, it’s going to produce blandness. So sure, maybe you’re right and you’ll reduce a trickle of exiting members and their membership fees. However, if the SDMB isn’t generating content to attract new viewers and members, the remaining exiters due to normal business churn are going to bring the business down anyway.
I want to go on record as saying I find HurricaneDitka often entertaining, even tho I usually disagree with him.
I honestly think he brings something to this board. Maybe just someone to be mad at, or whatever. But I’d be sad if he left. It’s so hard to have a Great Debate if everyone has the same side.
I honestly can’t think of a member I’d want banned. I dont put anyone on ignore, even.
My viewpoint is that this thread is essentially an attack on an individual, and people joining in on that attack are representing their motivations as principled. You certainly seemed to object to revealing the name of a whistleblower with vim. Here’s your words:
I think your apparent principles towards whistleblowers are outright hypocrisy, and are only raised as part of the attack against the individual. If you stood by those principles, now that it’s been identified to you, you’d be all over the whistleblower thread. Instead you’re just making an excuse about junior-modding. Participants on this board attack the premise of an OP all the time.
How about you bookmark post #137 instead:
You’re the one who brought up conservatism, not me. To your point, I’ll merely note that my viewpoint of you as a hypocrite is a 100% honestly held opinion. Making that determination wasn’t laziness, it was effortlessness.
Oh, and you’re welcome.
Love your post, John.
Just another data point for you: I’m a guest and I use an adblock (uBlock Origins).
I don’t post much any more, in no small part because there’s no point to talking with people who aren’t posting in good faith. But when I do, I’m actually costing the Board money! 
(and no - I will not be turning off my adblock. The Straight Dope’s advertising partners have fucked up too many times.)
Seriously?! I’ve seen this “financial” case being made so many times it probably has a name.
If, as you say, that the moderation won’t be made based on a rules basis or a fairness basis or without regard to the community or growing the base of customers (which is almost always affected by the fairness basis), then the natural extension is to have bidding wars to see who can stay and who has to leave.
If someone wants you out and has $1K (or more) to back it up, then purely on a financial basis, the mods should ban you unless you can counter with more money. After all, $1K is more than any membership fee, even adjusted for inflation. I’ve seen this given as a suggestion on this board before. There were even details about how people could pool their money to get other people banned to show that more than one person wanted them out.
If you’re only talking about one person’s membership fee, I believe it’s possible that the loss in ad revenue from the loss of view count of one or more members you don’t like could outweigh one person’s (or a couple people’s) membership fee, even if you don’t believe it.
I haven’t seen this as a viable business plan on any other platform, mostly I think because it would likely make people think twice about joining which would shrink the base of customers, making it less viable. Your financial case also has that weakness. It doesn’t take into account that growing the customer base is also a financial consideration since ads are based on views and levels of engagement. A few people with money who get to determine the fate of every other poster doesn’t generally lead to thriving communities of posters.
This same financial case was made in similar fashion when Starving Artist was banned. The argument that you’ve again made was that he was chasing away members who might have been paying customers. At the time, because I was curious if this was true, I took down the number of active members, which was 3,487. The current active member count is 3,339. There are now less members than before he was banned. So if there was a surge of members who starting posting again because he was banned, there was a bigger surge of people who left since that time. I can’t know how many of them were paying members. But if the same proportion holds true, then more paying customers left than were gained. If the case is purely a financial one, the gains are not evident.
I must say, this mod complaint gets an A for originality, even if it falls flat otherwise.
Moderators call balls and strikes. Sometimes they get it wrong - just part of the game. Maybe it’s best to just go back to the dugout and post again when you’ve cooled off.