Nicholas King said:On a neighboring thread, the question of what actually constitutes "trolling" has resurfaced—for some reason or another—so I am starting this topic (which, naturally, could be summarily deleted based on someone’s subjective whim) because it remains a perennial stumbling block on this American forum.
I suspect we are dealing with two distinct issues that are being stubbornly "kept alive" for no apparent reason, despite being entirely unnecessary. First, there is the issue from the user's perspective: no matter how perfect a definition you craft for a specific punishable category, you cannot prevent a bad moderator from being a bad moderator. It is impossible to turn an argument into an algorithm, and by extension, it is just as impossible to fully automate the sanctioning of rule-breaking within those arguments; there will always be that "gray area" where everything ultimately hinges on that infamous "discretionary moderator judgment."
On the other hand, there actually is a way to significantly shrink that gray area—and thereby reduce the amount of friction between users and administration: namely, it is completely unclear why, on this site, absolutely everything gets lumped under the label of "trolling" (resulting in vastly different users being uniformly branded as trolls), or why trolling is treated like some wild card a moderator can play whenever and however they feel like it.
I don't presume to think I can provide some flawless, universal definition of trolling when no one else has managed it—but, I do believe there is a solution that would simplify things; specifically, there are two obvious forms of trolling that are beyond dispute: the first is the total fabrication of stories about Milen... oops 😁, Soraya-topica, where people post entirely made-up narratives for reasons I cannot fathom, just to trigger a wave of outrage and pathetic responses. The second is "jumping into a thread just to stir the pot": you walk into a discussion on Veganism and start typing about how meat-eaters are idiots and so on. These types of examples are easy to spot, and penalizing them would never lead to any misunderstanding.
That leaves us with that problematic segment that is constantly shoved under the "trolling" umbrella, when it could much more simply be called "disrupting the discussion." This is the part that cannot be captured by a clear definition that would eliminate a moderator's discretionary right to decide what is what based on their own (in)competence. While I realize I am essentially inviting a massive amount of ridicule here—since it is always easier to mock someone on the first volley and lean on the "that's just how it's always been" inertia rather than pausing to actually think—I seriously believe that renaming the "offtopic/spam" penalty to "offtopic/spam/disruption," and separating those instances from unambiguous trolling, would clear up many of the ongoing misunderstandings. There is plenty of room for debate regarding the how and the why without needing further clarification 🙂.
"Offtopic" is a clearly defined concept.
"Spam" is a broad category, much like trolling; almost anything can be shoehorned into it.
But "disrupting discussion"? That’s a term you can actually prove.
So, if we separate these categories, what exactly qualifies as undeniable trolling?
Once again, it comes down to a moderator's subjective judgment, their interpretation of the pdf, and whether they personally like or dislike a specific user. The term "trolling" is a gift to moderators—especially the bad ones—who can't provide a reasoned explanation for a warning or a ban. Instead, they just hide behind "trolling," using an ill-defined and opaque label to justify their actions.
It’s honestly ridiculous to see the exact same tone and level of communication result in vastly different penalties depending on whether the forum is strictly moderated or completely laid back.