Is it considered abuse on boards to call some a troll?

Brown Bomber

ShooterSF wrote: »

Nope and unlike other forums in the spirituality section you are free to criticise atheism and agnosticism. It's welcomed.

Welcomed...? Evidently not.

ShooterSF wrote: »

However an example imo where you could be seen as trolling was your quote you posted on the favourite hitchens quote thread (later moved I believe) from 30+ years ago when he said something in support of Saddam.

So in your opinion it's trolling to post a Hitchens quote in a thread titled "Favourite Hitchens Quotes"? WTF?

ShooterSF wrote: »

The thread was very much set up as a commemorative thread and not one to discuss his opinions on Iraq but you were likely to derail it by posting such.

Now it makes more sense. I was trolling because I was posting a Hitchens quote in a thread specifically for Hitchens quotes because Hitchens is "highly respected" and the quote didn't present him in a favourable light?

Yet you think criticism is "welcomed"? That's laughable. The non-hero-worship Hitchens quote I posted was removed without cause because it was non-hero-worshiping. This is censorship and biased moderation and is the polar opposite of criticism being "welcomed".

ShooterSF wrote: »

Indeed but doing so in every thread derails other people's discussions about Hitchens. We get it, every regular user knows your view and why you hold it and your mind is not for changing so repeating it in any thread to do with Hitchens (regardless of the threads link to his views of the Iraq war) is if not trolling, derailing and unhelpful.

I'm sorry. but how is it "derailing" by discussing the topic i.e. Hitchens? And you are misrepresenting the situation. You are trying to suggest I am shoehorning the same point when I am discussing the topic. I made my point and some people responded and then I in turn responded to them and so on. It's called debate.

-Chris-

It's pretty clear at this point BrownBomber, that your OP was pursuing a particular angle/point, rather than just asking a question.

Can you please clarify this in your OPs in future? If you've an axe to grind or a point to make, it's only fair on other posters to allow them the opportunity to not walk into the crossfire...

Brown Bomber

-Chris- wrote: »

It's pretty clear at this point BrownBomber, that your OP was pursuing a particular angle/point, rather than just asking a question.

Can you please clarify this in your OPs in future? If you've an axe to grind or a point to make, it's only fair on other posters to allow them the opportunity to not walk into the crossfire...

In all sincerity it was never my intention to bring any of this up. All I was interested in was the official boards position on troll accusations so I would possibly have something to fall back on when I reported the posts that the mod who would be dealing with had publically supported.. I even site-searched boards.ie with a combination of keywords to find my answer before I started this thread.

Steve

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In all sincerity it was never my intention to bring any of this up. All I was interested in was the official boards position on troll accusations so I would possibly have something to fall back on when I reported the posts that the mod who would be dealing with had publically supported.. I even site-searched boards.ie with a combination of keywords to find my answer before I started this thread.

In fairness, this thread seems to have wandered from a site policy question to a forum policy question.
In that case you should suggest to the mods of the forum concerned that they allow a local feedback thread for it - I've done it in forums I mod and it works great for beating out local issues that don't necessarily need sitewide attention.

Dades

Brown Bomber, do you think Boards should enforce a site-wide ban on accusations of trolling?

Should all forums be compelled to uphold this?

ShooterSF

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Welcomed...? Evidently not.

Threads open on the first page of the forum:
"Atheists are just as intolerant, if not more so, than most religious" - discuss
Is agnosticism reasonable?
Is Darwinism the religion of atheists?
Why do athiests commit suicide at such a high rate compared to religous people
Why an afterlife/soul may not be so crazy

Thats just the first page. Where people have been free to question and offer criticisms.

So in your opinion it's trolling to post a Hitchens quote in a thread titled "Favourite Hitchens Quotes"? WTF?

Depending on the quote. Your question here is why you get accused of trolling. You and I both know that posting "a Hitchens quote" is not the problem but posting one to antagonise other posters. I gave you a perfect examply re: the bible quotes thread. Do you agree that that would be trolling? Please don't skip this question. It is not rhetorical.

Now it makes more sense. I was trolling because I was posting a Hitchens quote in a thread specifically for Hitchens quotes because Hitchens is "highly respected" and the quote didn't present him in a favourable light?

