Censorship

[Gerry Seymour]

Our Moderation philosophy is to use as light a touch as we can. Many times, a Mod (or even Mentors) will post in a thread to try to calm it down or pull it back on track. Sometimes it's subtle, sometimes not so much. We can escalate, all the way up to banning a member if needed -- but we don't discuss actions taken against any member with anyone but that member. Praise in public, punish in private.

And I'll add that many times, one of us will report a post so we can all monitor the thread and discuss it, then we often (often including the original reporter) decide the post/user hasn't yet crossed the line. That's part of the light touch.

 

[Steve]

Not everyone consistently brings value. Some have brought value sporadically, but were more often either sowing misinformation and ill-considered thoughts, or were just trying to be controversial. I imagine those folks ended up on a lot of permanent ignore lists, without ever having presented some hard truth - often they presented hard-to-understand untruths.

We can agree or not on whether someone is bringing value to the site. But that’s a different discussion than whether someone is trolling or not.

I think some of well regarded posters on this site sow misinformation and Ill-considered thoughts from time to time. I don’t think those folks should be banned or binned nor do I think they are trolls. I just think they’re misinformed.

Here's the thing. You guys like to pigeonhole people. If you're deemed worthy, when you disagree with folks, you're simply explaining truths. When you call someone an idiot, you're simply giving them some well deserved, direct feedback. A wake up call, I think is how it's described. When you say the same things over and over, it's because you believe them to be true and are patiently explaining your position to someone who is just choosing to ignore you.

When you're deemed unworthy and you disagree with folks, you are trolling. When you call someone an idiot, you are violating the TOS. When you say the same things over and over, you are grinding an axe or pushing a narrative.

Same posts, same language, same actions, but handled very differently depending on whether you are pigeonholed as "valuable" or a troublemaker.

The real point I'm trying to make here is that it's a matter of perspective. I don't expect you to understand what I'm trying to say, and certainly don't expect you to change. It's your site, and you'll manage it however you like. I just simply don't think anyone who has been around for a while is here to "troll" or be a nuisance. They may not be knowledgeable. They may not add a lot of "value". But that's not the same thing. And often, new folks come on the site and chased off before we can even get to know them one way or the other.

 

[Xue Sheng]

The real point I'm trying to make here is that it's a matter of perspective. I don't expect you to understand what I'm trying to say, and certainly don't expect you to change. It's your site, and you'll manage it however you like. I just simply don't think anyone who has been around for a while is here to "troll" or be a nuisance. They may not be knowledgeable. They may not add a lot of "value". But that's not the same thing. And often, new folks come on the site and chased off before we can even get to know them one way or the other.

If I didn't have you on ignore I'd respond to all this...but this one above in bold, may have happened this week because the OP was instantaneously attacked for his opinion, based on his experience, I do not think any of those who attacked are trolls, and they do contribute a lot, I just think one started and the fray began.... but I have been here on MT for darn near 16 years and there are those came here mainly to argue and disrupt and when they start arguing points that were never made in the first place.... and it happens...use to happen more...they are not contributing.... they are here to disrupt...and they also have chased very good posters away

 

[Tony Dismukes]

we don't discuss actions taken against any member with anyone but that member. Praise in public, punish in private.

If you're deemed worthy, when you disagree with folks, you're simply explaining truths. When you call someone an idiot, you're simply giving them some well deserved, direct feedback. A wake up call, I think is how it's described. When you say the same things over and over, it's because you believe them to be true and are patiently explaining your position to someone who is just choosing to ignore you.

When you're deemed unworthy and you disagree with folks, you are trolling. When you call someone an idiot, you are violating the TOS. When you say the same things over and over, you are grinding an axe or pushing a narrative.

I wanted to put these quotes together because they reflect an not uncommon situation we encounter during moderation.

During the course of a discussion (or a series of discussions) things start to get heated between members A and B. Inappropriate language is used, behavior starts to push the bounds of the terms of service.

