***Official PSF Moderation Thread*** (1 Viewer)

[GoBirds]

Report ignored  :X

Always is. 

 

[-fish-]

Good to know.  I agree with GoBirds here.  Calling Trump a moron shouldn't mean I can't check in on the bourbon thread. 

Bad news:  you can't check out the bourbon thread

Good news:  you can still be Trump's chief of staff.

 

[[scooter]]

Copied from T.J.'s thread (I thought we should have the discussion here, just in case T.J.'s thread mysteriously disappears):

Now, what does the word “trolling” mean to you?

Sorry. Is this trolling? I’m bored, yes. And do I enjoy poking? Yes. But it’s also true that the mindset I read on this board in particular just further ingrains my “anti that mindset” and I post sometimes for the sole purpose of getting under people’s skin. If that’s trolling, then whatever. 

I appreciate T.J.'s honesty here. Many posters have suspected that various Trump defenders were trolling, but none of them would ever admit to it, and unfortunately the moderators have continually given those posters every possible benefit of the doubt.

I can understand how it might be frustrating to see a Republican president getting criticized again and again and again. Under normal circumstances, the proper response would be to defend the president's behavior. But Trump's actions are often indefensible. And so what happens is that Trump defenders resort to "getting under people's skin" because it's the only response that has any effect.

I hope that the moderators take a long look at T.J.'s thread and use his mentality and his methods as a guideline for dealing with future posters who are suspected of trolling.

 

[HellToupee]

Scooter had to be a teachers pet. 

My goodness

smh

 

[[scooter]]

Scooter had to be a teachers pet. 

My goodness

smh

You can choose to debate the merits of a post, or you can choose defensiveness and trolling.

 

[Dedfin]

Copied from T.J.'s thread (I thought we should have the discussion here, just in case T.J.'s thread mysteriously disappears):

I appreciate T.J.'s honesty here. Many posters have suspected that various Trump defenders were trolling, but none of them would ever admit to it, and unfortunately the moderators have continually given those posters every possible benefit of the doubt.

I can understand how it might be frustrating to see a Republican president getting criticized again and again and again. Under normal circumstances, the proper response would be to defend the president's behavior. But Trump's actions are often indefensible. And so what happens is that Trump defenders resort to "getting under people's skin" because it's the only response that has any effect.

I hope that the moderators take a long look at T.J.'s thread and use his mentality and his methods as a guideline for dealing with future posters who are suspected of trolling.

Meh. Id much rather have people like TJ and Scat who are legit bad but geniune people over people like Quez/Qanon NFLsomethingorother. I know this is a false dichotomy, but Joe likes most of them and wants them around, so you gotta pick one group of them.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Yes, what TJ described is trolling.

 

[Guest]

At this point it seems like the moderation itself has been gaslit.

When there's a post that does nothing other than a hyperbolic and imagined characteristic of the other side, what value in there is of it. And when there's posters whose posts are nothing but these over half the time, then what value is there in keeping them around. But somehow they're accepted as a matter of course.

 

[HellToupee]

Unless you type what I believe it’s clearly trolling

 

[Guest]

When there's a post that something like, "Democrats are nothing but fringe idiots who want to use Nazi tactics to suppress free speech" the claim that someone might honestly believe it shouldn't be an excuse. It crosses a line of being so outlandish that someone almost certainly cannot believe that is actually true. And is so inflammatory that on the small chance that someone does believe that it's honestly true, then they and the statement have no purpose in, "adding" to the conversation on these boards. And yet, these are allowed to slide on a nearly-hourly basis.

 

[HellToupee]

Glass houses..................... 

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

At this point it seems like the moderation itself has been gaslit.

When there's a post that does nothing other than a hyperbolic and imagined characteristic of the other side, what value in there is of it. And when there's posters whose posts are nothing but these over half the time, then what value is there in keeping them around. But somehow they're accepted as a matter of course.

LOL biggest offender is the guy liking your post.  The board never fails to amuse me

 

[toshiba]

At this point it seems like the moderation itself has been gaslit.

When there's a post that does nothing other than a hyperbolic and imagined characteristic of the other side, what value in there is of it. And when there's posters whose posts are nothing but these over half the time, then what value is there in keeping them around. But somehow they're accepted as a matter of course.

LOL biggest offender is the guy liking your post.  The board never fails to amuse me

Do you disagree with his point, or just looking to troll @Dedfin?

 

[Dedfin]

Do you disagree with his point, or just looking to troll @Dedfin?

Was that to me? dude follows me around like a dog in heat. I dont care what he says. Im sure hes a decent fellow and is just blowing off steam.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Do you disagree with his point, or just looking to troll @Dedfin?