You'll find most favoutire quote topics are people the OP was fond of and wants to remember their favourite quotes of the individual so yes.

Yet you think criticism is "welcomed"? That's laughable. The non-hero-worship Hitchens quote I posted was removed without cause because it was non-hero-worshiping. This is censorship and biased moderation and is the polar opposite of criticism being "welcomed".

Shifting goal posts, another similarity your style shares with trolls. I said criticism of Atheism and Agnosticism was welcome. Criticism of Hitchens is also welcome on the forum but is contained in one thread so those that want to discuss your and others criticisms can while those that want to discuss Hitchens positives can do so too without it being derailed.

I'm sorry. but how is it "derailing" by discussing the topic i.e. Hitchens? And you are misrepresenting the situation. You are trying to suggest I am shoehorning the same point when I am discussing the topic. I made my point and some people responded and then I in turn responded to them and so on. It's called debate.

Hitchens is not a topic. There are multiple threads discussing different topics in regard Hitch. Again, making your point in a thread that had nothing to do with the iraq war is derailing it because others will respond.
Another trait tolls rely on. I just offered my opinion and people replied and then the thread went down that road.

Not that you'll take this advice but if a lot of people think you are a troll either you're a troll or your posting style is troll like by coincidence and you should probably work on it...

Brown Bomber

Dades wrote: »

Brown Bomber, do you think Boards should enforce a site-wide ban on accusations of trolling?

Like I said and IMHO I think accusations of trolling should be dealth with in the same manner as accusations of lying. Not made on a whim, to ridicule or to avoid debate. The accusations should be specific and supported (unlike Robin's vague smears). I think people are entitled to the benefit of the doubt also regarding trolling claims, innocent until rreasonably proven guilty.

These are the examples of the accusations made against me in that thread alone:

1. "Nil points, troll harder. "

2. "Troll harder. "
3. "you're just posting crap looking for attention, which makes you a troll."
4. "Tsk, more trolling."
5. "Keep fishing troll. "
6. "Carry on troll. "
7. "Misrepresentation, a trait of the troll. "
8. "which is why you're a troll."
9. "Not if the person being accused is continually ignoring questions, misrepresenting other people's points of view, soapboxing, taking quotes out of context and so on. In this tread, you have done all of these things and so, in this case, the accusation of trolling is useful and accurate."

Your happy to allow this abuse? Because it is conducive to good debate? And FWIW I (the troll) never responded in kind.

Am I now fully within my rights to call Magicmarker a troll based on my most recent exchange?

My post
Quickly summarised: A genuine and on-topic attempt at addressing his prior points and questions which included a sourced quotation I'd taken the time to find for his benefit.

His Response

So you are a hypocrite then. It's okay to kill innocent people so long as they're on the other side. Got it.

Reverting back to Robin's defintion of a troll "continually ignoring questions, misrepresenting other people's points of view, soapboxing, taking quotes out of context" his post ticks all these boxes.

Can I now call him a troll? And will a mod then thank my post? And what possible purpose will this all serve?

Dades wrote: »

Should all forums be compelled to uphold this?

Personally I can't think of a good reason as to why there should be a different policy forum-to-forum on how to deal with troll accusations regardless of what the policy is. Consistency is good.

Nodin

....better to be labelled a troll than banned for trolling, I would have thought.

Brown Bomber

ShooterSF wrote: »

Threads open on the first page of the forum:...
Thats just the first page. Where people have been free to question and offer criticisms.

And? This shows that the A&A forum may allow some form of criticism. I've given you an example where criticism of an atheist icon was forbidden in a thread. Therefore criticism is not "welcomed", Simple as that.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Depending on the quote. Your question here is why you get accused of trolling. You and I both know that posting "a Hitchens quote" is not the problem but posting one to antagonise other posters.

So Hitchens' own words can antagonise other posters in a thread that is specifically setup to share Hitchens' own words?

ShooterSF wrote: »

I gave you a perfect examply re: the bible quotes thread. Do you agree that that would be trolling? Please don't skip this question. It is not rhetorical.

If it genuinely was a favourite Biblical passage then no, it's not trolling.

ShooterSF wrote: »

You'll find most favoutire quote topics are people the OP was fond of and wants to remember their favourite quotes of the individual so yes.

