Are we finally going to see stricter sanctions for "famous" trolls?

I have a quick little question? 🤞

I wonder if the administration has ever thought about being a bit tougher on trolls. Especially those people who just keep hitting the same topics over and over again with the exact same tactics. Maybe they should look into stricter penalties for that kind of stuff. 😬

I’m not even talking about the trolls. You know, the ones who clearly lack any capacity for rational thought? Those people should be sanctioned quickly and harshly, but honestly, they’re probably the least "dangerous" group when it comes to this issue.

I’m talking about those trolls who don't even look like harmless twelve-year-olds. Sometimes, you really can't tell if they're actually trying to insult your intelligence or if they're just being accidental about it. I guess it's hard to know for sure.

It’s funny how you can stumble upon all this within a single day on just one thread:

It’s that constant appeal to authority—people dropping lines like, "Well, I'm a psychiatrist," or "I'm a professor of logic." Honestly, what worries me most is the thought that people like that might actually be the ones teaching our kids in school.

It’s when people just throw out claims without a shred of actual evidence. You ask them for some objective facts to back it up, and they just start trolling. They'll hit you with stuff like, "Well, prove me wrong," or if they're feeling generous, "I can't remember exactly where I read that." Then you're stuck spinning in circles, turning the whole conversation into this endless, pointless loop of "Yes"—"No"—"Yes"—"No."

It’s funny how this always happens. You make a generalization, and someone successfully calls you out on it. Then, instead of actually addressing the point, the trolls just pivot to that classic line: "Well, I meant it in principle." Suddenly, the whole debate shifts away from the actual topic and turns into this weird, circular argument about what a generalization even is or the definition of common nouns. It’s such a predictable way to dodge the point. 🤦

It feels like they’re just trying to relativize everything—living things, inanimate objects, even basic concepts like what counts as intelligence or a serious relationship. I guess it’s funny how that same troll didn't bother questioning their own logic while they were busy making a claim that completely contradicted itself.

When people start debating preferences, things can get pretty stupid fast. You see all these ridiculous arguments based on bad interpretations of Wikipedia entries—which, let's be honest, shouldn't even be considered a valid source in a serious discussion. On top of that, people end up insulting others who are just calmly and politely sharing what they like or don't like. It's kind of a mess.

Misquoting someone or constantly using the "I didn't say that" excuse... doing that a few times within just three pages seems pretty wild, doesn't it? I mean, it’s kind of crazy to deal with on a forum like this.🙂It feels like once they actually see the disputed quotes laid out in front of them, they just double down on their old arguments. It’s like we're right back at square one, and the whole cycle starts all over again.

Honestly, this is just an insult to common sense. It wears down even the most patient people you talk to, and at the end of the day, it just kills any interesting conversation.

There are already certain people out there who are famous for using the exact same predictable, flawed logic every single time. It seems like their ultimate goal—if they realize they can't actually win an argument—is just to abandon their own point entirely and retreat into some vague gray area, dragging everyone else down with them.

It feels like some people just flat-out ignore moderator warnings. They keep doing it page after page, and honestly, the most they ever get is having their posts deleted. I guess that's just how it goes. 🙂 Then they just vanish for a day or two—and everything goes right back to the way it was.

How much longer?

At the same time, they’re being really strict with certain people—which, honestly, they deserve. It’s those folks who can't even put together a simple sentence like "The boy is good" without making four different typos. They just don't seem to grasp that what they're doing is wrong or, well, pretty mindless.

The group I’m talking about is the one that sprinkles in those little comments here and there—the kind that seems designed to shut down any actual, constructive debate. Honestly, they’re just as "dangerous" to a healthy discussion as the other group mentioned above, so I think they should face the same level of moderation. Whether they’re making these logical errors on purpose or they just don't realize they're doing it, I don't know. And to be honest, I really don't care anymore, especially since the moderators have already warned them multiple times to stop using these same tactics to derail discussions. 🙂

Sometimes, stuff like this gets under the skin of even the most patient people on these forums. It reaches a point where you might actually risk getting hit with a ban or some low-level moderation just because you realize there’s absolutely no room for logic or actual discussion on a particular topic. At best, people just walk away from the thread entirely—but I guess you have to wonder if that's actually a good thing for the quality of the conversation in the long run.

I just needed to vent for a second. Maybe I'm the only one getting worked up by these pseudo-intellectual trolls who keep throwing out random facts that have absolutely nothing to do with their actual point. I don't know, maybe I'm being too nitpicky, but at the end of the day, the admins make the calls.

Honestly, if I end up getting a warning or a ban myself because I'm being too intense about this, I won't complain. I mean, I definitely troll sometimes—whether I mean to or not—but I really wish this stuff would just stop. 🙂

If you actually stuck around long enough to read this far, thanks for listening. 😁

👋

Look, I suppose the moderators can't be expected to patrol every single corner of this forum indefinitely, squinting at posts just to catch those subtle little nuances that reveal a troll in disguise. That’s precisely why the icon exists, so you can report a post directly. Or, if you want an even simpler solution, perhaps you could just put those trolls on your Ignore list; that way, you won't have to deal with their nonsense and can focus solely on the posts from people whose opinions you actually respect. You all can carry on with your civilized discussions, while they can just keep rambling into the void.