Usually by this time the mods are monitoring the situation and may drop a public "play nice" warning into the thread. However things don't cool down and we collectively decide that one or more parties have crossed the line sufficiently so that they have to receive consequences, which can range from a simple warning, to points on a members record, to a temporary suspension, or even a permanent ban. So we go to member A with a message saying "your behavior in this thread violates the following rules, you are receiving the following consequences." (This will usually be just a warning for first offenses unless the behavior is really egregious.) Very often the reaction we get from member A is that we are playing favorites, that member B's behavior was much worse, obviously we are prejudiced against A and we like B better. (This is particularly likely if A and B have a long-term pattern of getting on each other's nerves.)

The thing is, as jks9199 said, we don't discuss disciplinary actions with anyone except the affected person. For all A knows, we actually handed out a much stiffer punishment to B. Sometimes that is exactly what has happened. We will not announce this publicly. If A and B are being jerks to each other, then we are not going to tell everyone that "A was x bad, but B was 2x bad." Each person will be told what they need to work on and that is what they personally need to work on. If a member feels that they can't stay within the bounds of civility due to another member's posts, then they can ignore them either with the forum feature which allows them to do that automatically or by exercising enough self-control to skip past those posts.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I wanted to put these quotes together because they reflect an not uncommon situation we encounter during moderation.

During the course of a discussion (or a series of discussions) things start to get heated between members A and B. Inappropriate language is used, behavior starts to push the bounds of the terms of service.

Usually by this time the mods are monitoring the situation and may drop a public "play nice" warning into the thread. However things don't cool down and we collectively decide that one or more parties have crossed the line sufficiently so that they have to receive consequences, which can range from a simple warning, to points on a members record, to a temporary suspension, or even a permanent ban. So we go to member A with a message saying "your behavior in this thread violates the following rules, you are receiving the following consequences." (This will usually be just a warning for first offenses unless the behavior is really egregious.) Very often the reaction we get from member A is that we are playing favorites, that member B's behavior was much worse, obviously we are prejudiced against A and we like B better. (This is particularly likely if A and B have a long-term pattern of getting on each other's nerves.)

The thing is, as jks9199 said, we don't discuss disciplinary actions with anyone except the affected person. For all A knows, we actually handed out a much stiffer punishment to B. Sometimes that is exactly what has happened. We will not announce this publicly. If A and B are being jerks to each other, then we are not going to tell everyone that "A was x bad, but B was 2x bad." Each person will be told what they need to work on and that is what they personally need to work on. If a member feels that they can't stay within the bounds of civility due to another member's posts, then they can ignore them either with the forum feature which allows them to do that automatically or by exercising enough self-control to skip past those posts.

Just to add to this, often we will get accusations from both A and B that we are playing favorites against the other one. Which wouldn't really make sense for us to be playing favorites in opposite directions.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Just to add to this, often we will get accusations from both A and B that we are playing favorites against the other one. Which wouldn't really make sense for us to be playing favorites in opposite directions.

Yes, there was a period here n MT when if one started arguing, you could be certain that 2 or 3 more would jump on...ad it was always the same group of 3 or 4 total. Yet 2 of those contribute to MT and one has contributed a lot over the years. All by the way were on my ignore list, 2 temporarily, I needed a break from them...and likely they needed a break from me.... and 2 permanently

 

[Tony Dismukes]

My belief is most of the time, when someone puts someone on their permanent ignore list, it’s because they were confronted with a hard truth about themselves and they didn’t like it. If you think you’re open minded and someone challenges that, or if you think you’re a fighter, or if you think you’re an expert on some thing or other… and someone suggests maybe you’re not as expert as you think or maybe you have a gaping blind spot. Nobody likes that, but it says a lot to me about their character how they respond to it.

If you're deemed worthy, when you disagree with folks, you're simply explaining truths. When you call someone an idiot, you're simply giving them some well deserved, direct feedback. A wake up call, I think is how it's described. When you say the same things over and over, it's because you believe them to be true and are patiently explaining your position to someone who is just choosing to ignore you.