And therefore only approved quotes are allowed? OP's get to make their own rules. A forum that is supposed to be accesible to all boards.ie members is only available to those of certain viewpoints. The OP get's to moderate by excluding dissenting POV's and various other make-it-up-as-we-go-along rules. Yet you still somehow cling to the notion that dissenting opinion is welcome in A&A ???

With respect, haven't we just had this conversation?

Dades

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And? This shows that the A&A forum may allow some form of criticism. I've given you an example where criticism of an atheist icon was forbidden in a thread. Therefore criticism is not "welcomed", Simple as that.

Frowned upon in one thread as another thread specifically existed for criticism. Repeating this sense of censorship just doesn't wash when the facts are presented.

I have to say my response to someone complaining of being called a troll, would be to not post in the manner of a troll. And sorry - but posting that quote in that thread was exactly that.

ShooterSF's analogy of the Favorite Bible Quotes is apt. Your response that it would be okay if it actually was your favourite quote is a nonsense, and we both know it. There's a concept behind such "favourite quotes" threads that assumes you like or agree with the actual content of the quote rather than posting it to make a point about your dislike of the quoted.

There was a thread for you to post freely your opinions about Hitchens which you ignored in favor of getting a rise by posting it elsewhere.

This has already turned into a DR thread despite the fact that your only gripe is that you got called a troll, but to answer your thread-title question, I would say "it depends".

Brown Bomber

Dades wrote: »

Frowned upon in one thread as another thread specifically existed for criticism. Repeating this sense of censorship just doesn't wash when the facts are presented.

I have to say my response to someone complaining of being called a troll, would be to not post in the manner of a troll. And sorry - but posting that quote in that thread was exactly that.

ShooterSF's analogy of the Favorite Bible Quotes is apt. Your response that it would be okay if it actually was your favourite quote is a nonsense, and we both know it. There's a concept behind such "favourite quotes" threads that assumes you like or agree with the actual content of the quote rather than posting it to make a point about your dislike of the quoted.

There was a thread for you to post freely your opinions about Hitchens which you ignored in favor of getting a rise by posting it elsewhere.

This has already turned into a DR thread despite the fact that your only gripe is that you got called a troll, but to answer your thread-title question, I would say "it depends".

I don't want to keep repeating myself. Ill just say this:
1. There was no "other thread" when you forbade any discussion of Hitchens' views on the Iraq invasion
2. You very unfairly conflate any accusation of trolling with actual trolling.
3. I don't know why you are qualified to tell me what is and isn't my favourite quote.
4. I had no intention of "getting a rise". If I did I would have added a comment. I did not. I provided a quote. No more, no less.
5. It was not my "opinion" but exclusively Hitchens' own words.
6. I can't "post freely" if I am getting constantly harrassed for trolling when I am not in fact trolling. And this harrasment is being thanked and approved by moderators.
7. My gripe is not that I was called a troll but repeatedly called a troll.

Actually, I have a suggestion for you that you could make as an act of good faith. Re-naming the "Bitch about Hitchens thread here" to something like "Hitchens' legacy frankly discussed here".

Surely it's more appropriate and without the sexist connatations?

ed2hands

The word troll is used pejoratively, as demonstrated above by Magic Marker.
Type the word into search on the A+A forum and you'll get about 4 pages of hits in the last week.
Even a thread started by an Admin no less discussing the matter..

This from a forum in which many athiest regulars positively revel in being as offensive/provocative/whatever you want to call it as possible?

Iwannahurl

Insect Overlord wrote: »

"Troll" isn't a term of personal abuse.

Calling someone a troll, however, is considered back-seat moderating in most forums. Also, as Overheal puts it above, it drags threads off-topic, which is not desirable in a post.

That said, not all forums are the same. Different modding styles work better in different forums. If the regulars call troll and the mods agree with them, then chances are someone needs to revise the posting-style they're using in that forum.

Insect Overlord wrote: »

It's generally bad, but it depends on which forum you're posting in.

Pissing off the natives is another way of describing it. If you're posting somewhere, it's advisable not to deliberately phrase things in such a way that will annoy the regulars/natives.

I am occasionally accused of being a troll, and some Mods don't seem to regard this as either personal abuse or back-seat moderating.

On the other hand, I have sometimes accused posters of trolling and consequently received a Mod warning.