I think this topic is pretty broad, but part of it clearly ties back to the LUES situation—specifically those one or two points already chewed over in that nearby appeal thread. But, just to give you the quick version of where we stand with LUES:

-The mods have already admitted they messed up how they handled those two threads. Because of that, the plan is to tighten things up over there.
That means dealing with certain users who just love to troll (which is super obvious looking at the appeal thread from the person you're talking about—honestly making this thread feel a bit redundant if it's just about LUES), but it also applies to anyone who can't stop venting. Like I always say, sometimes you just gotta chill out.

Using Wikipedia as a source isn't a punishable offense. It’s on the users to shut those claims down with better arguments or links.
Faking quotes and stuff like that? Yeah, that gets you penalized. But a wrong interpretation or even something that looks just plain stupid shouldn't be punished on its own. That's the tricky part—it's hard to draw the line between someone genuinely struggling to grasp a concept (or just lacking the capacity, let's be real) and someone actually breaking the rules. I'm not talking about controversial topics here, just general rule-following.

The moderators have the authority to delete posts and hand out warnings whenever they see fit, regardless of official bans or strikes (and as a user, you won't even see if a deleted post was tied to a strike). It's all based on their judgment.
The rest of your post is a bit too vague for me to link directly to the LUES drama, and I don't really want to get sucked into rehashing stuff that's already been settled, so I'll leave it at that.

steelskipper5 said:That’s an interesting point, dustyranger64. Honestly, I’ve been flagging almost everything you just mentioned—well, except for that first bit—as trolling over on the Social Science boards for days now.

Got it. Ready to roll!
Not sure why you’re tagging me, though! I don't moderate the DZ, so I don't even see those reports. 🤷

steelskipper5 said:That’s just because you were reading between the lines and looking for subtext from old LjES threads.
Since I haven't found anything interesting on LjES in ages, I have no clue which topics you mean, but since the author actually weighed in on the very topic I'm talking about, this clearly goes way deeper than just a misunderstanding.

Ah. My bad! 🙂

steelskipper5 said:That’s just because you’re reading into it and finding subtext related to certain threads on LjES.
Since I haven't found anything interesting on LjES for quite some time—and given that the author actually participated in the very thread I'm talking about—it seems pretty obvious that we're looking at a much deeper issue here.

Honestly, maybe it wouldn't hurt to shine a light on this for the supermods and the administration too; Nica and Strile might want to take note, since this looks like exactly the kind of thing I've been warning them about.

I mean, it really wouldn't hurt if, whenever an author starts a thread like this, they didn't make it so vague that we all have to play a guessing game. It would be much better if they just linked directly to the specific issues.

dustyranger64 and Matthew Anderson, thanks for the comments—I guess that’s why I like you guys as mods 😁 (though I probably won't post in your specific threads anymore; you're a bit too strict for me 🙂) 😛

Anyway—this isn't really about the LjES thread. I should've added a disclaimer, but I figured that might just make it look like I was specifically targeting that one PDF. This is more of a general observation. Honestly, the stuff mentioned above is a minor issue when it comes to LjES, mostly because that board doesn't usually get this heavy
.
(dustyranger64 and Matthew Anderson, I mainly come to your sections to troll, I read the others for real 😛)

I'm actually glad steelskipper5 chimed in. What really pushed me over the edge was this one thread over in Social Science where he was participating; I was there too for a bit, but I eventually lost my patience and just walked away.

Personally, I don't have any complaints about any individual moderator or any of the boards I've been on. If anything, I've been lucky enough to hang out in threads with really decent mods.

I do have a grievance, though, which I'd like you to take as constructive criticism regarding a forum practice that seems to go beyond just an individual moderator's call.

I've been reading a lot more Social Science lately, along with some philosophy and politics, and the sheer amount of arrogance some trolls show toward people they're arguing with is wild. You'll see these same trolls parrot the exact same sentence for twenty pages, just rephrasing it sixty different ways. Eventually, even the most patient, civil people start to lose it and end up getting banned. 😬

Sure, true, we shouldn't lose our cool. We should wait for a Supreme Court ruling or whatever. But at the end of the day, we're all human. We make mistakes, and you guys do too.

But some people seem to mess up constantly, maybe even on purpose. 🙂

And it makes me wonder: what are we actually supposed to report? What counts as a violation? I had a situation once where a moderator asked me why I didn't report a post, even though a user was indirectly trivializing and twisting my private life, even though I didn't see a direct insult aimed at me. 🤷

What happens when someone who clearly doesn't know the difference between a common and collective noun (and they definitely need to know it to be discussing the topic) says—completely unprovoked, just because their point was questioned "Just some friendly advice—don't embarrass yourself"? What is that? Is it an insult? Trolling? Something else?

