You don’t know what a troll is.
If you are an avowed White supremacist and you go out of your way to “own the libs” by posting racist garbage on a message board not devoted to White supremacy then you are trolling. It doesn’t matter if you really sincerely hate Black people.
Intent matters.
Colibri would have agreed with @Chingon:
Excuse me, I’d like a direct answer to my earlier concern. I did not use the term trolling, although I indicated why I suspect you feel those specific individuals ended up getting banned.
I specifically brought up that one of the posters you cited in your group to bring back repeatedly violated the rules, to the tune of earning 4 warnings in less than a two year period. From your arguments to date, which strongly supported my earlier suspicions, it isn’t so much you want to bring back posters, as to remove the rules that regulate the board speech, and having done that, invite the posters to participate in the free for all.
At which point your posts are better suited to the current ‘Revised Rules’ ATMB thread. Because as things stand, those posters were not able to follow the rules as written which lead to the ban. Sure, you may feel that the rules as written lead to them being reported and banned, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t break the rules.
Maybe this should be another thread but I will ask here.
If I hold an opinion that women are inferior to men and I really believe it (I don’t, just for argument’s sake) I will absolutely inflame others. Is that trolling?
And you’ve just accused me of dishonesty. I thought that accusing other posters of lying was against the rules, but I just tried to look up the rule and couldn’t find it, so maybe I’m wrong. But your impugning my motives as nefarious is a jerky act, which is against the rules. See how easy this is?
(Moderators, please note that I’m engaging in debate and do not want any action taken against MrDibble. I’m trying, whether successfully or not, to show how easy it is to frame an impassioned argument as being in violation of the SDMB rules. (If this gets too off-topic, I’ll drop it.))
No. They’re two different things. Being disagreeable isn’t trolling. That one is covered by the SDMB rules: “be aware that the fact that a poster consistently makes you mad doesn’t automatically make them a troll.” It comes down to whether you want to have an open discussion or not, and if you only want the open discussion to be when you disagree with the opposing party, but not when they disagree with you.
I think it will depend on context.
If there was a thread about men’s soccer versus women’s soccer and someone talked about a high school boys’ soccer team playing against the women’s USA Olympic soccer team, and you argued that the high school team would win, that might bring an argument but wouldn’t be trolling (depending on what language you used or otherwise how you presented your argument).
If there was a thread praising a woman who won a Nobel Peace Prize and you posted that no woman could ever deserve it over a man, because men are objectively and inherently better in making the world more peaceful, then it would be hard not seeing that as trolling.
I presume this was directed at me.
From the SDMB rules trolling is: “purposely inflammatory remarks (i.e., trolling)”.
You’re right, by that definition, I don’t know what trolling is. That standard is ridiculous. You’ve just engaged in a “purposely inflammatory remark”. The actual standard should be if someone has a considered opinion which they’re able to back up when questioned Your comment also wasn’t a nice one, so you’re outside of the rules interpretation that you should “play nice”.
I’d like to try to steer the topic back to the OP, but it’s pointless to do so. As others have pointed out near the beginning of the tread, the first rule of the SDMB is “Don’t be a jerk” and the moderators are the deciders on who’s a jerk. I’d like the moderators to be less ban-happy, but I’m sure they disagree with that characterisation. A ban amnesty, if anyone took it up, wouldn’t change how the rules are enforced and how they are directed at opinionated posters.
You presume incorrectly.
I don’t believe in Jesus Christ, or in heaven. But when i go to a Christian funeral, i don’t mention those honestly held beliefs. I cringe a little inside when i hear the parents talking about how their daughter is in heaven, but when i talk to them, i just talk about how much i enjoyed their daughter, and nice things i remember about her.
Because I’m not a troll.
So yes, it depends on context.
Didn’t the poster in question get 4 (!) warnings and numerous mod notes in a two year period?
You likely, based on prior posting habits, feel that they pulled more warnings because as a conservative poster, they’re more likely to be reported (just in terms of numbers), but all the warnings were for actual violations of terms.
If you feel “other posters get away with” stuff, you should be flagging such things.
ETA - I’m not commenting on the others, because I didn’t participate as a poster in those eras, and while I have opinions, don’t feel informed enough to judge on the older examples.
Yeah, I skipped your question because it was boring. I’ve never reported any poster. I’ve had differing opinions in threads with all five of the posters I wish hadn’t been banned. I’ve had differing opinions with many other posters, including several in this thread. I’d like the posters I disagree with to stick around because they challenge my opinions and my opinions may be wrong. Also, their opinions may be based on knowledge and experiences I’m not aware of. I feel the same way about other posters that take direct or indirect opinions about my personal beliefs. I value what they say if it’s on topic. I don’t really care if it’s off-topic and directed at me. As above, I usually find it boring and don’t respond.
If you post it in a place where you know people generally aren’t misogynist assholes, then yes, you are trolling.
It’s not like posting, say, support for a musician or TV show that’s generally disliked. That’s disagreement.
It’s posting bigotry about a group that includes members of this board, and that strikes against deeper-held convictions than music tastes or sports team fandom or the like. It’s a sincere atheist standing up in a church to loudly deny God exists - trolling.
I already dealt with this stupid argument. I disagree about lots of things with lots of people here that aren’t trolls.
Like others have said - context. But in the context of most threads on this board, I’d go with “yes”.
I don’t think you’re deliberately lying. I think you’re not followed the logic of your own statements. If you’re being dishonest, it’s with yourself.
I’m not impugning your motives in that sentence. Only your logic. I’m saying you haven’t thought your argument through.
Outside the Pit, it is.
Wasn’t what I was going for, though, so my apologies. I was intending to tell you to examine why it is you think there’s board bias when you’re the one not being active.
It qualifies it with “automatically” and that’s right. Lots of posters who sometimes make me mad aren’t trolls, just assholes. I’ve been one, I know.
But one of the things that does make me mad is … trolling. Which is why that rule says “automatically” and not “ever”. You have cause and effect reversed.
I don’t.
Because the “open” discussions here in the past have been used to question the intellect of Blacks, the mental health of trans people, and the worth and dignity of women. No thanks.