Rule 4's vagueness is too hard to understand. Don't be a jerk? What one considers being a jerk is different from what another considers being a jerk.
Fair question. The infraction in question is refering to rule #3 which really encompasses all three.Finally, when being infracted by a moderator for an action here at debate politics, every infraction logged has a "reason" listed with it. One of these "reason codes" is Baiting/Flaming/Trolling. However, where are Baiting and Trolling listed in the Forum Rules?
Good idea and reasonable request.P.S. A nice rule of thumb list for what is punishable by however many infraction points posted somewhere in the rules section would also be helpful.
That is very reasonable. The red highlighted post you are referring to was without question an attention getter in the "new posts" page.Finally, as many subforums are getting their own special subforum rules, I find that it would be appropriate to have a thread within the "Forum Rules" subforum to link to all the subforum specific rules, this way if a new user wants to check out the forum rules, they can have access to ALL of the rules, instead of having a main body of rules, followed by all the little individual rules that they have to find out about after they have decided to participate in a thread in that subforum. What about the sticky in the forum view you ask? I myself do not check out threads by visiting the individual forums, I instead check out the "New Posts" list and then go to a thread from there. I have done so for a very long time, and if others do this as well, they will not be aware that these sub forums even have special rules for their use.
Fair question. The infraction in question is refering to rule #3 which really encompasses all three.
3. Flaming - "Originally, flame meant to carry forth in a passionate manner in the spirit of honorable debate. Flames most often involved the use of flowery language and flaming well was an art form. More recently flame has come to refer to any kind of derogatory comment no matter how witless or crude."[google] In a forum with sensitive topics such as this, derogatory flaming is bound to happen. Common sense will prevail, yet this is not an invitation to flame. e.g. "You stupid *****ing moron," is completely unacceptable and could lead to a suspension of posting privileges.
In The Art of Trolling, published on the web, it is suggested that in Usenet usage, a "troll" is not a grumpy monster that lives beneath a bridge accosting passers by, but rather a provocative posting to a news group intended to produce a large volume of frivolous responses. The content of a "troll" posting generally falls into several areas. It may consist of an apparently foolish contradiction of common knowledge, a deliberately offensive insult to the readers of the news group or a broad request for trivial follow-up postings.
A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the user claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.
Application of the term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often used as an ad hominem strategy to discredit an opposing position by attacking its proponent.
Well.. On to plan B!
The problem inherent in detailing rules for websites is that the more you attempt to refine them, the more confusing they become, and as people figure out ways to circumvent and/or exploit the new refinements of rules, even newer ones are created to try to address that. Sites can get so bogged down in bureaucratic legalese that any potential new user doesn't bother as well as the creation of endless rules creating unintended consequences.
Seems to me that the real issues always boil down to individual interpretation no matter what.
Well.. On to plan B!
I'm confused. It sounds like the answers that were given weren't satisfactory. What more are you looking for?
The problem inherent in detailing rules for websites is that the more you attempt to refine them, the more confusing they become, and as people figure out ways to circumvent and/or exploit the new refinements of rules, even newer ones are created to try to address that. Sites can get so bogged down in bureaucratic legalese that any potential new user doesn't bother as well as the creation of endless rules creating unintended consequences.
Seems to me that the real issues always boil down to individual interpretation no matter what.
Well, having an infraction for "Baiting/Flaming/Trolling" when only flaming is mentioned or defined in the rules does seem like something in need of addressing.
Well, I still think rule 4 is too open to interpretation, but I guess I'll have to deal with it.
Dunno why I put that crap about the signatures in there....
My other ideas I thought were pretty good, and apparently im not the only one.
I also don't see why you can't specifically mention trolling at least. I guess thats so trolling can still be allowed when we all (and there are plenty of times) find it to be appropriate, and even necessary.
An example of what I would mean would be when someone creates a thread whose topic is, or the tone of the opening post is, or both are, written in such a manner that it would be reasonable to believe that the intent was to incite posts that would be in violation of Flaming, Trolling, or Baiting rules.No, you're not the only one. Both vauge and I stated that some more clarification might be a good idea, especially on the B/F/T infraction. But I think one has to define trolling. I would submit that the kind of trolling you are describing as "appropriate and necessary" may not actually be trolling. However, if you'd like perhaps you can give an example of what you mean.