When you're deemed unworthy and you disagree with folks, you are trolling. When you call someone an idiot, you are violating the TOS. When you say the same things over and over, you are grinding an axe or pushing a narrative.

I think folks who have been around for a while just simply disagree with each other, and sometimes those disagreements are irreconcilable on beliefs that are deeply held.

So what feels like someone trolling you probably feels to them like you trolling them. I find that this helps me cut through presumptions and emotions related to intent.

I'm putting these three quotes together because I think that they help to illustrate a common phenomenon. We all have a natural tendency to see things just from our own perspective. So that middle quote, if you set aside opinions regarding the moderation team, could easily be reworded to say

"From your own perspective, you're simply explaining truths. When you call someone an idiot, you're simply giving them some well deserved, direct feedback. A wake up call, I think is how it's described. When you say the same things over and over, it's because you believe them to be true and are patiently explaining your position to someone who is just choosing to ignore you.

When someone else refuses to accept the truths you have so patiently explained, they are trolling. When they call someone an idiot, they are violating the TOS. When they say the same things over and over, you are grinding an axe or pushing a narrative."

I don't want to put myself forward as some sort of model for social interaction, because I spent a good portion of my adult life making stupid social mistakes and struggling to develop basic social skills. However I have noticed something. In a lot of these heated discussions which we have had on this forum over the years, there have been many, many times when members A and B are arguing vociferously on a matter, not just contradicting each other, but accusing each other of bad faith and throwing in everything short of "yo mama" jokes. Then I'll add a post explaining my two cents worth on the topic. And both A and B (or C and D or however many people are busy throwing poo at each other) will hit "Like" or "Agree" or some other positive reaction to my post. Then they'll go back to telling each other why the other person is completely wrong. This seems a bit odd. How can they completely disagree with each other, but both agree with me at the same time?

I don't think this is because I'm some sort of super-charismatic figure that anyone would want to suck up to. It's certainly not because I'm being wishy-washy or vague in what I write. I'm coming up on 41 years in the martial arts and I am easily as opinionated on the subject as anyone else here. But there are a few things I try to do which may help me get along in discussions with fewer escalated arguments.

• I generally write with the assumption that the other person is trying to communicate in good faith. This isn't always the case. We do get people showing up who are here to deliberately troll. These individuals will eventually get banned. In the meantime, it doesn't really hurt to treat them as sincere.
• I try not to assume that I correctly understand the other person's meaning, especially if my immediate perception of that meaning is one which would make the other person out to be an idiot or a jerk. I find it's worthwhile to re-read everything they've said with the most generous interpretation possible and ask questions to make sure I really do understand where they're coming from.
• If I can get out of my own head into someone else's perspective for a little bit (even if I overall disagree with it), it gives me a better chance of explaining things in a way which makes sense to them.
• I remember the cautionary tale of this gentleman:
  
  I have my opinions on what is more effective and less effective in martial arts training for various purposes. I can respectfully offer those opinions and any supporting evidence I happen to have when they are relevant to the discussion at hand and people can decide what value they want to give to those opinions and evidence. If they think I'm completely wrong, so be it. Unless you're one of the small handful of MT members I've met in person, I might be a basement-dwelling internet fantasist with no actual training for all you know. In any case, just repeatedly telling someone that they're wrong doesn't have a high likelihood of causing them to stop being wrong unless I can come up with something more persuasive than lecturing them about "hard truths."
• In my experience, even people who I think are mostly wrong about most things may have some unexpected gems of wisdom or useful information if I care to listen respectfully. If I have the choice between spending my time explaining why they are wrong about 90% of everything or discovering the 10% of cool stuff I can learn from them, I know which is more valuable to me. Heck, occasionally I discover that I have to radically re-evaluate those percentages.

 

[Steve]

I wanted to put these quotes together because they reflect an not uncommon situation we encounter during moderation.

