"Trolling"

[Formerly Californian Tony]

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=116695.0

OK, that's it.

Please stop Libertas baiting.  It just produces the same tedious conversation over and over again.  This topic is being closed No Violation Counted, but any future Libertas-baiting threads will be deleted as "trolling."

Ok, so there is a retarded troll who is posting there since months, and no moderator ever dared to do something about him. But now that some people have started to treat him for what he is, he suddenly becomes a poor victim of the nasty forumer.

As far as I use to apreciate moderator's job, and as I like Mikado as an user, this is utterly ridiculous. The troll can keep trolling as he wants, but criticizing the troll is "trolling". Guys, if you want to really solve the Libertas problems, handle the problem itself and not its consequences.

X Antonio V

[President Marokai]

I'm not sure I entirely know why Libertas is still here anyway. It's not like he cares about the news or seriously discussing politics. His only reason for staying here seems to just be annoying people. Why someone like that reminds but productive people get scolded is beyond me.

[Lunar]

Ok, so there is a retarded troll who is posting there since months, and no moderator ever dared to do something about him.

Outside of putting him on mod review (I think, maybe I have him confused with one of Hamilton's socks), deleting his posts, contacting him privately to curb abusive behavior etcetcetc?

[President Marokai]

In fairness you are overreacting a tad, Antonio.

[Formerly Californian Tony]

In fairness you are overreacting a tad, Antonio.

Yes, I'm aware I overreacted.
I acted so because I have really difficullties to understand this kind of treatment. Criticizing a poster for what he does is by no way trolling - contrary to what Libertas does. What I can't bear is when an authority that is supposed to set rules for a better forum acts in a totally illogical way. A wrong use of power discredits the power itself, which is a bad thing.

[The Mikado]

OK, question time:

One thread on this board criticizes moderators for selective enforcement of the rules, because a poster well-liked by some (bgwah) was supposedly getting a raw deal.
Another thread criticizes a moderator (me) for enforcing the rule against personal attacks because people wanted an opportunity to slam one of our least-popular posters.

Is this hypocrisy?

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

I can see only one reason to let the troll to get away with trollings. If the troll is not very active and is actually funny. That's why Vander Blubb is still around.

Yet, what the hell, Mikado? You're ignoring that one of the most prolific and, sadly serious, troll is trolling all the way, and you're defending him as a "victim"? WTF? While you're not reacting to Rochambeau baiting, as Roch really improved and can take criticism?

If this is not a f**king hipocrisy, what is?

[Vasall des Midas]

OK, question time:

One thread on this board criticizes moderators for selective enforcement of the rules, because a poster well-liked by some (bgwah) was supposedly getting a raw deal.
Another thread criticizes a moderator (me) for enforcing the rule against personal attacks because people wanted an opportunity to slam one of our least-popular posters.

Is this hypocrisy?

This is the normal human mind at work. It's why violent crime with middle-class victims (and especially police crime with non-lumpenproletarian victims) attracts such a hugely unfair share of attention.

[The Mikado]

I can see only one reason to let the troll to get away with trollings. If the troll is not very active and is actually funny. That's why Vander Blubb is still around.

Yet, what the hell, Mikado? You're ignoring that one of the most prolific and, sadly serious, troll is trolling all the way, and you're defending him as a "victim"? WTF? While you're not reacting to Rochambeau baiting, as Roch really improved and can take criticism?

If this is not a f**king hipocrisy, what is?

I don't like Libertas any more than you do.  That's completely irrelevant.  What is relevant is that every thread about him degenerates into flamewars and an unproductive mess.  There are three ways this could be handled:

A.  Libertas being banned.  Dave has shown no inclination to do so.
B.  Me laying back and letting you guys flame Libertas.  This solution has a lot of problems: 1.  it clutters the board, 2. it'd be blatant favoritism on my part to let people say things about Libertas that I wouldn't let them say about anyone on here I actually like, and 3. It just encourages Libertas to dig in his heels and redouble his efforts.
C.  Try to halt unproductive flaming Libertas bashing and encouraging everyone to ignore him and stop accepting his flame bait.  The threads about him are redundant.  We know you don't like him.  That said, he's not a "outside the protection of the TOS" poster like an already banned person like Hamilton or Robert Stark is.  Just hope for the system to work.  You'd better believe that his worst posts get flagged and I've started a "9/11 Trutherism" thread on the Mod Board asking Dave to please lay down a site policy on such talk, but until it's instituted, just leave well enough alone.

[All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.]

So you want to censor truthers? Ridiculous.

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

So you want to censor truthers? Why? Ridiculous.

DU and Daily Kos do.

[All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.]

