Identifying Board Members

[Death Button]

I notice that the liberal mob has successfully removed another new board member, and this time they managed to do it in less than 24 hours. If I do say so myself, that's pretty impressive!

Nah we're just good a spotting a ringer. No one was removed from this board.

I concur with Gadianton; I believe Fernando and Sara H to be Atlanticmike. If that's the case, the issue the board faces is that Mike creates roughly 75% of the content everytime he posts using one of his sock puppets and other board members comply by posting back. If all of these alleged sock puppets are in reality Mike, and you take into account what Binger is doing in the two threads he posts in, those two tend to control the board on most days. Because if they're not, you liberals just brutally beat Sara H. without cause.

[canpakes]

Nah we're just good a spotting a ringer. No one was removed from this board.

I concur with Gadianton; I believe Fernando and Sara H to be Atlanticmike. If that's the case, the issue the board faces is that Mike creates roughly 75% of the content everytime he posts using one of his sock puppets and other board members comply by posting back. If all of these alleged sock puppets are in reality Mike, and you take into account what Binger is doing in the two threads he posts in, those two tend to control the board on most days. Because if they're not, you liberals just brutally beat Sara H. without cause.

Yes, they control it like a bull controls a bullfight, with the expected conclusion.

People like to watch bullfights, yes?

[Moksha]

Yes, they control it like a bull controls a bullfight, with the expected conclusion.

People like to watch bullfights, yes?

Seems more like being harangued by some political belligerent on the train and you cannot get off till four more stops.

[Res Ipsa]

I'm confused. On MDDB, you present yourself as a believing member, yet here you indicate you aren't emotionally invested regarding Mormonism?

Wow. Some interesting discussions took place over on mddb with Sara. Although multiple people kept calling her Mike, for some reason.

Do you have a link to a thread where Sarah was called Mike?

[Res Ipsa]

And so it's possible, the mods are playing 4d chess, even though I'm not sure in this case, because it seems to me that Fernando's rule will still require some discipline from the OP poster if they want to troll, and may result in a hollow victory where off-topic comments are silently removed with no vibrato from the originator nor extraneous commentary, and we're left with a thread that nobody really wants to discuss including the OP originator that floats its way to page 2 and beyond.

Naw, our game is 7d Fizzbin.

[canpakes]

And so it's possible, the mods are playing 4d chess, even though I'm not sure in this case, because it seems to me that Fernando's rule will still require some discipline from the OP poster if they want to troll, and may result in a hollow victory where off-topic comments are silently removed with no vibrato from the originator nor extraneous commentary, and we're left with a thread that nobody really wants to discuss including the OP originator that floats its way to page 2 and beyond.

Naw, our game is 7d Fizzbin.

What about Calvinball? That’s going to be next. ; )

[Bond]

First post is about board espionage and history.

Doesn't like responses because that post suggest nefarious or trollish motives.

Effs off to pickleball forums.

Awesome

[Jersey Girl]

First post is about board espionage and history.

Doesn't like responses because that post suggest nefarious or trollish motives.

Effs off to pickleball forums.

Awesome

Hey Bond. Swing by and get me out of here okay?

[drumdude]

This can’t be Atlantic Mike. This poster is capable of using complete sentences.

[Res Ipsa]

Would one of the moderators be so kind to explain to me what is actually going on in my thread and what post are acceptable per board rules and which ones are not? I was going to ask my opening question in the terrestrial on my first thread, but didn't want to derail my own thread. I'm hearing the moderators say as of late, if you have a off topic question or answer, start a new thread, so that's what I did. Res and Marcus posted very nicely and seemed like they genuinely wanted to have a civil conversation. To me that's how a thread should progress. But after their post I have had my motives questioned, told that the history of the board doesn't matter even though it does to me, and I have been told what the board is for when I'm quite capable of determining how to use the board just as everyone else that post here. I've been told what to post, apparently I'm not smart enough to figure out what to post about. And now I have been called a Karen without actually being called a Karen so the poster who actually called me a Karen didn't technically break a board rule.

