I don't expect this to play particularly well here, and maybe I'm just being conspiratorial, but here goes:
I banned [email protected] from [email protected] earlier today- he literally posted a matt walsh youtube link and was being otherwise transphobic in a space where that gets you banned. (link)
one of jordanlunds removed comments w/ matt walsh video:
spoiler
the reason I put down was 'trolling about neopronouns' I stand by that, it was violating instance rules and was unacceptable behavior from a moderator of another instance.
Shortly after that I got banned from [email protected] for 'trolling'. To be clear, jordanlund does not moderate [email protected], but the timing struck me as an odd coincidence.
The .world thread in question (link)
I was expressing my actual opinion/position on this, if anything the post I was replying to should be considered a rule 1 violation implying leftists are russian/under russian sway:
spoiler
The removed comments that I was banned (permanent) for were just me being earnest about my position, which you're welcome to disagree with.
I don't view protecting my rights as something worth sacrificing other people for, even if they're on the other side of the planet. You can be mad at me or hate me for that, but I'm not trolling.
People replying felt it was reasonable to call me an idiot for example, yet another example of selective moderation. on .world.
I don't have any conclusive proof that my banning Jordanlund and then getting banned are related other than the suspicious timing, I welcome clarification.
Anyway in the interest of neutrality and transparency I submit both my ban and jordanlunds for review.
I think this is a related factor but not quite what I’m getting at here.
My understanding of trolling is that it is a deliberate attempt to trigger negative emotional responses and cause trouble. So users should have a good sense of whether they are or are not engaged in trolling.
So either:
A: They are lying about their intentions. B: The community and mods are ascribing ill intentions where there are none. Or C: Different people are using conflicting definitions of trolling.
While A might seem the obvious answer, I think it’s actually far less common than people think. When I go through the histories of people accused of trolling I rarely see clear evidence of it. It’s usually just a person who has a tendency to respond angrily to people they disagree with, or who has a particularly strong disagreement with the community on a particular issue that they feel passionately about.
So I usually chock these cases up to B, and I think this case is a pretty clear example. However I’d also be curious to know if C is at play here, so if you think there is another definition of trolling that differs from mine, please share it.
I mean, further looking and it's almost certainly B. I think people like to ascribe ill-intent when they just knee-jerk to disagreement. "Trolling" here was absolutely the wrong choice of verbiage.
Trolling is generally pretext to censor content and or tone of speech