Even if you are very aware of a member's posting history, not everyone who reads this forum is. When you start actioning a member's posts before they break the rules, many people aren't going to understand it. They are going to view it as a power-hungry, tyrannical mod imposing their will on the board, rather than just enforcing the rules. I don't think this forum wants that.
The
functional problem is―
Again, I didn't ask you to ignore their posting history. I asked that you wait until someone actually breaks the rules of the board before you moderate a post or thread. It's that simple.
―you're essentially asking us to wait "until someone actually breaks the rules"
to your satisfaction before acting.
One of the effects is simply enough demonstrated by asking, "Why you?"
Because the next person can say, "Why Mac? Why not me? I'm still not satisfied!"
And here's the thing: At the
point you check in↑, there are multiple explanations from moderators in this thread. Having read through those responses, you check in to agree with Billvon, which is what it is and not by any means objectionable. But
now you lament,
"When you start actioning a member's posts before they break the rules, many people aren't going to understand it. They are going to view it as a power-hungry, tyrannical mod imposing their will on the board, rather than just enforcing the rules." This is inconsistent:
(1) Bowser posts thread that is removed to Cesspool.
(2) Bowser complains to Site Feedback.
(3) [
There is no point three.]
(4) Explanations are posted.
(4) Counterpoint is posted, including link to Cesspool thread.
(5) [
Wait, why scratch (4) above?]
↳ Because your argument ignores it; see (6) below.
(6) Having read the topic post complaint, explanations, and counterpoint, you presuppose the counterpoint, ignore the explanation, and complain that doing so will confuse people. You are correct; they will confuse themselves when they ignore the explanation in order to posture confusion. Still, it just seems to come back to the line about who falls for it and who is part of it.
In a broader context, of course, what you worry about is certainly
possible. One of the results of your formulation, however, is the protection of known trolling behavior. That is to say, once we have demonstrated someone's offense to your satisfaction that we should enforce the rules, whose permission would you recommend we seek next?
It's kind of like the old bit about Nixon; I can believe that nobody Yazata knows will admit to knowing a thing about politically conservative subcultures―
e.g., "alt-right", as it is called of late, among other overlapping political identities―that occasionally write the script for them. And that's a more complicated discussion of the evolution of American political discourse over recent decades, but history makes clear that few know where the whole of their team's partisan arguments come from. So while Yazata's ninety-nine percent is a bit silly, it's also kind of like the old bit about
not knowing anyone who voted for Nixon↱. I can believe that "ninety-nine percent" of Yazata's "us" would be capable of associating the term with a movie, and even the implication that they wouldn't acknowledge knowing the powerful misogynistic version coursing through their politics.
Would you be so kind as to imagine ... a guy on a particularly bizarre bender in which he asks about some idea as if he is ignorant of it, ignores what people tell him, and begins posting pointed propaganda. In this case, yes, the theme is misogynistic, but just like you've at least heard of the documentary, what if ...? What if in the middle of the bender he pauses to praise a particular YouTuber, whose catalogue of long, rambling videos he is exploring ... around the same time said video blogger is ranting about that particular documentary you mentioned?
When one posts material from the known literary corpus, behaves according to the widely observed
modus operandi of such advocates, and it just happens to, you know, completely accidentally coincide with his own widely observed behavior, it's kind of obvious. Furthermore, his pretense of ignorance is nearly impossible.
(Once upon a time two moderators were fighting over a particular ban for particular conduct and after any number of other potential excuses, plausible or otherwise, had been spent, fell upon the possibility of a "stupid standard", acknowledging that one certainly was behaving as such except diminishing culpability because that person is somehow legitimately so stupid as to not comprehend what they were doing wrong, at which point they sort of had to face the horror of such a proposition and its necessary implications. That is to say, it is possible to believe―or, at least, suspend disbelief that―one can swim in corrosively toxic waters without noticing, but, you know, come on, and say what we will about our own credulity but at some point it would seem an even greater insult to suggest one is simply that freaking stupid.)
Beyond that, though, so far everything is right on schedule, including the
tabula rasa objections. On this occasion, manipulating people is the point of Bowser's complaint. Which is how your argument can come to protect known trolling behavior. Between waiting for the endorsement of those aren't necessarily familiar with the literature and methodology, and trying to account for willing dupes, it can be very, very easy to help facilitate these trolls.
