Political trolling and bad moderation: any advice?

It’s high time the admins stepped up and dealt with the relentless, sneaky trolling that’s gutting every single political thread here. For some reason, the mods just let it slide, which honestly just helps kill off any chance of a decent conversation. I’ll give you a perfect example of what I mean: that whole mess regarding the local school board policies. Take this user mcaucliffe, for instance. He spends his days calling out people—like certain senators or even folks from the local veterans' council—labeling them as untrustworthy because they stayed quiet back in 2009 when that new municipal charter was passed, which he calls nothing short of treasonous. He basically attacks these people daily because they didn't speak up against that charter. But since he’s been a member since 2006, it makes you wonder about his own credibility. Like, did he actually use his platform here to protest that charter? I’ve personally asked him a few times, requesting that he pull up his old posts from 2009 to show he actually stood up against it. mcaucliffe just completely ignored those requests. Not a single post surfaced to prove he ever raised his voice. After being stonewalled repeatedly, I finally figured it out: those posts don't exist. It’s pretty logical to assume that back in 2009, when he was an active user, he wasn't actually protesting that charter, which says a lot about his integrity considering he spends every day discrediting others—even local war heroes—for their silence back then. But mcaucliffe is so thick-skinned and persistent with his trolling—and nobody ever disciplines him for it—that he tries to flip the script. He claims I have no proof he *didn't* write those posts. How am I supposed to prove a negative? If someone can't produce something that's supposedly there after being asked multiple times, it's not there. So now, he just calls me a liar in almost every reply, turning the entire discussion into a petty shouting match. And the mods? They just swoop in at the end and mass-delete everything, which solves nothing.

Given how things are going, I’d really appreciate an answer from the admins or the mods here. Look, if I ask someone on this board a few times to point me toward their previous posts—if they even exist—and they just dodge the question every single time without showing me anything, am I the one lying when I conclude those posts don't exist? Or is that user, who keeps dodging while calling my conclusion a "lie," actually just a typical troll? I'm just looking for some clarity. Am I the liar and the troll causing drama for no reason, or is the other guy just playing games? You tell me which one it is. If I'm the problem, if I'm just some troll spreading lies, then fine, I'll pack up and leave this forum right now. But if mcaucliffe is the one trolling, then it's probably time for the moderators to step in and deal with it.

One more thing. Here’s the deal: I’ve asked McAuliffe multiple times to actually pull up those posts if they even exist, and he just... hasn't. He won't. That’s just the reality of it. To me, that's all the proof I need that those posts aren't there. It's pretty simple. But since McAuliffe keeps breathing down my neck, demanding that I somehow "prove" his claims are fake, I’m stuck here wondering how is anyone even supposed to prove a negative on a forum? How do you demonstrate that something *doesn't* exist, other than pointing out that the guy claiming it exists refuses to show it—even after being asked repeatedly? Is there some other way to handle this? If there is, I'd love to hear it. Thanks.

So, you’re complaining about those posts your colleagues deleted? Fine. We aren't deleting anything anymore, but don't go calling us out on social media.

Robert Hall7 said:So, you’re complaining about those posts your colleagues deleted? Fine. We aren't deleting anything anymore, but don't go calling us out on social media.

No, no... it’s not just about that. I’m talking about lazy moderation. You let the trolls run wild, then when things finally boil over, you just come in with the sledgehammer and wipe everything out in one go. It's messy. If you think I'm the troll here, fine—just give me a permanent ban. I won't even fight it. But if you handle someone else's trolling by just nuking every single thread, that's just bad management. Do you see what I mean? There's this one guy on the board who keeps playing deaf whenever anyone asks him to produce his old posts from back in 2009 regarding those old federal statutes—assuming he even wrote them. And once people realize he's dodging the question, they conclude he probably never wrote them, which makes him unreliable. Then, instead of owning it, he starts trolling, insisting that *I* should be the one proving he didn't write them just so he can dodge answering my questions. When you ask a user multiple times to show proof of their past activity and they just refuse to provide a single link, am I a liar if I conclude those posts simply don't exist? Or is the guy who refuses to show them, while calling my conclusion a lie, actually just a textbook troll? And another thing. How is it even possible to "prove" a post doesn't exist on a forum, other than the fact that the person claiming they wrote it fails to produce anything despite being asked repeatedly? I'd love an answer to that. And seriously, just tell me—who is actually trolling the political threads here?