I have therefore come to the conclusion that there is no objective definition of "troll" on Boards and I am now hesitant to make such a call.

The "regulars/natives" issue is key, IMO.

"We were here first" is a fundamental tenet of Boards culture I reckon.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70044911&postcount=52
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69499726&postcount=122

You're on a sticky wicket if you shout "troll" in a forum where there is an established dominant group, especially if the post/poster you are challenging aligns with the group-think. Conversely, you're unlikely to get much support if you're called a troll by a Regular Native, especially one who has status in a particular forum.

In my opinion, the vertical structure of Boards forums promotes a 'silo mentality'. A key feature of Boards 'silos', IMHO, is that Regular Natives of certain forums are not exposed to things they don't want to hear. Insisting on expressing unpopular viewpoints in these forums is not welcome, and may well be seen as trolling, especially if the perpetrator is a low-status 'outsider' (which may well be a tautology).



.

strobe

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It is true.[...] mod thanks?

Just on a basic human level of decency and understanding I would have thought that posting things, in a thread clearly meant for condolences, for no other reason than to annoy those giving them, would be considered distasteful by most.

My point was that your claim '(paraphrasing) any criticism of X is disallowed in Y forum except for Z thread' is untrue and you fukking well know that is untrue. It was one specific circumstance as outlined in my first fukking paragraph and you know that is the case.

You were being disingenuous (see: Lying) to try and further your point. It is a pet peeve of mine.

========

Personally I agree with you (despite the fact that the forum in question is by it's nature less strict in terms of allowing people to 'make accusations' on all sides), that people shouldn't make accusations of trolling. It can be quite annoying, in any forum, when your honestly held views are dismissed off hand as such.

========

But my original post was about your post I quoted. And you know that post was crap and that you didn't post it in good faith.

Brown Bomber

strobe wrote: »

Just on a basic human level of decency and understanding I would have thought that posting things, in a thread clearly meant for condolences, for no other reason than to annoy those giving them, would be considered distasteful by most.

My point was that your claim '(paraphrasing) any criticism of X is disallowed in Y forum except for Z thread' is untrue and you fukking well know that is untrue. It was one specific circumstance as outlined in my first fukking paragraph and you know that is the case.

You were being disingenuous (see: Lying) to try and further your point. It is a pet peeve of mine.

========

Personally I agree with you (despite the fact that the forum in question is by it's nature less strict in terms of allowing people to 'make accusations' on all sides), that people shouldn't make accusations of trolling. It can be quite annoying, in any forum, when your honestly held views are dismissed off hand as such.

========

But my original post was about your post I quoted. And you know that post was crap and that you didn't post it in good faith.

On reflection and re-reading our communication it does indeed appear you were trying to be helpful and I was over-defensive and therefore humbly apologise for my knee-jerk reaction.

While I do respect your candid and passionate post you should be careful...someone will report you for "soapboxing"

All that said I can't neglect to mention this point. Your speculating that I am posting about Hitchens' mistakes to get a rile out of people. Nothing could be further from the truth. I was motivated into posting by reading the I Love Hitch thread and was disgusted that a warmonger was being celebrated. That is a genuine, non-trolling motivation IMO.

Also, I am not familiar with the concept of a "RIP" thread and have never seen one on boards before and am therefore unfamiliar with the unwritten rules surrounding it. I am however familiar with the concept of "not speaking ill of the (recently) dead" though someone dying would never change my opinion of them but was prepared to make an exception on Hitchens due to his own history of this.

Brown Bomber

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Insisting on expressing unpopular viewpoints in these forums is not welcome, and may well be seen as trolling, especially if the perpetrator is a low-status 'outsider' (which may well be a tautology).

Thank you for your insightful comments. I think you've nailed it FWIW.

strobe

Brown Bomber wrote: »

While I do respect your candid and passionate post you should be careful...someone will report you for "soapboxing"

All that said I can't neglect to mention this point. Your speculating that I am posting about Hitchens' mistakes to get a rile out of people. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Just for the record BB I didn't mean that you personally were posting purely to get a rile out of people (I wholeheartedly believe you mean what you say), that was directed towards others. I was just trying to explain why an 'alternate' thread was required. It was because others clearly were doing that. Not because 'no criticism of X allowed in this forum' which is what you seemed to be alluding to. And which, at the risk of soapboxing, you know is not true.

