Comments | stupid_free: OK, So Yesterday Was a Slow Day For Me-

sayonara_snot in stupid_free

OK, So Yesterday Was a Slow Day For Me-

Jun 04, 2006 13:41

So, I decided to test a theory - This theory was that all I needed to do was disagree with the mod of mock_the_stupid in order to get banned.

It took a full 24 hours, which surprised me. I think it was because I stayed civil and refused to take the bait when she went all ad hominem on me. But in the end, opalcat came through ( Read more... )

mod, mock_the_stupid, opalcat

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

catamorphism June 4 2006, 21:21:06 UTC

Trolling will get you banned from most places; that's news? Yawn.

sayonara_snot June 4 2006, 21:22:58 UTC

Would you really consider that to be trolling? I'm honestly curious.

Everyone seems to have a different definition of what a Troll is - what's yours?

catamorphism June 4 2006, 21:24:51 UTC

Well, you were engaging in conversation with the goal of obtaining a certain reaction (being banned), without making it obvious what that goal was. I would say it's trolling.

mcity June 4 2006, 21:29:40 UTC

Trolling is stirring up trouble for the sake of stirring up trouble. She honestly disagreed with opalcat, and was trying to see if disagreeing, while staying almost civil, would get her banned.

catamorphism June 4 2006, 21:40:00 UTC

I don't really see how testing this particular theory was different from stirring up trouble; I also don't think sayonara_snot's comments were civil. There was obviously an antagonistic tone.

Do I care? Not really. I just don't think it's news that being obnoxious to a mod will get you banned.

sayonara_snot June 4 2006, 21:47:15 UTC

Here, that's news.

We don't think dissenting opinions are a bad thing.

mcity June 4 2006, 22:25:53 UTC

She wasn't particularly obnoxious, she just disagreed.

sayonara_snot June 4 2006, 21:40:55 UTC

Trolling is stirring up trouble for the sake of stirring up trouble.

Right. At least, that's my definition, too.

So, I guess that the most fair analysis of this situation is that while I did not start out to "troll", as I posted my snark of the MTS trainwreck two days ago and commented there with the sole intent to dissent from the party line and support (in part) the OP - by the time I realised that continuing to disagree with opalcat was considered, in her eyes, to be "stirring up trouble" - and continued doing so anyway - my behavior could be considered - by opalcat only - to be "trolling".

But screw her.

sayonara_snot June 4 2006, 21:32:05 UTC

Actually, the goal was not to be banned - the goal was to see if my theory was correct.

The theory was that all a member of mock_the_stupid had to do to get banned was to disagree with the mod. I disagreed, and was banned. I friendslocked my entry in my journal containing this theory so as not to tip off opalcat or anyone else.

Literally, all I did was disagree. My theory was that this was ban-worthy, and I was right. I still don't see how disagreeing, even if I suspect that this might get me banned, counts as trolling. Especially when I've been a member there for months.

catamorphism June 4 2006, 21:40:37 UTC

It's not true that "all you did was disagree"; you were clearly being confrontational and although I don't particularly care, my original comment still stands.

sayonara_snot June 4 2006, 21:42:36 UTC

Ok. But remember that I didn't originally comment directly to her - she started responding, and I responded to her. I also refused to take the bait when she started insulting me.

But you're entitled to your opinion!

catamorphism June 4 2006, 21:48:37 UTC

Phrasing an insult sarcastically doesn't make it non-insulting:

"I'm intrigued by your need to let everyone know how horrible her original post was" and "You're a sad person because you need to let everyone know how horrible her original post was" don't sound that different to me.

Likewise for

"And you are so heavily invested in this because?" vs. "You are so heavily invested in this because you're a pathetic person"

and

"I am very interested in this need you have, slow weekend or no, to get everyone to follow the same party line on this." vs. "You're a fascist dictator who, by the way, has no life."

So you haven't really proven your theory, even. If you disagreed with her and got banned for it without the sarcastic insults, then that might be worth noting.

sayonara_snot June 4 2006, 21:52:32 UTC

Those questions were phrased exactly how I meant them. I am still intriqued by her need to let everyone know how horrible the OP's post was. I still want to know why she's so heavily invested in it to the point of commenting to every dissenter.

You can't say I'm a troll because I phrased my comments in the most accurate way possible. Suggesting that I really meant to say something more brutish - and that the fact that I didn't makes me a troll - is kinda silly.

calieber June 5 2006, 13:01:22 UTC

Those questions were phrased exactly how I meant them.

I'm sorry, I don't think an adult can get away with that. It's one thing to say "I didn't mean that sarcastically and I didn't intend for what I said to be taken any way but literally"; in most cases it stretches plausibility to claim you didn't give it a once-over and realize it might be taken that way -- and if you want to communicate, that's at least as important as what you intended.

sayonara_snot June 5 2006, 19:26:38 UTC

No, those questions weren't even sarcastic to begin with. Did they contain a tone of condescension? Sure. But sarcasm and condescension are hardly the same thing.

lord_snot June 4 2006, 22:33:06 UTC

None of those examples of what sayonara_snot said are sarcastic. If you read them as such, perhaps you need to question your own agenda, not hers.

See, I said that exactly as I meant it: I think you read sayonara_snot's comments with a personal agenda of finding them sarcastic, even though they weren't. Contrary, yes. Sarcastic, no. Did you hear "If you read sarcasm into a disagreeing comment you are a paranoid loser who hates herself" in your head?

Back to all threads