During the course of a discussion (or a series of discussions) things start to get heated between members A and B. Inappropriate language is used, behavior starts to push the bounds of the terms of service.

Usually by this time the mods are monitoring the situation and may drop a public "play nice" warning into the thread. However things don't cool down and we collectively decide that one or more parties have crossed the line sufficiently so that they have to receive consequences, which can range from a simple warning, to points on a members record, to a temporary suspension, or even a permanent ban. So we go to member A with a message saying "your behavior in this thread violates the following rules, you are receiving the following consequences." (This will usually be just a warning for first offenses unless the behavior is really egregious.) Very often the reaction we get from member A is that we are playing favorites, that member B's behavior was much worse, obviously we are prejudiced against A and we like B better. (This is particularly likely if A and B have a long-term pattern of getting on each other's nerves.)

The thing is, as jks9199 said, we don't discuss disciplinary actions with anyone except the affected person. For all A knows, we actually handed out a much stiffer punishment to B. Sometimes that is exactly what has happened. We will not announce this publicly. If A and B are being jerks to each other, then we are not going to tell everyone that "A was x bad, but B was 2x bad." Each person will be told what they need to work on and that is what they personally need to work on. If a member feels that they can't stay within the bounds of civility due to another member's posts, then they can ignore them either with the forum feature which allows them to do that automatically or by exercising enough self-control to skip past those posts.

to clarify, I'm talking about in the body of the threads, not behind the scenes, using Gerry's post as an example of how folks make assumptions about intent. I hope that makes sense. The things I referred to in my post are done by moderators in the threads. Not trying to make a big deal out of this. As I said, it's your house to manage how you see fit. But just trying to clarify that I am not speaking to what you do behind the scenes, and am talking about what you post in the public forum. "You" as in moderation, not you specifically, Tony.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

to clarify, I'm talking about in the body of the threads, not behind the scenes, using Gerry's post as an example of how folks make assumptions about intent. I hope that makes sense. The things I referred to in my post are done by moderators in the threads. Not trying to make a big deal out of this. As I said, it's your house to manage how you see fit. But just trying to clarify that I am not speaking to what you do behind the scenes, and am talking about what you post in the public forum. "You" as in moderation, not you specifically, Tony.

Something else to keep in mind is when we post, we're just posters. Unless we're posting a direct warning (and then it's mostly random who posts it after we all agree), our individual posts and opinions about posters are just like anyone elses. The thing is we don't all have the same opinions, and try to put our own opinions aside when we do actual moderating actions. If we can't, either because we're involved or we have some sort of bias for/against one of the people in the threads, we recuse ourselves from the discussion.

 

[Steve]

I'm putting these three quotes together because I think that they help to illustrate a common phenomenon. We all have a natural tendency to see things just from our own perspective. So that middle quote, if you set aside opinions regarding the moderation team, could easily be reworded to say

"From your own perspective, you're simply explaining truths. When you call someone an idiot, you're simply giving them some well deserved, direct feedback. A wake up call, I think is how it's described. When you say the same things over and over, it's because you believe them to be true and are patiently explaining your position to someone who is just choosing to ignore you.

Since the quotes were all mine, I'll try to respond (but briefly). To be clear, I don't think calling someone an idiot is ever a good idea. However, some folks can do it and in the thread are supported by members of the administrative team. Other folks would be taken to task (appropriately, IMO, whether it's me or someone else).

Members of the moderation team often tell other people that they are trolling or being intentionally argumentative or grinding an axe. I don't think that's ever a good idea, and we should always try to presume good will. Easier said than done, I know.

So, my point wasn't to justify poor behavior. It was to point out that there is disparate treatment in threads, in the public forum.

I hope that if you consider my earlier points with this in mind, you will see that what I was getting at is essentially what you're talking about below, though you did a really nice job of saying it.

When someone else refuses to accept the truths you have so patiently explained, they are trolling. When they call someone an idiot, they are violating the TOS. When they say the same things over and over, you are grinding an axe or pushing a narrative."