So you want to censor truthers? Why? Ridiculous.

DU and Daily Kos do.

And they both suck. Big time.

[Tuck!]

So you want to censor truthers? Why? Ridiculous.

DU and Daily Kos do.

And they both suck.

[State Comptroller Atkins]

"Censorship" can only be carried out by the government.

[Jayhawker]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/retarded

Main Entry: re·tard·ed
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈtär-dəd\
Function: adjective
Date: 1895
sometimes offensive : slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development or academic progress

I really wish people would quit using that word to describe a person they find as idiotic.  Retardation is something people normally can't help. Saying it in this context is insulting and disturbing to anyone who is actually retarded.

[Kuu ülevaade olulisematest]

Euphemism creep is a fact of life.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

So you want to censor truthers? Ridiculous.

     Agreed. People should be allowed to say whatever they want to say as long as they are not threatening other people, no matter how baseless or crazy it might be. If I want to claim that gophers are in fact evil shapeshifting aliens from the fifth planet orbiting Canopus, I should be allowed to do so.

[Lunar]

So you want to censor truthers? Ridiculous.

     Agreed. People should be allowed to say whatever they want to say as long as they are not threatening other people, no matter how baseless or crazy it might be.

That's fine, but this forum has other rules well established.  I mean, spam, profanity, personal attacks, and tons of other non-threatening posts are already established as against Dave's wishes for his private forum.   

In all honesty, I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this topic and would love to hear more feedback from the community to inform my own perspective.  However, your argument here provides no real relevancy to the current system.  I don't personally agree with his prohibition on profanity, for example, but I still respect it.  So the perspectives I'm most interested in are ones that operate within the existing foundational rules Dave has already given.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

So you want to censor truthers? Ridiculous.

     Agreed. People should be allowed to say whatever they want to say as long as they are not threatening other people, no matter how baseless or crazy it might be.

That's fine, but this forum has other rules well established.  I mean, spam, profanity, personal attacks, and tons of other non-threatening posts are already established as against Dave's wishes for his private forum.   

In all honesty, I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this topic and would love to hear more feedback from the community to inform my own perspective.  However, your argument here provides no real relevancy to the current system.  I don't personally agree with his prohibition on profanity, for example, but I still respect it.  So the perspectives I'm most interested in are ones that operate within the existing foundational rules Dave has already given.

     Since this forum is Dave's private property, it is his prerogative to establish the rules that govern it. If he wished to, he would be within his rights to ban the use of the letter "w". I was merely giving my opinion on the notion of banning trutherism & censorship in general, which became too generalized since I had forgotten about the issue of spam.

[Lunar]

So you want to censor truthers? Ridiculous.

     Agreed. People should be allowed to say whatever they want to say as long as they are not threatening other people, no matter how baseless or crazy it might be.

That's fine, but this forum has other rules well established.  I mean, spam, profanity, personal attacks, and tons of other non-threatening posts are already established as against Dave's wishes for his private forum.   

In all honesty, I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this topic and would love to hear more feedback from the community to inform my own perspective.  However, your argument here provides no real relevancy to the current system.  I don't personally agree with his prohibition on profanity, for example, but I still respect it.  So the perspectives I'm most interested in are ones that operate within the existing foundational rules Dave has already given.

     Since this forum is Dave's private property, he has the right to establish the rules that govern it. If he wished to, he would be within his rights to ban the use of the letter "w". I was merely giving my opinion on the notion of banning trutherism & censorship in general, which became too generalized since I had forgotten about the issue of spam.

Yeah we're both in agreement here.

But I'm most interested in hearing arguments that exist within Dave's framework, and least interested in ones that exist outside of it.  It's not hard at all for me to think about what I would do if I were admin, but I most like hearing differing opinions that exist within the framework that I'm forced to operate in.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

     Well I suppose the case could be made that Dave affords us free reign to post things that contribute constructively to argument, something which spamming & making threats does not do. Profanity is an exception to this rule, so as to keep the site school-friendly.

     With that said, I suggest that they should be permitted to promulgate their viewpoint just like anyone else as long as they are not breaking any of the other rules laid out by Dave. We may think that they are crazy, but I think that we should continue the current policy of tolerance of...unpopular viewpoints & not punish truthers or birthers, provided that they are making a good faith effort to contribute to discourse.

[Formerly Californian Tony]

This is not an issue about truthers.
The problem with Libertas isn't his obnoxious views, but the way he expresses them, and the way he treats people who disagree with him. Obviously you noticed that everybody hates him, but isn't it justified ? Saying the truth about such a poster is "trolling" now ? It's not like Libertas was the victim of an evil coalition of posters, he just got what he deserved.