Also, I am not familiar with the concept of a "RIP" thread and have never seen one on boards before and am therefore unfamiliar with the unwritten rules surrounding it. I am however familiar with the concept of "not speaking ill of the (recently) dead" though someone dying would never change my opinion of them but was prepared to make an exception on Hitchens due to his own history of this.

Well man the 'RIP' threads do come up from time to time, they do exist and when they have done in AH for example it has on occasion been common for mods to put in an on thread warning to people pointing out that the thread was not for taking the piss. But regardless of that, like I said, surely in a thread like that I would have thought it would just be a matter of having a little class not to choose that specific thread to take a pop at someone, ye know? Comes off a little like a low grade version of picketing a funeral, whether it is meant like that or not.

ShooterSF

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And? This shows that the A&A forum may allow some form of criticism. I've given you an example where criticism of an atheist icon was forbidden in a thread. Therefore criticism is not "welcomed", Simple as that.

I'm only doing this at this point because it may be all coincidence that you don't realise your posting style is so trollish! criticism of someone is a thread commemorating that person when another thread is available is not "criticism forbidden". Hell it is more than you get on AH when a celeb dies. Try posting criticism there and see what happens!

So Hitchens' own words can antagonise other posters in a thread that is specifically setup to share Hitchens' own words?

As the bible's can in a bible thread. The thing to realise is that such threads are there to celebrate the person in question. You would do well to follow the don't be a dick rule there and not post. It was not a thread set up for debate.

If it genuinely was a favourite Biblical passage then no, it's not trolling.

There in seems to lie your problem. It would most definitely be trolling as the thread was set up to pick out the nicest part of the bible for bible lovers to share. My posting would share nothing with the users and would rile many of them up. In short I would be breaking the don't be a dick rule. I'd also likely derail the thread and get a tonne of off topic reactions. Something I should be held responsible for as it was foreseeable. For the same reason a court would convict me of murder if I went out one day with no intent to kill anyone but at the same time chose to fire a gun off in random directions. The "all I did was x" defence is again a tool of trolls.

And therefore only approved quotes are allowed? OP's get to make their own rules. A forum that is supposed to be accesible to all boards.ie members is only available to those of certain viewpoints. The OP get's to moderate by excluding dissenting POV's and various other make-it-up-as-we-go-along rules. Yet you still somehow cling to the notion that dissenting opinion is welcome in A&A ???

Not approved quotes no but in the spirit if the thread. And again the forum is accessible to all though some would be best not to post in some threads. Similar again to say the bible thread or to stop picking on the Christians if there was a thread in rock and metal (music) about people's favourite GNR song someone who hates the band would be better off not pointing that out in that thread. Similarly a political thread discussing your favourite FF leader would best avoided by most users. It doesn't mean Music or Politics forums are off limit.
I'm still amazed that you find such issue with the A&A forum by the way. How much criticism of Christianity have you tried to post in the Christian forum or how much criticism of Islam have you posted in the Islam forum. I'd wager they are no more lenient and if I wasn't a dick I'd say a lot less lenient. Hell look at the hearing god thread (just happened to be at the top when I clicked into Christianity) and you will see atheist's advice less than welcome there too.

With respect, haven't we just had this conversation?

Oh unfortunately we did and to share another favourite quote of mine this time from the great Tim Minchin,

And if perchance I have offended
Think but this and all is mended:
We’d as well be 10 minutes back in time,
For all the chance you’ll change your mind.

Brown Bomber

You've changed your tune...:p

21-10-2011 11:00

ShooterSF wrote: »

I would have liked a separate thread but I'll be honest and say it would only be to prove the ridiculousness of the [condolences only] threads we get every time some famous person kicks it where you can't dare point out the negatives of said person. Too soon and respect the dead and all that crap.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056426597

Brown Bomber

strobe wrote: »

surely in a thread like that I would have thought it would just be a matter of having a little class not to choose that specific thread to take a pop at someone, ye know? Comes off a little like a low grade version of picketing a funeral, whether it is meant like that or not.

FWIW I do very much get where you are coming from. Though in this case my respect for the thousands if not hundreds of thousands dead which I hold Hitchens partially and indirectly responsible for overrides my respect for Hitchens in death, of which there is some.

