Let’s Get It Straight On Trolling

[Shulem]

IHAQ got this right upthread. Threads that address board behavior and dynamics (i.e., “board drama”) traditionally belong in Terrestial.

I think you mean “Telestial” but yes, that’s where it belongs and I’m surprised it hasn’t already been moved.

It belongs in a non-Mormon forum. And I too am surprised. I hope Shades is doing okay.

[I Have Questions]

How about having this thread tossed into the appropriate forum and 30 day suspension for MG because he has violated the rules so many times as of late?

Is that fair?

I think it should be moved yes, but I’d have to see the section of the forum rules that outline grounds for suspension.

Shulem’s point is that MG has been allowed to repeatedly violate both the letter and the spirit of board rules over a long period of time. I’ve no idea why Shades shows MG such favouritism, but he does. Perhaps a deal has been done, or MG has leverage over Shades. But it’s undeniable that he’s been shown grace and favour regardless of how disruptive and abhorrent his posting has been, and regardless of how many times he does the exact same thing. Only Shades can answer that. I’ve asked him several times and he’s refusing to answer.

[Res Ipsa]

Hi MG. I hope you and yours are well.

Ok, but what you intended bears little resemblance to what I read in the OP. If you want to show patterns, you have to cite a bunch of examples and have to show how they fit a pattern. You didn’t cite a single example, let alone enough to show a pattern.

And you never defined the pattern you were attempting to show. You threw a bunch of terms out that have some relevance to trolling, but never used them to define the pattern you were attempting to show. Some of the terms you threw out have nothing to do with our situation here. Like Wikistalking. We aren’t a wiki. Or sealioning. There are folks who sealion here, but that’s not what the people who annoy you do.

And as far as public shaming, it’s self contradictory to say that we all know who you’re talking about but that you don’t want to publicly shame them. Public shaming is exactly what you did. I’m mean, you publicly called for banning them. Can’t be much more shaming than that.

So, I get what you say you intended to do. I just don’t see any evidence of it. That’s why I went with parody.

…

Let’s see. You intended to provoke a reaction. You correctly predicted the reaction you got. And you’re somehow disappointed? You know the definition of insanity, right?

This isn’t an inspirational Book of Mormon story. When you call people to repentance, they aren’t going to fall down on their knees and confess their sins to you. And you don’t need them to. We all know trolling when we see it. When someone trolls you, we don’t need them to admit it in order to recognize it. So what’s the point other than public shaming?

You’re discounted that, once again, people won’t discuss a topic the way you want them to. That’s something you’re just going to have to get over. People talk about what they want to talk about. You can’t control that. That’s not unique to you. We’ve all tried to raise an aspect of a topic that we wanted to discuss in a certain way, only to find that no one else is interested in doing so. Either the topic starves for lack of interest or it rockets off in an unplanned direction. You can either take your marbles and go home or go with the flow. But you can’t make people say what you want them to say.

…

I don’t have to put the onus back on you. It always was on you to make your point. Of you weren’t trying to troll, then I’d say you were lazy about making your point. Defining and establishing patterns takes work, and you didn’t put in the work. That’s why it reads like trolling (most trolling is low effort).

…

This is one of your typical trolling efforts. It’s passive-aggressive trolling. You don’t actually accuse other posters of something — you just insinuate it. Some may rise to your bait simply because you are intentionally imprecise about the negative inference you are drawing.

…

Trolling has nothing to do with echo chambers. Trolling doesn’t express a point of view. It’s a tactic to irritate, annoy and get an emotional rose out of someone. It is hard to fight against because there’s no there there - nothing substantive to push back against. That’s why, on the individual level, blocking and ignoring are your friends. It won’t stop the trolls, but it will stop you from being trolled.

I appreciate your input and thoughts, Res Ipsa. I hope all is well with you and yours also.

Thanks. We had a nasty cold/flu thing hit three of us, but we're all at the very tail end and feeling much better. We're looking forward to No Kings this weekend.

We obviously see things differently. In my estimation the patterns of behavior and trollish behavior have been self evident over time. Otherwise I wouldn't have taken the time and effort to bring it to the forefront.

That's what I said -- we all recognize trolling when we see it. So why all the rigamarole about patterns and trolling taxonomy?

I do think that in one way or another the troll techniques I've mentioned earlier are and have been an ongoing problem.