The reality is, over the last few days on the politics board, the mods have been stuck cleaning up and nuking dozens of posts at a time. To me, that’s just proof that something is fundamentally broken and the discussions aren't actually going anywhere productive. I’m not trying to tear the whole system down or anything; I'm just looking for someone to point out who's actually causing the mess and hold them accountable instead of just using heavy-handed tactics to fix everything. Honestly, seeing you guys delete this much content just confirms what I’ve been saying about how things are sliding downhill in the politics section.

Ask me how long I've been waiting for a single post to load.

Robert Hall7 said:Ask me how long I've been waiting for a single post to load.

Why would I even ask you that? It doesn’t change the reality of what’s happening on this site. The policy here seems to be that the mods have been nuking dozens of posts over the last few days—mostly in those specific threads where mcaucliffe is active. If I'm the one causing issues, then fine, point out exactly what I did wrong and hand out the penalty. But if someone else is the actual problem, then go after them. Stop letting the trolling slide. There are people here who just want to have a decent conversation without all the constant back-and-forth, the ego trips, and the finger-pointing. It’s weird... most of us aren't out here attacking each other daily, yet there’s this endless cycle of users getting dragged into arguments with mcaucliffe, who seems to have an accusation ready for absolutely everything.

Is it really that much of a struggle to just answer a few basic questions? I mean, if you ask someone on a forum multiple times to point out their own past posts—assuming they actually have any—and they just dodge the question every single time without showing a single thing... Am I some kind of liar for concluding those posts don't exist? Or is this person, who refuses to prove they ever wrote anything while calling my conclusion a lie, just a textbook troll? And one more thing. How else are you supposed to prove something doesn't exist on a message board, other than the fact that the person claiming it exists won't show any proof despite being asked repeatedly? I’m looking for actual answers here, so just come clean: who's actually trolling the politics thread?

vividmaker9 said:Is it really that much of a struggle to just answer a few basic questions? I mean, if you ask someone on a forum multiple times to point out their own past posts—assuming they actually have any—and they just dodge the question every single time without showing a single thing... Am I some kind of liar for concluding those posts don't exist? Or is this person, who refuses to prove they ever wrote anything while calling my conclusion a lie, just a textbook troll? And one more thing. How else are you supposed to prove something doesn't exist on a message board, other than the fact that the person claiming it exists won't show any proof despite being asked repeatedly? I’m looking for actual answers here, so just come clean: who's actually trolling the politics thread?

Hardly.

Charles Fox10 said:http://www.forum.com/showthread.php?t=66911

It doesn't work that way. If I ask you to keep things civil a few times and you still won't, the next person gets a short break for breaking the rules.

So, here’s the proof of how this whole mess actually plays out. Then the moderator swoops in and starts handing out warnings like candy. Why am I the one getting flagged? Just because I asked another user to actually produce their old posts from 2009—you know, the ones where they supposedly complained about those traitorous bylaws—and after being ignored several times, I finally just accepted that the posts don't exist. I mean, what other conclusion am I supposed to draw when things go down like that? These are the exact moments where moderators actually need to step up and moderate. Instead of playing cop, why can't a mod just jump into the thread and say: "Look guys, you're fighting over a technicality we can settle right now. Since we can't quote posts that aren't there, the only way to solve this dilemma is to see the evidence. So, mcaucliffe (or whoever), go ahead and quote those 2009 posts where you were protesting the statute change. If you can't do it, then it's perfectly fair to conclude those posts don't exist and you never wrote them. Anything else after that is just trolling." Simple as that. End of story.