ShooterSF

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You've changed your tune...:p

21-10-2011 11:00

Not really, I've always called for threads to discuss the person. That's why I was glad the bitch about hitchens thread was set up and here is part of my first post on the AH thread
"Anyway that's 2 topics on Hitch I've helped derail and the man deserves better. I will say though I'm glad to see AH have a grown up thread where people can have discussions about our society sparked by the death of a famous figure rather than a gagged RIP fest. I'm sure Mr. Hitchens would have much preferred the former"

I just think it's unhelpful for every thread about him to descent into discussion on his views in Iraq. There is much more about the man to discuss.

MungBean

If trolling is an actionable offence (Which I assume it is in every forum) then calling someone a troll is an accusation of wrong doing. And that is attacking the poster/back seat modding, which is in breach of the charter.

Just because mods want to take part in that doesnt give them any right to do so. If a poster is trolling then they should be warned about trolling and given the opportunity to dispute that through the usual methods.

Not much use in having mods who are more interested in breaching the charter themselves than upholding it.

If someone is trolling then action should be taken and not in the form of name calling.

Dades

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't want to keep repeating myself. Ill just say this:

...

Let's agree to disagree that what went on was trolling.

You do however raise some interesting points about calling out 'trolls'. It does annoy me to even when people have been trolling. The problem in A&A is that cracking down on that would mean getting heavy-handed and that's not something we ever want to do there.

One to think about, however.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You've changed your tune...:p

21-10-2011 11:00

I'm guessing this is your "favourite quote" of ShooterSF.

Brown Bomber

Dades wrote: »

Let's agree to disagree that what went on was trolling.

You do however raise some interesting points about calling out 'trolls'. It does annoy me to even when people have been trolling. The problem in A&A is that cracking down on that would mean getting heavy-handed and that's not something we ever want to do there.

One to think about, however.

Sounds fair . I would like to say that had I known that there was such a thing as RIP threads prior I am sure I would have bitten my tongue - do now at least.

Nolanger

MungBean wrote: »

If someone is trolling then action should be taken and not in the form of name calling.

I get called a troll all the time in the Films forum by the MODERATORS!

Iwannahurl

Nolanger wrote: »

I get called a troll all the time in the Films forum by the MODERATORS!

Any choice examples?

Anything that might help me understand the phenomenon?

Nolanger

They should rename that forum Empire magazine because whenever you criticise a famous director (Scorcese/Tarantino) or suggest an old black and white movie they shout Troll. They're like a bunch of global warming zealots unable to accept a counter opinion.

Dudess

Not when it's blatantly obvious, like on the current AH Stephen Lawrence one.
And that chestnut "You're only saying it's trolling because you disagree" is nearly always bullsh1t toy-throwing by people who can't support their arguments and can't handle that being spotlighted.
Occasionally accusations of trolling are by people simply not liking what's said, but the majority of the time it's a valid suspicion.

Vomit

Can't believe I only saw this thread now. Lots of good points raised.

Despite there being a thread specifically for negative Hitchens discussion, it still was subject to iron fisted moderation for being off topic or going in circles, even though there was solid discussion all round from the critics of Hitchens. Pretty slanted IMO.

If Ann Coulter died, anyone could post "Ding dong the witch is dead" on any thread, and would probably be thanked for it.

Iwannahurl

Dudess wrote: »

Not when it's blatantly obvious, like on the current AH Stephen Lawrence one.
And that chestnut "You're only saying it's trolling because you disagree" is nearly always bullsh1t toy-throwing by people who can't support their arguments and can't handle that being spotlighted.
Occasionally accusations of trolling are by people simply not liking what's said, but the majority of the time it's a valid suspicion.

I have to disagree, but since the definition of trolling is somewhat nebulous I can only offer my opinion FWIW.

As a Mod*, what is your opinion of the Regular Natives comments earlier?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76224748&postcount=7
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76225235&postcount=11

Personally I believe the definition of trolling should be clear and consistent across all forums. It makes no sense to me that Regular Natives of any given forum can decide for themselves, ad hoc, what trolling is. The potential for bias, discrimination and wagon-circling should be obvious.







*EDIT: IIRC you are a Mod, or have I got that wrong?