It's troll season!

[lippy 918]

[normiss 800]

7 minutes ago, lippy said:

Like I said, seeing this forum today felt like it should be renamed.

Or simply closed, ignored, and forgotten.

Peace.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

Just now, lippy said:

It's called a denial of intelligent conversation attack.

[Phil1111 1,149]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

It's called a denial of intelligent conversation attack.

Or a political activist with an agenda bigger than their brain.

[ryoder 1,590]

If it is troll season, then what is the bag limit?

[BIGUN 1,314]

19 minutes ago, ryoder said:

then what is the bag limit?

There's no limit. 

[Phil1111 1,149]

21 minutes ago, ryoder said:

If it is troll season, then what is the bag limit?

 

1 minute ago, BIGUN said:

There's no limit. 

Oh Oh! AR-15s with the extended Surefire clips.

[BIGUN 1,314]

3 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Oh Oh! AR-15s with the extended Surefire clips.

Meh. Just use a Ruger Precision - one .308 round at a time. 

[ryoder 1,590]

I was considering a compound bow with broadheads.

[Stumpy 284]

2 hours ago, lippy said:

Yep. And the mods seem unable/unwilling to take any lasting action.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

Just now, ryoder said:

I was considering a compound bow with broadheads.

You're sorta OK, I guess, but we don't help our case by threatening death, especially by firearms, in such reactionary company. While I'm there, the same goes with Trump grade name calling.

[normiss 800]

39 minutes ago, ryoder said:

I was considering a compound bow with broadheads.

It's cheaper, quieter, and lots more giggly to just take them out via the network.

implicit deny all at the very least.

[billvon 2,991]

24 minutes ago, Stumpy said:

Yep. And the mods seem unable/unwilling to take any lasting action.

We now have a system that bans people for progressively longer times.  He's well into that now.  He's something of a test case to see how the system handles a recidivist.

But in any case he will be gone for a while (again.)

[gowlerk 2,193]

53 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

You're sorta OK, I guess, but we don't help our case by threatening death, especially by firearms, in such reactionary company. While I'm there, the same goes with Trump grade name calling.

The big social media sites usually draw the line and cancel people for advocate killing. 

[normiss 800]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

The big social media sites usually draw the line and cancel people for advocate killing. 

Unless you're a Congress critter. Or a white wing nut. Or it's for gawd. Or a far-right republican. Or a January 6 insurrectionist.

 

*Conditions are dependent on social media platform, the current mood of the owner of said social media platform, relative humidity, or the angle of sunspots on the earth's atmosphere. These conditions also vary depending on state of residency or location at the time of advocation.

[ryoder 1,590]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

We now have a system that bans people for progressively longer times.  He's well into that now.  He's something of a test case to see how the system handles a recidivist.

But in any case he will be gone for a while (again.)

What possible reason is there for allowing trolls to return when you know beyond a shadow of a doubt, exactly what they will do when they return???

[JoeWeber 2,720]

Just now, ryoder said:

What possible reason is there for allowing trolls to return when you know beyond a shadow of a doubt, exactly what they will do when they return???

What goes around comes around?

[normiss 800]

23 minutes ago, ryoder said:

What possible reason is there for allowing trolls to return when you know beyond a shadow of a doubt, exactly what they will do when they return???

Job security.

[billvon 2,991]

2 hours ago, ryoder said:

What possible reason is there for allowing trolls to return when you know beyond a shadow of a doubt, exactly what they will do when they return???

On the topic of "why don't you just ban all the trolls?"  A few reasons.

1) We have a warning/ban system that works and is more consistent than the judgment of several moderators, so we are going to use it.  It accomplishes the same thing.  It bans people after several warnings, and it bans them for longer and longer periods of time as they get more warnings.

2) We are careful to not ban people who are just annoying, either to us or to the people reading the forum.  If we do that we run the risk of the forum turning into one big homogenous opinion, since anyone with (strongly) differing opinions get removed.

3) For people who are annoying, we now have the "hide" feature, which is provided for exactly that reason.  So if someone annoys you, just hide them and don't read their posts.  (And really hide them, and don't regularly post "oh I see PutinLover is back, but all I can see is 'you have hidden this content' because I have hidden them and thus never even notice them any more, or whatever they are posting!")

4) Underlying all this is the question "what is trolling?"  We have a handy definition in the rules - it's "posting inflammatory material specifically to provoke a negative response from someone."  But what is that exactly?  Is a troll someone who posts 50 times a year on the "sacrifices to the second amendment" thread, constantly complaining about basically the same thing in order to annoy conservatives?  (innocent lives lost via gun violence) 100 times a year?  How about someone who constantly posts "I hate Biden" or "I hate Trump" to annoy others?  Or who always denies climate change is happening, or always supports climate change science?  Because a few regular posters who most people would not consider trolls fall into those categories.

We can (and do) go after people who are obviously trolling, but we also err on the side of not warning/banning people if it's unclear whether they are doing it to annoy people or because they believe their own woo.

[billvon 2,991]

2 hours ago, normiss said:

Job security.

True.  We would lose our well paying jobs if we didn't have more work to do.

[ryoder 1,590]

A useful feature would be that each time a post is made, the poster cannot make another post until after someone else posts in the same forum. That would make the image in Post #1 impossible to duplicate.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

7 hours ago, billvon said:

We now have a system that bans people for progressively longer times.  He's well into that now.  He's something of a test case to see how the system handles a recidivist.

But in any case he will be gone for a while (again.)

Just out of curiosity, what's his average 'time from reinstatement to re-ban'?

It seems like the last few times, he's lasted maybe a day or two before being gone again.

I know that under the 'old rules', permabans weren't super common and were clearly earned.

How many more chances does someone get?
If you can't answer in this particular case, can you give a general answer?

[wmw999 2,447]

We don’t know if the software has a limit; it’s not stated. But you’re right, he’s only lasted a couple of days each time recently

Wendy P. 

[lippy 918]

25 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Just out of curiosity, what's his average 'time from reinstatement to re-ban'?

It seems like the last few times, he's lasted maybe a day or two before being gone again.

I know that under the 'old rules', permabans weren't super common and were clearly earned.

How many more chances does someone get?
If you can't answer in this particular case, can you give a general answer?

WaltAppel was a lot of fun, until he wasn't....

[billvon 2,991]

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Just out of curiosity, what's his average 'time from reinstatement to re-ban'?

For the person we are talking about?  A few days until he does something clear.  And given that his ban time is up to a month, that is a fairly low duty cycle.