“and people like you playing.”

Considering that it was a reply to Merc’s trolling post and was specifically directed at Merc, and the fact that LHO tried to hide it by editing it (which suggests that he knew that it crossed a line, and was hoping to fix it before a Mod saw it), I stand behind my call.

If LHO wants to appeal his ban, he’s welcome to do so. I’d be interested to hear his explanation about how that last line (which is what he tried to edit out) was anything but trolling Merc.

Counter-trolling is still trolling.

If a tree falls in the forest user posts a somewhat trolly remark, but edits it before anyone can report it, is it still a bannable offense?

Actually kinda curious here.

Sergeant Cid Posted:

As far as a ‘precedent’, this is nothing new. If you make a trolling post, and it is reported, and you then edit your post, the original post is still part of the original report. If the original post breaks the rules, then it doesn’t matter what you ‘edited’ it to. You still broke the rules, and you still face the potential consequences. We’ve banned numerous people for making troll posts even though the edited them after they were reported.

I will say that I wasn’t aware of this, but fine.

I would like to add that in my opinion if someone is editing a post to something that wasn’t a troll then that could be considered that they are trying to respect the rules. I know that at times things I have posted came out harsher than I intended. Whether you consider it a “ban worthy troll” or not, I think it was obvious that he didn’t want to break any of the posting guidelines.

was Posted:

I think it was obvious that he didn’t want to break any of the posting guidelines.

Which is why I was first going to issue a warning to both, and leave it at that.

And his intent to self-correct his error was factored into my decision on ban-length.

Because I was going to warn both of them. And since another Mod decided to ban Merc (because Merc’s post was reported), it would have been unfair to have one banned and the other not, because they were both trolling in Civil Discussion.

Both posters receive same/similar punishment for the same/similar offense. IIRC, that’s one of the things that the general public has been asking for.

FAIL Posted:

Saying “well I was only going to warn them” and then banning them is pretty stupid IMO. This is a very clear example of how mods should always err on the side of leniency.

I think banning someone for pointing out how someone is whining (which Hobart kind of was) then banning someone for an extremely harmless “people like you” comment is a slippery slope (more of a slippery slope than allowing very minor “trolls” imo).

I have always thought there was a big difference between trolling, and disagreeing in a childish way. To me, the trolling rule in CD was in place to protect new users who had legitimate questions, or let people carry on semi-serious conversations without people intentionally derailing them or turning it into a ****fest. If it were up to me (which it isn’t) I would say as long as you keep the thread on track and you aren’t intentionally trying to get a rise out of someone for no reason, it should be fine without a warning.

Banning them both looks a lot like mods are finding reasons to ban, instead of keeping the forum clean.

good comments.

Let me try to explain this, one last time.

When I encountered this situation, I saw two posters making trolling posts. Given the choice of banning both or warning both (both choices being equally valid), I decided to be lenient, and made a post to warn both of them. While I was doing so, another Moderator banned one of the two posters I was going to warn. I chose to amend my decision and follow suit with my fellow Moderator, and banned the other poster. This was the most fair option, because punishing one and not the other would have been biased. And our goal is to be fair.

That’s it.