Originally posted by Forum ModeratorWith no direction home.
@MissOleum
Changing the subject and off-topic posts are allowed, to a degree. This is the nature of many threads - most people do this and threads are mostly more interesting discussions because of it.
Trolling is posting something controversial, off-topic or an ad hominem attacks in order to get an emotional response from another poster - thus tur ...[text shortened]... tack on Red Night in this thread, so we can all point and laugh at you...
Thank you in advance.
Originally posted by Forum ModeratorI think I might be getting closer to understanding this.
@MissOleum
Changing the subject and off-topic posts are allowed, to a degree. This is the nature of many threads - most people do this and threads are mostly more interesting discussions because of it.
Trolling is posting something controversial, off-topic or an ad hominem attacks in order to get an emotional response from another poster - thus tur ...[text shortened]... tack on Red Night in this thread, so we can all point and laugh at you...
Thank you in advance.
To avoid an accusation of trolling, the post must be:
.. relevant to the original poster's intent when starting the thread;
.. not likely to be controversial, i.e. to provoke serious disagreement;
.. not ad hominem, i.e. reacting to a poster rather than to his actual post;
.. not intended to provoke an emotional response from another poster (intent being the point here).
I understand that a person is not a troll, but may post in a trolling way.
I think I've got it, please tell me if I've misinterpreted something here.
OK, if Red Night makes a post claiming Fred Nurk is picking on him, is that trolling if it is demonstrably true?
And if Joe Bloggs then responds with "Red Night is a whiner" isn't that a personal attack on Red Night, whether or not the original statement was true?
{I choose Red Night for my example, because he appears to make trolling posts and non-trolling posts, but other posters treat all his posts as trolling posts.}
Originally posted by MissOleumYou are trying to put it in black and white, but it can't be rigidly defined.
I think I might be getting closer to understanding this.
To avoid an accusation of trolling, the post must be:
.. relevant to the original poster's intent when starting the thread;
.. not likely to be controversial, i.e. to provoke serious disagreement;
.. not ad hominem, i.e. reacting to a poster rather than to his actual post;
.. not intended to ...[text shortened]... ng posts and non-trolling posts, but other posters treat all his posts as trolling posts.}
Posts can be considered on-topic and also be trolling etc. etc.
There can never be a 'checklist' for trolling, as it is more of a continued posting trait than something that can be checked post for post, although individual posts may be trollish posts on their own.
Originally posted by MissOleumAs far as I can tell, Palynka didn't quote you, nor did he name you. However, if you believe the shoe fits, then so be it.
Why are you accusing me of whining? Is it your personal opinion that you have the right to say who may post in these public forums?
If, for whatever reason, you do think he accused you of whining, how does offering an opinion on another's posts equate to a desire to control who posts here?
Finally, what's the added value in contributing to this type of thread? If RN wants to constantly start threads which attack the site and it's community, then I say let him. By posting in these threads, one only validates him. Personally, I'd prefer if people concentrated on adding content to the forums as opposed to circle jerking around about "moderation issues" and feeding a troll.
Over and out.
D
Originally posted by CrowleyThanks for the help, Crowley.
You are trying to put it in black and white, but it can't be rigidly defined.
Posts can be considered on-topic and also be trolling etc. etc.
There can never be a 'checklist' for trolling, as it is more of a continued posting trait than something that can be checked post for post, although individual posts may be trollish posts on their own.
Originally posted by RagnorakIndeed. People aren't being driven off the forums. They are being bored off the forums.
Finally, what's the added value in contributing to this type of thread? If RN wants to constantly start threads which attack the site and it's community, then I say let him. By posting in these threads, one only validates him. Personally, I'd prefer if people concentrated on adding content to the forums as opposed to circle jerking around about "moderation issues" and feeding a troll.
Over and out.
D
What started as a mildly diverting "clan war" has become utterly tedious.
I doubt there are many of the true "silent majority" of forum-browsing users who have the slightest interest in the moderation "debate", let alone an opinion on it.
They probably just see RN etc. - as I do - as testicle-tugging children, not trying to entertain or amuse but simply to gain attention or notoriety - and on a chess website, for god's sake!
Originally posted by dottewellI reckon a thread or two on the history of TRAMS would be an excellent counterpoint to the tediousness of the whining, attention seeking threads.
Indeed. People aren't being driven off the forums. They are being bored off the forums.
What started as a mildly diverting "clan war" has become utterly tedious.
I doubt there are many of the true "silent majority" of forum-browsing users who have the slightest interest in the moderation "debate", let alone an opinion on it.
They pr ...[text shortened]... muse but simply to gain attention or notoriety - and on a chess website, for god's sake!
Are you up for the challenge?
D