That's demonstrably false in some cases. Wikistalking never occurs here. I challenge you to provide evidence of a pattern of sealioning directed at you. However, it is true that you are trolled on a regular basis.

I suppose we will have to set our differing opinions and what counts as evidence on the table.

OK, you first, as it was your OP that kicked off the discussion. What are your opinions that differ from mine, and what do you contend counts as evidence?

I realize that as a lawyer you will have different standards of argument and requirements for evidence than I do. I'm comfortable with what I've presented and the way in which I did so.

I love this thought stopping cliché. When I see it, I understand it as "I can't defend my point, so I'll excuse my inability by pointing out that you're a lawyer." Then I chuckle, evilly. How do your "standards" of argument and evidence differ from mine? Do you actually know what mine are?

I'll have to live with that and will leave it there.

Do you expect anyone here to believe that?

[Limnor]

I think it should be moved yes, but I’d have to see the section of the forum rules that outline grounds for suspension.

Shulem’s point is that MG has been allowed to repeatedly violate both the letter and the spirit of board rules over a long period of time. I’ve no idea why Shades shows MG such favouritism, but he does. Perhaps a deal has been done, or MG has leverage over Shades. But it’s undeniable that he’s been shown grace and favour regardless of how disruptive and abhorrent his posting has been, and regardless of how many times he does the exact same thing. Only Shades can answer that. I’ve asked him several times and he’s refusing to answer.

That’s a fair read and yeah I’ve been here long enough now to have seen the repeated behavior. It’s just unclear to me if there are any specific rules about what counts against suspension.

Could be shades wants to avoid the perception of an echo chamber? I don’t know.

Edited: UNclear

[Res Ipsa]

IHAQ got this right upthread. Threads that address board behavior and dynamics (i.e., “board drama”) traditionally belong in Terrestial.

I think you mean “Telestial” but yes, that’s where it belongs and I’m surprised it hasn’t already been moved.

Yes! Thanks for the correction.

[Res Ipsa]

Shulem’s point is that MG has been allowed to repeatedly violate both the letter and the spirit of board rules over a long period of time. I’ve no idea why Shades shows MG such favouritism, but he does. Perhaps a deal has been done, or MG has leverage over Shades. But it’s undeniable that he’s been shown grace and favour regardless of how disruptive and abhorrent his posting has been, and regardless of how many times he does the exact same thing. Only Shades can answer that. I’ve asked him several times and he’s refusing to answer.

That’s a fair read and yeah I’ve been here long enough now to have seen the repeated behavior. It’s just clear to me if there are any specific rules about what counts against suspension.

Could be shades wants to avoid the perception of an echo chamber? I don’t know.

There are rules that govern conduct but none that dictate consequences. That's up to the mod team's discretion. Despite the torches and pitchforks, the purpose of suspending posting privileges is not punitive, but corrective.

[Shulem]

It’s just unclear to me if there are any specific rules about what counts against suspension.

I've been suspended a couple of times since my inception on Shade's original board in which I signed up on day 1 as one of the first posters. One of those suspensions grounded me in the Telestial forum for quite a while. Others were suspensions from posting for a set duration of time.

[Shulem]

There are rules that govern conduct but none that dictate consequences. That's up to the mod team's discretion. Despite the torches and pitchforks, the purpose of suspending posting privileges is not punitive, but corrective.

I would love to see MG banned but would settle for a suspension. Something has to be done. Let's not let mercy rob justice in this case. The weasel needs to be punished, strung up, and whipped.

[Limnor]

That’s a fair read and yeah I’ve been here long enough now to have seen the repeated behavior. It’s just clear to me if there are any specific rules about what counts against suspension.

Could be shades wants to avoid the perception of an echo chamber? I don’t know.

There are rules that govern conduct but none that dictate consequences. That's up to the mod team's discretion. Despite the torches and pitchforks, the purpose of suspending posting privileges is not punitive, but corrective.

As a corrective action I could be persuaded that suspension is required, though at the end of the day it’s up to shades and his team. Frankly I don’t think anything will work as corrective. He’ll just find something else.

[Res Ipsa]

There are rules that govern conduct but none that dictate consequences. That's up to the mod team's discretion. Despite the torches and pitchforks, the purpose of suspending posting privileges is not punitive, but corrective.

As a corrective action I could be persuaded that suspension is required, though at the end of the day it’s up to shades and his team. Frankly I don’t think anything will work as corrective. He’ll just find something else.

I haven't been paying attention. Not my remit anymore.