My point was quite clear.  If you believe I'm trolling dedfin then why aren't you accusing Matthias of trolling posters that he calls out?

 

[HellToupee]

My point was quite clear.  If you believe I'm trolling dedfin then why aren't you accusing Matthias of trolling posters that he calls out?

It’s a one way street with those guys

 

[toshiba]

Do you disagree with his point, or just looking to troll @Dedfin?

Was that to me? dude follows me around like a dog in heat. I dont care what he says. Im sure hes a decent fellow and is just blowing off steam.

No I was asking @Ramblin Wreck If he had an actual opinion on the post he replied to or was just looking to troll you.

 

[Dedfin]

No I was asking @Ramblin Wreck If he had an actual opinion on the post he replied to or was just looking to troll you.

Oh yeah, im on your page. Sorry for my lack of clarity. Osting from my phone make me lazy.

Yeah like i said,  i dont care of he's trying to troll me. I for damned sure hope no one reports him.

 

[toshiba]

Do you disagree with his point, or just looking to troll @Dedfin?

My point was quite clear.  If you believe I'm trolling dedfin then why aren't you accusing Matthias of trolling posters that he calls out?

Because I didn’t see @Matthias post, I saw yours.  Yes your point was Claire you were looking to troll @Dedfin

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Because I didn’t see @Matthias post, I saw yours.  Yes your point was Claire you were looking to troll @Dedfin

Just as it's clear you're trolling me as usual since you call me out for the exact same thing Matthias is doing.  I'm sure Dedfin will be in shortly to say you are acting like a dog in heat.

 

[Guest]

My point was quite clear.  If you believe I'm trolling dedfin then why aren't you accusing Matthias of trolling posters that he calls out?

Yes. The real problem on these boards is pointing out people are posting garbage when they are posting garbage.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Yes. The real problem on these boards is pointing out people are posting garbage when they are posting garbage.

Exactly what I did.  Glad we're on the same page.  

 

[toshiba]

Because I didn’t see @Matthias post, I saw yours.  Yes your point was Claire you were looking to troll @Dedfin

Just as it's clear you're trolling me as usual since you call me out for the exact same thing Matthias is doing.  I'm sure Dedfin will be in shortly to say you are acting like a dog in heat.

No not trolling, I’m seriously curious if you have an opinion.

 

[Henry Ford]

At this point it seems like the moderation itself has been gaslit.

When there's a post that does nothing other than a hyperbolic and imagined characteristic of the other side, what value in there is of it. And when there's posters whose posts are nothing but these over half the time, then what value is there in keeping them around. But somehow they're accepted as a matter of course.

I think there’s a difference between a truly held (even if patently false) belief and trolling.  And between a post with “no value” and a troll post. 

 

[Guest]

I think there’s a difference between a truly held (even if patently false) belief and trolling.  And between a post with “no value” and a troll post. 

It depends.

If someone truly believes that the moon landing is faked, and tries to interject every time that the moon landing comes up, that it's faked, I can see that as somewhat forgivable if not pretty irritating.

But if someone truly believes that sinn fein eats babies, and goes around posting that sinn fein is a baby cannibal, then it's past the line the earnestness of their beliefs. The belief is prima facie ridiculous. And it's slander. And one shouldn't need to go into questions of intent in that instance.

It's somewhat different when you're categorizing a group. Saying sinn is himself is a nazi is somewhat different than saying that people with usernames relating to nationalist and/or terrorist organizations are nazis. But when that's the content of all that one says, there ceases to be much in the way of forgivable leniency. And that's allowed to slide all the time. People will say, "Trump supporters think/believe/act X." And others will say, "Liberals/libs/lefties think/believe/act X." But there's a necessary calculus there of first, how objectively accurate X really is. And then second, what %age of what people post are these types of things. Some generalizations necessarily slide into most conversations. But what's the accuracy and what's the frequency. Because those 2 things are not equal across everyone.

So one can say that one's definition of trolling is scienter and as such excludes those 2 categories. But I have a real difficulty in seeing what sort of positive is fostered by allowing these on a board or resolving them any differently.

 

[Henry Ford]

It depends.

If someone truly believes that the moon landing is faked, and tries to interject every time that the moon landing comes up, that it's faked, I can see that as somewhat forgivable if not pretty irritating.

But if someone truly believes that sinn fein eats babies, and goes around posting that sinn fein is a baby cannibal, then it's past the line the earnestness of their beliefs. The belief is prima facie ridiculous. And it's slander. And one shouldn't need to go into questions of intent in that instance.