Charles Fox10 said:Hardly.

Well, if it isn't, then why didn't you answer a single one of my points? This whole thing you posted doesn't fix anything. You were all up in the other thread warning everyone about ad hominem attacks, but I haven't attacked anyone personally. We’re talking about credibility here. McAuliffe spends his days tearing people apart—like the GOP leadership or the campaign staff—by claiming everything they do is untrustworthy just because they kept their mouths shut back in 2009 during those local policy debates. Meanwhile, he can't even prove he actually spoke out against those policies himself. If me pointing out his lack of credibility—because of that silence in '09—is an ad hominem, then it’s also an ad hominem when he tries to paint the party leaders as liars for the exact same reason. I’d love to know how many times McAuliffe has been flagged for using that same tactic before.

So, if a moderator starts handing out warnings and preaching about "proper conduct," maybe someone should tell me if it's actually considered correct when one user just flat-out refuses to acknowledge they already answered a question or show the posts they supposedly made. Is that right? And then, after playing deaf to the whole thing, once someone concludes those posts don't exist, that same user suddenly flips the switch and starts attacking everyone. Is that what we're calling a constructive discussion these days?

vividmaker9 said:So, here’s the proof of how this whole mess actually plays out. Then the moderator swoops in and starts handing out warnings like candy. Why am I the one getting flagged? Just because I asked another user to actually produce their old posts from 2009—you know, the ones where they supposedly complained about those traitorous bylaws—and after being ignored several times, I finally just accepted that the posts don't exist. I mean, what other conclusion am I supposed to draw when things go down like that? These are the exact moments where moderators actually need to step up and moderate. Instead of playing cop, why can't a mod just jump into the thread and say: "Look guys, you're fighting over a technicality we can settle right now. Since we can't quote posts that aren't there, the only way to solve this dilemma is to see the evidence. So, mcaucliffe (or whoever), go ahead and quote those 2009 posts where you were protesting the statute change. If you can't do it, then it's perfectly fair to conclude those posts don't exist and you never wrote them. Anything else after that is just trolling." Simple as that. End of story.

Because:

Otherwise, everyone involved in this kind of exchange will face sanctions, regardless of who started it.

Charles Fox10 said:Because:

Otherwise, everyone involved in this kind of exchange will face sanctions, regardless of who started it.

The issue boils down to the rules. They basically let mods just cut through any friction or debate without caring who actually threw the first punch. I get the logic—mods don't have all day to play detective—but when a situation starts snowballing, shouldn't it be in everyone's interest to actually pinpoint what caused the mess? If you hang out in the politics section long enough, you notice the same pattern: it’s almost always Adam Collins4 clashing with everyone else. It's weird how that one guy keeps landing in these situations. I laid out my own experience earlier; it was pretty straightforward and shows how fast things escalate. It started with someone asking a simple question, just wanting to see some posts from back in 2009 if they even existed. Instead of providing proof, the guy just tried to outsmart the questioner and turned it into an attack. I don't see why the mod can't just step in and handle it properly instead of just defaulting to repression, handing out warnings, and deleting everything.

I’ve got one more thing weighing on my mind, especially since the moderator already dropped a warning. Does bringing this whole argument back up—any mention of it at all—count as breaking that warning? For instance, if tomorrow or even a few days from now Adam Collins4 jumps into some completely different thread just to claim I was lying about him not posting back in 2009 (basically trying to paint me as a liar to discredit me, regardless of what we're actually talking about), do I have the right to report that? And would there actually be consequences for them? I’m asking because without some kind of rule here, we're just going to end up spinning in circles. Adam Collins4 throws a jab, I snap back because I'm trying to defend myself, he hits back again, and we're stuck in this loop... eventually reaching a point where everyone involved gets penalized equally, no matter who actually started the mess. Charles Fox10, I guess this question is mostly directed at you, since you were the one who pointed toward this solution in the first place.