How did an innocent thread with such a simple question turn into me feeling like I need to defend my integrity? Wasn't a rule just changed so this situation wouldn't happen anymore?

I'm not a mod but I suspect you started out in a strong position, with your stylometric brother Fernando -- who doesn't have a lot of time right now -- making real change to a rule that now forbids questioning the motives of the OP poster, which from Shades' commentary may extend to other commentary about the OP poster if it implies a motive about the posting of the OP. Frankly, I'm not sure how close I am here.

Not quite right, Dean Robbers. People are free to discuss Sara’s motives, play trollspotter, what evs. They just need to do it a different thread.

Fernando's rule, as I will call it, opens the way for stylometric siblings of his to start new posts for the sake of trolling, and nobody is allowed to publicly suggest that it's trolling, or that the OP is a sock; at least I think this is right.

Even more not right. You can post all of that. Just not in the OP’s thread.

And so binger, mike, and Ceeboo have scored a point. I admit it was a sly move by Fernando. I'm not sure he outsmarted the mods, but the mods are very good people who will allow the perception of being outsmarted for the sake of a small chance of sincerity, they go the extra mile to give benefit to the doubt.

I think the folks who scored a point are those who start threads and don’t want their threads hijacked.

A sly play however, isn't a victory. Fernando's rule leaves open some serious challenges to trolling and disruption. From what I can tell, and I admit I'm not a mod, Fernando's rule can only seriously protect the OP to the extent that the OP originator doesn't go off topic themselves. And so take, for instance, my comments to you. I constrained my responses to your own derailing. If the OP permits the off topic by pursuing it themselves, or creates their own off-topic content then others are free to continue it.

Bingo! Before the change, discussion of a poster’s motive was declared in the Hadith to be on topic. Based on observing lots and lots of interactions, I’m persuaded that attacking a persons motive, including declaring what somebody else’s motive is nearly always derails the substantive discussion. Under the amended rule, will treat discussions of the poster’s motive as a derail — just like any other derail. So, if a new poster starts a thread and is greeted with accusations of being a sock puppet or troll, and if someone reports the derail, we will split the derail off into its own thread. If the OP elect to defend her motives, then the topic of the discussion ids broadened to include the OP’s motives.

Although Shades said that he doesn’t think there is a need to apply the rule to discussions of the motives of other participants in the thread, he also said we mods have the discretion to split the thread. I’m inclined to start out applying the for the benefit of all participants in a thread and see how that goes. There’s going to be some trial and error as we figure out sensible ways to apply the rule, which is true with any change to a rule, interpretation of a rule, or the method of enforcing a rule.

The other problem an exploiter of Fernando's rule might have is tone trolling within their thread. Tone trolling not only (likely, per my understanding) opens up the thread for others to debate tone, but may make it harder to get rid of the off-topic commentary, because, in my opinion, it shows that the off-topic was welcomed -- perhaps baited -- just so the post originator can cry foul loudly and publicly and get the interlocutor penalized. To avoid crying to mods over every potential infraction as a way of continuing a troll agenda, it's my opinion that the mods prefer the report feature be silently used.

There will always be folks who try to game whatever rules there are in place. When we see it, we’ll address it. In my perfect world [hey, it worked last time], the only response to a rule violation would be a report. It’s not so much that I’m a glutton for punishment — I’m always looking for ways to do my job with minimal intrusion to the conversation that is happening.

But there is one thing I want to highlight: there is no way a new poster here will understand how we handle derails. Heck, folks who have been here for years can’t keep it straight. If a new person’s motives are questioned, it’s a dead cert that they will respond by defending themselves and/or tone policing. Until a new person is shown the ropes around here, I’m inclined to cut them a little slack.

And so it's possible, the mods are playing 4d chess, even though I'm not sure in this case, because it seems to me that Fernando's rule will still require some discipline from the OP poster if they want to troll, and may result in a hollow victory where off-topic comments are silently removed with no vibrato from the originator nor extraneous commentary, and we're left with a thread that nobody really wants to discuss including the OP originator that floats its way to page 2 and beyond.