It's somewhat different when you're categorizing a group. Saying sinn is himself is a nazi is somewhat different than saying that people with usernames relating to nationalist and/or terrorist organizations are nazis. But when that's the content of all that one says, there ceases to be much in the way of forgivable leniency. And that's allowed to slide all the time. People will say, "Trump supporters think/believe/act X." And others will say, "Liberals/libs/lefties think/believe/act X." But there's a necessary calculus there of first, how objectively accurate X really is. And then second, what %age of what people post are these types of things. Some generalizations necessarily slide into most conversations. But what's the accuracy and what's the frequency. Because those 2 things are not equal across everyone.

So one can say that one's definition of trolling is scienter and as such excludes those 2 categories. But I have a real difficulty in seeing what sort of positive is fostered by allowing these on a board or resolving them any differently.

Because a sincerely held belief can be changed through discussion.  Or people who didn't express it but are leaning toward it can be influenced by hearing the discussion.  It's the same idea as that behind freedom of speech.

 

[Guest]

Because a sincerely held belief can be changed through discussion.  Or people who didn't express it but are leaning toward it can be influenced by hearing the discussion.  It's the same idea as that behind freedom of speech.

So would you accept that when presented, multiple times, that one's belief is not true that it's no longer sincerely held? Or that if I sincerely believe that sinn is a baby cannibal should I be allowed to frequently propagate that idea here?

Further, given that it's essentially impossible to determine someone else's motivations simply by reading what they're writing online, how would you propose that one determines trolling?

 

[Henry Ford]

So would you accept that when presented, multiple times, that one's belief is not true that it's no longer sincerely held?

Further, given that it's essentially impossible to determine someone else's motivations simply by reading what they're writing online, how would you propose that one determines trolling?

I would not.  I would say many religious people fall into that camp, and yet they persist.  And I believe they are sincere.

How do you determine trolling?  By context and using some judgment.  It's the mods' call.  Sort of like a judge.

 

[Guest]

I would not.  I would say many religious people fall into that camp, and yet they persist.  And I believe they are sincere.

How do you determine trolling?  By context and using some judgment.  It's the mods' call.  Sort of like a judge.

Religious beliefs aren't the same as things which can be objectively analyzed.

So would you say that trolling is and should be based on a subjectively sincerely held belief. With determination of that subjectively held belief being made by inference and context.

 

[Henry Ford]

Religious beliefs aren't the same as things which can be objectively analyzed.

So would you say that trolling is and should be based on a subjectively sincerely held belief. With determination of that subjectively held belief being made by inference and context.

I would say that trolling is more of a situation where one does not have a sincerely held belief, but rather expresses a false belief in order to get a reaction where it's not simply hyperbole for effect or sarcasm to express the extremeness of someone else's position, but instead an attempt to derail any serious conversation.  And that any determination of whether or not someone has a sincerely held belief, in the absence of an admission like TJs, involves inference and context.

 

[Guest]

I would say that trolling is more of a situation where one does not have a sincerely held belief, but rather expresses a false belief in order to get a reaction where it's not simply hyperbole for effect or sarcasm to express the extremeness of someone else's position, but instead an attempt to derail any serious conversation.  And that any determination of whether or not someone has a sincerely held belief, in the absence of an admission like TJs, involves inference and context.

I agree that this is a reasonable and fairly workable standard.

I would then propose to flesh it out with what I said above. That what informs the inference and context is the objectively true/falsity/falsifiability of the claims and the frequency by which people make these claims vs how often they write other stuff. That when most everything they say is needling and/or inflammatory then it becomes increasingly likely that the intent is to derail, distract, and/or incite.

 

[Henry Ford]

Also, I don't agree that religious beliefs cannot be objectively analyzed, but that's another subject.

 

[T J]

Copied from T.J.'s thread (I thought we should have the discussion here, just in case T.J.'s thread mysteriously disappears):

I appreciate T.J.'s honesty here. Many posters have suspected that various Trump defenders were trolling, but none of them would ever admit to it, and unfortunately the moderators have continually given those posters every possible benefit of the doubt.

I can understand how it might be frustrating to see a Republican president getting criticized again and again and again. Under normal circumstances, the proper response would be to defend the president's behavior. But Trump's actions are often indefensible. And so what happens is that Trump defenders resort to "getting under people's skin" because it's the only response that has any effect.

I hope that the moderators take a long look at T.J.'s thread and use his mentality and his methods as a guideline for dealing with future posters who are suspected of trolling.

Thing is though, I wasn’t intentionally trolling. I was expressing my opinion and the mods suspended me because certain folks don’t care for the directness of my approach. It’s not a “method”. Just how I am. I’m blunt to a fault sometimes.

 

[[scooter]]

Thing is though, I wasn’t intentionally trolling.