And what kind of penalty would they face? A warning? A ban? Nothing?

What if you respond with: Aren't you ashamed to live with such ignorance? Which is objectively a massive lack of knowledge and isn't even a lie.

Bans for both? Warnings? Nothing?

Or what if someone uses an argument like, "I'm liberal and support same-sex marriage because I was raised by divorced parents," and then uses that to claim they grew up in an overly liberal environment?

Is that an insult? Well, not exactly not quite. It's trolling. Definitely. Especially when it comes from someone whose best argument after several pages of nonsense is basically, "Same-sex marriage isn't equal to marriage between a man and a woman."

And that user has to deal with people like that—they handle it pretty stoically, and I honestly admire them, even if we don't see eye to eye on everything and I don't agree with all their points. But since their common sense is constantly being insulted and people keep poking at their private lives instead of sticking to the topic, they might end up getting banned just like everyone else. Maybe one day they'll just snap and resort to a blatant ad hominem attack.
(Just to be clear, I’m not attacking the Social Science moderators—this is something I’ve noticed across every single sub-forum I’ve read lately)

I want to reiterate: I don't have any issues whatsoever with any specific moderator on any board. Honestly, they all seem pretty consistent, which makes me think this is just how the forum is being run lately. Maybe I'm just unlucky and keep running into the same pattern every time I visit a new section.

So, I was just wondering if I'm the only one who finds this annoying, and if there are any plans to address it? It's a shame because great discussions—especially the serious ones—tend to fall apart. Personally, I find the Social Science and politics boards really helpful for my work, and I enjoy reading them, even if I don't participate much (I just don't always have the patience for it 🙂). But it becomes a real issue when you have a troll in the house 🤷

EDIT: P.S. I didn't include specific links because I'm more interested in knowing where the line is drawn regarding this kind of trolling across the whole site. Going through individual cases doesn't really help me, and I wouldn't want it to look like I'm targeting one specific board, because that's truly not the case 🙂

Like I said, this isn't a formal complaint. It's more of a critique—which can be constructive, I guess—that you can choose to take or leave. Just something to think about.

I can only agree with my colleague here. She really nailed something I’ve been constantly wondering about myself, though I definitely wouldn't have put it quite that well.

Besides, I’ve brought this up on this forum more than a few times. When does genuine ignorance cross the line into trolling? How long is someone allowed to keep spouting nonsense without any actual arguments before they get sanctioned?

To be honest, I’ve also been following the thread on DZ o H. brak and noticed the exact same thing that steelskipper5 and urbantrucker5 pointed out. You have a couple of users participating in a discussion who basically spend over ten pages recycling the same repetitive claims—just phrased slightly differently each time. There’s zero argumentation, no supporting evidence, no links, no research, regardless of how many people ask them to back up their claims. Their version of "research" just boils down to their own personal experiences or maybe what people in their immediate circle say, and then they aggressively push that as if it's solid proof that they're right. 🤷

urbantrucker5 said:Like I said, I’m not really complaining. It’s more like feedback—maybe even constructive—and you don't have to take it to heart. Just something to think about, I guess.

Think, think, think. 🤦 I don't know how I managed to type that out; none of those letters are even near each other on a keyboard. 😵

That's a pretty harsh way to put it. 🤦

It’s a question that seems straightforward on the surface, yet holds quite a bit of complexity...

First off, it isn't by accident that these patterns emerge in areas like social science, philosophy, or politics—though, if we're being honest, certain political interest groups certainly muddy those waters even further. What do these specific subforums have in common? They cover such a massive range of topics that there is an incredibly thin line between a serious debate and pure demagoguery, and an equally slippery slope between presenting a solid argument and simply forcing one's own opinion on others.

On top of that, you always deal with two distinct types of users: the ones who eventually devolve into nothing more than trolls looking to derail a thread, and the ones who just possess an insatiable need to prove everyone else wrong. 😁 It then spirals into a cycle of communication, or rather, a layer of meta-communication about the communication itself.

I suspect there is no magic formula to prevent this from happening in every single instance. Perhaps it's possible to monitor these specific threads and subforums more closely, making an effort to read every single post as its own individual entity so that, over time, a particular troll might actually mature—which usually happens—and essentially dig their own grave. Typically, the issue is simply that these cases aren't addressed until it's too late, though that doesn't necessarily mean the punishment is too light.

Deciding exactly when to kick someone off a thread or tell them to pipe down puts moderators in the position of judges, which inevitably raises the question of whether they are truly qualified, willing, or even available enough to make those calls, not to mention whether any definitive answers to these questions even exist. Sometimes, it's honestly best to just let someone ramble on with their nonsense; it's up to the audience to decide who to believe and whose arguments actually hold weight.

P.S. It would surprise you how many self-proclaimed linguistic experts spout far greater and more dangerous nonsense than someone merely nitpicking the definition of a common noun. There's always the risk they might actually trick someone. Still, I occasionally find a bit of joy in letting them drone on... because, frankly, I'm much more concerned about the idea of someone else curating information for me than I am about their own stupidity.