I don't want to put myself forward as some sort of model for social interaction, because I spent a good portion of my adult life making stupid social mistakes and struggling to develop basic social skills. However I have noticed something. In a lot of these heated discussions which we have had on this forum over the years, there have been many, many times when members A and B are arguing vociferously on a matter, not just contradicting each other, but accusing each other of bad faith and throwing in everything short of "yo mama" jokes. Then I'll add a post explaining my two cents worth on the topic. And both A and B (or C and D or however many people are busy throwing poo at each other) will hit "Like" or "Agree" or some other positive reaction to my post. Then they'll go back to telling each other why the other person is completely wrong. This seems a bit odd. How can they completely disagree with each other, but both agree with me at the same time?

I don't think this is because I'm some sort of super-charismatic figure that anyone would want to suck up to. It's certainly not because I'm being wishy-washy or vague in what I write. I'm coming up on 41 years in the martial arts and I am easily as opinionated on the subject as anyone else here. But there are a few things I try to do which may help me get along in discussions with fewer escalated arguments.

• I generally write with the assumption that the other person is trying to communicate in good faith. This isn't always the case. We do get people showing up who are here to deliberately troll. These individuals will eventually get banned. In the meantime, it doesn't really hurt to treat them as sincere.
• I try not to assume that I correctly understand the other person's meaning, especially if my immediate perception of that meaning is one which would make the other person out to be an idiot or a jerk. I find it's worthwhile to re-read everything they've said with the most generous interpretation possible and ask questions to make sure I really do understand where they're coming from.
• If I can get out of my own head into someone else's perspective for a little bit (even if I overall disagree with it), it gives me a better chance of explaining things in a way which makes sense to them.
• I remember the cautionary tale of this gentleman:View attachment 28458 I have my opinions on what is more effective and less effective in martial arts training for various purposes. I can respectfully offer those opinions and any supporting evidence I happen to have when they are relevant to the discussion at hand and people can decide what value they want to give to those opinions and evidence. If they think I'm completely wrong, so be it. Unless you're one of the small handful of MT members I've met in person, I might be a basement-dwelling internet fantasist with no actual training for all you know. In any case, just repeatedly telling someone that they're wrong doesn't have a high likelihood of causing them to stop being wrong unless I can come up with something more persuasive than lecturing them about "hard truths."
• In my experience, even people who I think are mostly wrong about most things may have some unexpected gems of wisdom or useful information if I care to listen respectfully. If I have the choice between spending my time explaining why they are wrong about 90% of everything or discovering the 10% of cool stuff I can learn from them, I know which is more valuable to me. Heck, occasionally I discover that I have to radically re-evaluate those percentages.

 

[Steve]

Something else to keep in mind is when we post, we're just posters. Unless we're posting a direct warning (and then it's mostly random who posts it after we all agree), our individual posts and opinions about posters are just like anyone elses. The thing is we don't all have the same opinions, and try to put our own opinions aside when we do actual moderating actions. If we can't, either because we're involved or we have some sort of bias for/against one of the people in the threads, we recuse ourselves from the discussion.

Yeah, I do disagree a little bit on this one, in that as long as you have that title under your name, you are not posting as "just" a poster. We can just disagree on this one, but I don't think you'll ever convince me that moderators and mentors don't set the tone around here. I believe you do, whether you like it or not. Think of it like the debate sparked by Charles Barkley's quote, "I am not a role model."

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Yeah, I do disagree a little bit on this one, in that as long as you have that title under your name, you are not posting as "just" a poster. We can just disagree on this one, but I don't think you'll ever convince me that moderators and mentors don't set the tone around here. I believe you do, whether you like it or not. Think of it like the debate sparked by Charles Barkley's quote, "I am not a role model."

I think that's a difference between moderators and mentors. As a mod, I moderate things. As a mentor, they're role models.

I get not everyone thinks that way, and I do my best to keep that in mind when I post. But, we're all human and errare est humanum.

I also get when other mods don't, because of the thing you originally quoted, so I don't hold that against them.