There’s actually a massive loophole in that rule where everyone involved in a debate gets slapped with the same penalty. It basically assumes that if someone starts trolling or throwing out provocations, the person reacting in kind is just as guilty. But I wasn't trolling or being provocative here. I was just defending myself against being called a liar, pointing out the fact that neither Adam Collins4 nor anyone else had actually produced a single post to back up their claim. If someone is clearly trolling while simultaneously calling me a liar, I have to push back—you can't just label my self-defense as more trolling. I know you mods are swamped and this kind of petty stuff is probably a headache for you, but as users, we expect the moderation here to be both efficient and fair. If you can't manage that, then maybe don't bother moderating at all. Anyone can step up and call themselves a mod just to drop in occasionally, delete some posts, and hand out warnings.

And why on earth would anyone bother trying to prove anything on this forum when you can't even back up your own claims with a single shred of logic or actual evidence?

It’s funny, really—you’ve been asked more than a few times to actually substantiate what you’re saying... but, lo and behold, you just deflect. You try to pass the buck to someone else who didn't even make the claim in the first place, demanding they provide indirect proof for *your* points—which, suddenly, have become "arguments" simply because you decided they were.

I’m with you there; it’s nothing but textbook trolling. The clearest sign of it is when certain people realize they can't defend their own positions, so they just pivot to calling everyone else liars or slanderers (which, by the way, is something the Department of Justice takes very seriously) before having the nerve to lecture us about who's actually trolling whom.

I honestly want to know how much longer the moderators are going to let this specific group get away with it. They spend their time calling people pathetic, accusing them of lying—despite never proving a single one of their own fabrications—and jumping from topic to topic just to settle scores with anyone who disagrees with them. It seems like they're allowed to do it simply because they're part of the "in-crowd." So, I'll ask: how long is this actually going to last?

Adam Collins4 said:And why on earth would anyone bother trying to prove anything on this forum when you can't even back up your own claims with a single shred of logic or actual evidence?

It’s funny, really—you’ve been asked more than a few times to actually substantiate what you’re saying... but, lo and behold, you just deflect. You try to pass the buck to someone else who didn't even make the claim in the first place, demanding they provide indirect proof for *your* points—which, suddenly, have become "arguments" simply because you decided they were.

I’m with you there; it’s nothing but textbook trolling. The clearest sign of it is when certain people realize they can't defend their own positions, so they just pivot to calling everyone else liars or slanderers (which, by the way, is something the Department of Justice takes very seriously) before having the nerve to lecture us about who's actually trolling whom.

I honestly want to know how much longer the moderators are going to let this specific group get away with it. They spend their time calling people pathetic, accusing them of lying—despite never proving a single one of their own fabrications—and jumping from topic to topic just to settle scores with anyone who disagrees with them. It seems like they're allowed to do it simply because they're part of the "in-crowd." So, I'll ask: how long is this actually going to last?

Let's play a little game where I pretend I'm the moderator for a second:
Gentlemen, you're fighting over a tiny detail that we can settle pretty quickly. Since we can't quote posts that don't exist, the only way to solve this dilemma is to quote the actual posts if they are out there. So, Adam Collins4 (or whoever else feels like it) why don't you go ahead and quote those posts from 2009 you're claiming to have made against the adoption of that statute. If you can't do that, it's perfectly fair to assume those posts don't exist and you never wrote them. Anything else after that is just pure trolling.

Maybe we could actually fix things if the mods gave a damn. I only started this thread because the situation in the PDF files got so out of hand that the moderators just stepped in to shut down entire topics and ban everyone in sight. Instead of actually addressing the issue, they just showed up to prove my point: their solution to any conflict is to just wipe out regardless of who actually started the trolling. This way of doing things has backfired big time—now you've got these trolls acting like they own the place, trying to lecture the mods like they’re the ones in the wrong! It's ridiculous. I'll say it again: if I'm the one causing the trouble, go ahead and hit me with a permanent ban but at least tell me what I did wrong first. If I'm not the problem, then punish the actual agitator. I laid it all out—how these issues start and who's pulling the strings.