You were intentionally trying to get under people's skin, weren't you?

Because that's pretty much the definition of trolling.

 

[T J]

Maybe. When I posted the initial post I didn’t intend to respond to anyone but people piled on so ya, at that point I responded and it became “trolling”. Whatever. I get how this board is. I didn’t set out to troll. I set out to make a one sentence kind of an “in your face” jab. Nothing more. It digressed from there. 

 

[JbizzleMan]

Maybe. When I posted the initial post I didn’t intend to respond to anyone but people piled on so ya, at that point I responded and it became “trolling”. Whatever. I get how this board is. I didn’t set out to troll. I set out to make a one sentence kind of an “in your face” jab. Nothing more. It digressed from there. 

 

So, you set out to troll.

 

[T J]

 

So, you set out to troll.

I don’t think so. Not really. I set out to make one statement and move on. I personally associate trolling with some degree of intentional continuing of a thread. Simply responding honestly to later posts got me suspended for “trolling”. I shouldn’t have responded. 

 

[GoBirds]

I don’t think so. Not really. I set out to make one statement and move on. I personally associate trolling with some degree of intentional continuing of a thread. Simply responding honestly to later posts got me suspended for “trolling”. I shouldn’t have responded. 

It’s not moderates equally for both sides so you have to be careful. If you are a president hater you can pretty much say what you want about Trump or non liberals. 

 

[sho nuff]

It’s not moderates equally for both sides so you have to be careful. If you are a president hater you can pretty much say what you want about Trump or non liberals. 

You are wrong

 

[GoBirds]

You are wrong

Do you camp out on here 24/7? Had a response less than a second after posting......get some rest fella. 

 

[sho nuff]

Do you camp out on here 24/7? Had a response less than a second after posting......get some rest fella. 

I’m up and it popped to the top of the page...I responded to point out that your post was factually incorrect.

You should spend less time worrying about others...

 

[GoBirds]

I’m up and it popped to the top of the page...I responded to point out that your post was factually incorrect.

You should spend less time worrying about others...

Cool, put me on ignore. 

Speaking of trolling. 

 

[sho nuff]

Cool, put me on ignore. 

Speaking of trolling. 

It’s trolling to proclaim false statements as false?

But not to claim that mods let Trump haters say whatever they want and claim some should get more rest fella?

Again, that seems factually incorrect.

 

[T J]

It’s trolling to proclaim false statements as false?

But not to claim that mods let Trump haters say whatever they want and claim some should get more rest fella?

Again, that seems factually incorrect.

How about this - it is my opinion, based on experience, that the moderators here are less tolerant of right-leaning posters, than they are of left-leaning posters.  

 

[sho nuff]

How about this - it is my opinion, based on experience, that the moderators here are less tolerant of right-leaning posters, than they are of left-leaning posters.  

That is an opinion.  One that isn’t really backed up by facts.

In my experience and opinion...moderators are less tolerant to vile and repugnant posting no matter who is posting it.  And that right leaning posters have been more likely to have crossed the line in recent years than their counter parts.

 

[GoBirds]

It’s trolling to proclaim false statements as false?

But not to claim that mods let Trump haters say whatever they want and claim some should get more rest fella?

Again, that seems factually incorrect.

You actually serve as a perfect example of what I stated, thanks for provided an example as you currently troll multiple threads when asked to put on ignore. 

Have a great day. 

 

[sho nuff]

You actually serve as a perfect example of what I stated, thanks for provided an example as you currently troll multiple threads when asked to put on ignore. 

Have a great day. 

I responded to particular assertions.  That again is not trolling.

 

[Cowboysfan8]

It's entirely the reverse. Trump supporters will say the most offensive things day in and day out. And nothing happens. Tobias says something like,"Trump supporters are dumb" and gets suspended for a week. The thing is that Trump supporters are just less tolerable.

I think it's what gets reported.

I quoted someone and posted "when you do this over and over it makes you look idiotic". Noone gets a time out for that. Unless it's reported.

I've posted way worse and not gotten a time out. The mods can't read every post in this subforum, it moves way too fast. If you get reported you get a timeout

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Do you camp out on here 24/7? Had a response less than a second after posting......get some rest fella. 

LOL that's the best part.  He's in every single thread with the same schtick.   It's the definition of trolling that another poster above described.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

It's entirely the reverse. Trump supporters will say the most offensive things day in and day out. And nothing happens. Tobias says something like,"Trump supporters are dumb" and gets suspended for a week. The thing is that Trump supporters are just less tolerable.

LOL.   Did you not see who was getting the timeouts in the SCOTUS thread last week?   I mean at least try not to lie in this discussion (i.e. trolling).