That said, I think this is one of those situations where we both understand each other's viewpoint perfectly well, and there's not a lot of change/convincing we can do from discussing (though it could always change from time).

 

[Steve]

I think that's a difference between moderators and mentors. As a mod, I moderate things. As a mentor, they're role models.

I get not everyone thinks that way, and I do my best to keep that in mind when I post. But, we're all human and errare est humanum.

I also get when other mods don't, because of the thing you originally quoted, so I don't hold that against them.

That said, I think this is one of those situations where we both understand each other's viewpoint perfectly well, and there's not a lot of change/convincing we can do from discussing (though it could always change from time).

We don't need to agree. It's okay.

I have to laugh, though. I thought about a thread 6 months or a year from now on this same subject (you know it will happen eventually). When it does, and you say this same thing, I promise I will not presume you're trolling the thread or grinding the axe. Please do the same for me when I inevitably say the same thing, too.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Yeah, I do disagree a little bit on this one, in that as long as you have that title under your name, you are not posting as "just" a poster. We can just disagree on this one, but I don't think you'll ever convince me that moderators and mentors don't set the tone around here. I believe you do, whether you like it or not. Think of it like the debate sparked by Charles Barkley's quote, "I am not a role model."

Yeah, it's kind of a tricky area. Ideally we would have professional moderators whose only job would be to keep things running smoothly. What we have is people who are willing to volunteer because they care about the site and want to help it out. Due to the nature of that selection pool, we generally get moderators who want to be involved in the public discussions and they have opinions just like everyone else - including sometime "you're wrong", "you're not being reasonable", or "you're trolling." It's worth noting that if a moderator is involved in a discussion, they will not be the one making any final decisions regarding disciplinary actions or issuing those consequences. It's also worth noting that just because a moderator is participating in a discussion telling you that you're wrong about something it doesn't mean that the other moderators necessary agree with them on that particular subject.

We do ask that moderators try to uphold the standards of behavior we require of everyone else. (We've even had moderators report themselves when they know they've pushed the line on what they should have been saying.)

 

[drop bear]

I don't put people on ignore. I think going on a discussion forum and then only receiving feed back that makes me comfortable is intellectual cowardice.

 

[Unkogami]

well, it made me want to slap William Shattner...if that helps.
Interestingly enough the FB presence also seized years back, making one wonder if they were a disinformation troll to test out waters.....

 

[Grandmaster Yue men quan]

Are there certain posters on this board that you find objectionable enough, or simply irritating, that you have decided to blocked their posts? Is it just me? Is it me? If so, what is your motivation? (Since discretion is the better part of valour, please don’t mention the names of anyone you may have blocked).

I think years of objectionable Twitter-posts for political leaders, the ubiquity of David Brent/Michael Scott-types and the erroneous idea that everyone’s opinion on anything is valid have worn me down and I just want to hear from these people. I have left Facebook for the same reason.

I don't have anything to say hear as I've been objectionable at times. But if you ask a question remember that most online answers have three parts. One is train of thought because most people don't communicate like a research paper. Second is personal references because we're all not built the same in martial arts so they might take you down a winding road of experiences. And third is the material they have asked a question on might be incredibly dense and with that they might be an expert or a novice so there opinions on what is is prevalent might be a sentence or a book being abbreviated for content. After you decifer weather or not an answer is trolling or a hookup you can then decide what to do but no post is worth blocking or dismantling too much because you have the option of deleting your posts in a thread and moving along happy go lucky. And it no longer effects you. Just a fyi.

 

[Tez3]

I've blocked a couple of posters, but my usual thing is to just outlast them, they leave eventually.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I don't think calling someone an idiot is ever a good idea.

Agree with you 100% on this.

You may never use that word on others. But how do you prevent someone from using that word on you?

When you open your window, both butterfly and mosquito will fly in. The only solution is "If anybody uses that word even once, he is out".

 

[Rich Parsons]

We can agree or not on whether someone is bringing value to the site. But that’s a different discussion than whether someone is trolling or not.

