What's new
By:
Filters

Rule Clarification; Trolling

NAOS said:
I understand perfectly well that counter-trolling is another form of trolling. And, it's obvious that what's happening here is the last failure of your vigilante campaign, and now you're tapping on Papa's shoulder and asking him for some justice that you'll accept without crying. It's ****ing sad, braugh. Delete your account and try again.
Click to expand...

Yet another attempt to not grasp the question at hand, and move on to something that suits YOUR purpose.

Now go back to your job that you think helps people and continue not getting tenure because you're an awful person in general.
 
ElRoach0 said:
Yet another attempt to not grasp the question at hand, and move on to something that suits YOUR purpose.

Now go back to your job that you think helps people and continue not getting tenure because you're an awful person in general.
Click to expand...

lol such poor grasp
 
ElRoach0 said:
I'm very open to discussion on trolling and counter trolling. But let's start with just the rules... If the rules would actually stand on what they are now, counter trolling by definition wouldn't need to exist. But they don't. So clarification is needed.

I'm not surprised you don't understand.
Click to expand...

If the mods are alerted and vote that what you're doing is trolling, then you're trolling. Use your judgement.
 
♪alt13 said:
If the mods are alerted and vote that what you're doing is trolling, then you're trolling. Use your judgement.
Click to expand...

but he wants a rule that is soooo absolute that it will inspire perfect behavior. Until such a rule exists, and perfect adherence reins, he's going to feel that tickle in his chest, you know? That tickle he calls batman? emmk.
 
♪alt13 said:
If the mods are alerted and vote that what you're doing is trolling, then you're trolling. Use your judgement.
Click to expand...

When you make a rule, it's black and white. If you write the rule with verbiage to allow flexibility, then there's room for gray areas.

The way the rule is written doesn't show flexibility. Therefore, a little bit of clarification on it is needed.
 
ElRoach0 said:
When you make a rule, it's black and white. If you write the rule with verbiage to allow flexibility, then there's room for gray areas.

The way the rule is written doesn't show flexibility. Therefore, a little bit of clarification on it is needed.
Click to expand...

maybe you should cite an example of a real-world instance where a rule hasn't been open to interpretation (and thus "grey area" behavior)? That will certainly help the mods.
 
Naos, leave the dude alone. He is asking the moderators a question.

Why do you feel the need to become involved?
 
Trolling is a humanly need. Just don't push the limits and don't do it more than rarely. My seventyfive million dollars.

I post therefore I am...
 
I think the rule should be altered to aim not the trolling acts but troll accounts. And even it should be limited in case it brings fun to people.

Go Real Salt Lake!
 
For instance I love my jokes. I always read them back and have a good laugh. Now is it fair to rob me away from it? I enjoy me man.

Go Real Salt Lake!
 
If we get strict with this then most everyone in here will be fracted and banned.
 
Not my site, but if it were, my answer; Trolling is an ambiguous term, on purpose. I want the ability to define it as I so choose to infract or ban a poster that I feel is an overall negative influence to the board.

If a poster is trolling, in my opinion, I will stop them. Period. As someone else said, use your judgement.
 
I think it's been said. The rules are not black and white in some cases. In fact in most cases. They are what we fall back to if something is going too far. This is why many years ago I implemented a moderator vote on issues. History of the user is factored in as well as the general usability of the community, including (believe it or not) an ideal where we try to stay out of it most of the time. If you're looking for black and white, sorry but you won't find it otherwise only Colton would still have an account and we would all be banned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Not that anyone cares, but my opinion is that Roach engaged with both frank and NAOS with some unkindness ensuing.
Roach responded with some butt-hurt (when he should have just shrugged it off) while frank and NAOS responded by continually being demeaning and not letting up.

All should treat each other with a bit more respect.
I ONLY ever mess with those I'm comfortable can handle it/like it.
If I sense I'm really truly hurting someone's feelings I stop immediately.

So, in my world, trolling is NOT stopping when you know better.
 
Jason said:
I think it's been said. The rules are not black and white in some cases. In fact in most cases. They are what we fall back to if something is going too far. This is why many years ago I implemented a moderator vote on issues. History of the user is factored in as well as the general usability of the community, including (believe it or not) an ideal where we try to stay out of it most of the time. If you're looking for black and white, sorry but you won't find it otherwise only Colton would still have an account and we would all be banned.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Well stated, JaJa
 
ElRoach0 said:
Jason/Colton,

Can I get some rule clarification on trolling please? Specifically the bolded part.



This reads to me if you're posting something you don't actually believe just to get reactions of others, it's grounds for mod action.

Is this still the case?
Click to expand...

I won't speak for them, but in my personal view if this one were interpreted strictly I'd quit the job due to handing out too many infractions/warnings.

My line is when people repeatedly (in my world that's more than 2 times) harass people. Telling someone off once or twice, fine. What I get irritated by is reading a thread and seeing two morons go back and forth with each other, or even worse, one person just attacking someone else out of the blue repeatedly in a thread. I won't speak for anyone else, but I'm all for voting a fract for it.
 
Dr. Jones said:
Not that anyone cares, but my opinion is that Roach engaged with both frank and NAOS with some unkindness ensuing.
Roach responded with some butt-hurt (when he should have just shrugged it off) while frank and NAOS responded by continually being demeaning and not letting up.

All should treat each other with a bit more respect.
I ONLY ever mess with those I'm comfortable can handle it/like it.
If I sense I'm really truly hurting someone's feelings I stop immediately.

So, in my world, trolling is NOT stopping when you know better.
Click to expand...

for the record, my beef with Roach started when he shamelessly **** all over my posts while I was trying to support him. Then, he went on to talk about how I'm as dense as his "daft nurses", and how there are "many doctors that sing his praises." It was hilarious. It was shortly after that when he committed himself to anti-trolling glory... and now, with his existential crisis and total confusion over what a rule is. I'll try to bump the threads if you need to see the record.
 
Last edited:
NAOS said:
for the record, my beef with Roach started when he shameless **** all over my posts while I was trying to support him. Then, he went on to talk about how I'm as dense as his "daft nurses", and how there are "many doctors that sing his praises." It was hilarious. It was shortly after that when he committed himself to glory of anti-trolling... and now, with his existential crisis and total confusion over what a rule is. I'll try to bump the threads if you need to see the record.
Click to expand...
I saw them as they were unfolding.
I'm not a mod (thank God), so I don't really care, I was just providing my 2 cents... Which is about 3 cents overpriced.
 
I'd like to see those truly with a hurt butt (had to) use the site's ignore feature but I think that is used less than the dislike function.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top