An example of what I would mean would be when someone creates a thread whose topic is, or the tone of the opening post is, or both are, written in such a manner that it would be reasonable to believe that the intent was to incite posts that would be in violation of Flaming, Trolling, or Baiting rules.
Something like that.
Hmmm... so what you are saying is that any posts that respond to an OP like this, if they seem to be in the fashion of trolling, are appropriate and necessary?
You and I disagree on reasons for trolling. Not everyone has the same intent, goal or want to create value in a discussion. I think some folks legitimately may have no clue they are trolling and those folks may need to be shown the light. The type I am referring to might best be ignored because they won't get the slight correction anyway. Sometimes the absolute best method is for the community at large to ignore them. The user will eventually get the idea that their point doesn't qualify to being up to par with the quality discussion in the rest of the thread.Sometimes, yes.
It gets the thread tossed into the right direction.... a trip to the basement.
It is my opinion that threads like described above belong in the basement anyhow, and said "trolling" is just a method of getting them to where they belong, as threads that were created in such a manner, with the intent to create bickering, baiting, and trolling would fall under 'disruptive' anyhow.
I think some folks legitimately may have no clue they are trolling and those folks may need to be shown the light. The type I am referring to might best be ignored because they won't get the slight correction anyway. Sometimes the absolute best method is for the community at large to ignore them. The user will eventually get the idea that their point doesn't qualify to being up to par with the quality discussion in the rest of the thread.
Good point.That right there is my issue. Some people apparently think what you just said is a legitimate description of trolling when it is not. Trolling requires some level of intent. A person may troll without knowing the meaning of the word, but a person who is trolling is intentionally seeking to disrupt discussion for some reason.
I completely disagree with this concept. There are *all* types of posters out there and there are some out there that do not think before they click submit. They believe their thought might have added value when reality could be the opposite.You cannot accidentally troll a discussion.
Agreed, we cannot get away from individual biases. That is why we have a very diverse and outspoken group of mods that hopefully after all is said and done the result is unbiased moderation in the most profound way possible. Of course there will be bruises and bumps, when that happens we react fast and fix them. But, overall our team does an amazing job of presenting their own perspective against/for infractions behind the scenes. They are also always open to re-evaluate infractions.Unfortunately individual biases come into play under these circumstances. Many people simply cannot understand how someone can hold an opinion so radically different from their own and thus conclude that an individual must be trolling.
We will never ban your opinion, however if it is expressed in a method outside our ruleset then we have to act. Bias is optional, rule infractions are not.I got banned from another forum before coming here for exactly that reason. A mod thought I could not possibly hold positions he considered to be so stupid and so that I must be trolling, though he tried to perma-ban for a more frivolous reason so he may have just been looking for an excuse.
Another thing that flubbers up this whole mess as well is that everyone has their own definition of what a "fact" is.The point is, a person can be accused of trolling simply because other users are too biased to see the legitimacy of a point that has been raised.
Oh I like this definition:
"Application of the term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often used as an ad hominem strategy to discredit an opposing position by attacking its proponent."
I think I will steal it when we revisit the rules.
Thank you!
I completely disagree with this concept. There are *all* types of posters out there and there are some out there that do not think before they click submit. They believe their thought might have added value when reality could be the opposite.
If the person believes that he or she is making a legitimate contribution it is not trolling. Trolling is all about intent. You cannot do it unintentionally. Just because you think an individual's post is stupid or ridiculously wrong does not mean the person is trolling.
There is no way to divine true intent, and needless to say, nobody will be forthcoming when it comes to revealing such, so all anybody has to go on is the pattern of postings as they reveal the agenda at work. Obviously, those with an agenda wish to pursue such, and the more they are driven to pursue it, the more leeway they wish to create so as to be able to do so and one of their methods in pursuit of such is to try to create a definition for the word "trolling" so extremely limited that it impossible to achieve, and so does not apply to their own agenda.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?