I think some of well regarded posters on this site sow misinformation and Ill-considered thoughts from time to time. I don’t think those folks should be banned or binned nor do I think they are trolls. I just think they’re misinformed.

Yes agree to disagree on many things

Here's the thing. You guys like to pigeonhole people. If you're deemed worthy, when you disagree with folks, you're simply explaining truths. When you call someone an idiot, you're simply giving them some well deserved, direct feedback. A wake up call, I think is how it's described. When you say the same things over and over, it's because you believe them to be true and are patiently explaining your position to someone who is just choosing to ignore you.

By saying "YOU" and to a Moderator even with your follow up post it still "reads" like you have an issue with the staff.
It would be nice to know if there was a real issue or just sand paper over time where it is just raw for you?

The Follow up reads like damage control to me. Not just clarification.

And if someone explains the same thing over and over to myself, I ask why.
Why are they saying this? I get it. Or I don't agree, and they know it.
So Steve why do you say it over and over?
Oh yes the follow up that says please be patient in 6 months of so for the same topic.


Curious minds and all.
** Note: I don't expect a reply in public nor private move for self contemplation **

When you're deemed unworthy and you disagree with folks, you are trolling. When you call someone an idiot, you are violating the TOS. When you say the same things over and over, you are grinding an axe or pushing a narrative.

To me worth has no issue for who is trolling.
A troll is someone who asks A gets response to A and then says no I meant B and then gets response to B and then proceeds to:
Attack the responders
Accuse the responders of ganging up (* Passive aggressive trolling *)
Put out more Red Herrings
Purposefully cross post a reply to the wrong poster
...

And if people pay attention I will reply with similar words and phrases and if they get violent or threatening then yes one could say it was trolling them, yet if it truly was trolling them then does it not mean they were trolling in the first place?

PS: Some Trolls troll unconsciously and are not conscious of the unconscious trolling. Now if only they unconscious was conscious of the unconsciously trolling and let the conscious in on the message so they could see .... Oh Wait This is not existentialism. My Bad.

Same posts, same language, same actions, but handled very differently depending on whether you are pigeonholed as "valuable" or a troublemaker.

I would really like to see examples of this.
Or better yet.
Put them in a simple write up and send to a Senior Mod or Admin.

The real point I'm trying to make here is that it's a matter of perspective.

** use of One as this could be anyone and not just Steve's Post **

Perspective is reality for most people.
And if one is going to call out others on perspective then one should also be willing to stand back and call themselves out.
They should look at it from the other side as well.
If not then one has to ask why are they in the debate in the first place.

I don't expect you to understand what I'm trying to say, and certainly don't expect you to change.

I agree 100%.

It's your site, and you'll manage it however you like.

See Above about calling out Staff, and later follow up post to say not specifically to CYA.
My perspective is that after posting you realized that you may have crossed a line and need to walk it back to that line to be safe.
Which is where most of the Trolls or Hot Posters or conflict people learn to post.
Just like in any org for competition once there are rules, people will game the rules.

I just simply don't think anyone who has been around for a while is here to "troll" or be a nuisance.

I think some long time members get frustrated in their life and do Troll here from time to time and then back off to not loose their position here at this site.

I do think there are nuisance posters here. My Opinion. When I was staff, and I held all current and other positions in the past, there would be no reason for a Staff if people were not being a nuisance.

They may not be knowledgeable. They may not add a lot of "value". But that's not the same thing. And often, new folks come on the site and chased off before we can even get to know them one way or the other.

My generic opinion:
When new folks come in knowing more about all martial arts then anyone expert here in there area of expertise , these are your door to door religious people. They are not there to have a discussion. They are there to tell you are WRONG, and WHY YOU ARE WRONG.
** Note: Not Steve in this case - obviously not new, and using generic plural you **
They do not want to have you tell them anything. They wand you to listen to them.
Almost like a cult or blind faith or *Insert other comparison here*