Trolling and constant nitpicking

If it’s custom, then you’re basically calling the shots. 🙂

hollowtrucker77 said:And just imagine if we actually had to sit there and debate whether it was genuine trolling or just someone intentionally derailing the whole conversation
😁

Man, you just say the score is tied for both of them and call it a day. 🤷
At the end of the day, that's basically how it works anyway...

brightpuma said:Man, you just say the score is tied for both of them and call it a day. 🤷
At the end of the day, that's basically how it works anyway...

Then what's even the point of having another tiebreaker card?

Honestly, you could just rename the "trolling" category to "discussion obstruction" (which, let’s be real, is exactly what trolling is anyway) and nothing would actually change. It would stay exactly the same as it's always been, except maybe for those niche scientists who spend their entire lives obsessively studying the genetic differences between an elephant and a housefly.

The answer is simple: more objectivity and a bit of self-reflection. A moderator isn't God, and people come to these forums by choice—nobody is forcing them to show up just to be someone's punching bag.
Anything beyond that is just a bunch of offended prima donnas throwing tantrums over trivial technicalities.

Sandra Gonzalez3 said:Then what's even the point of having another tiebreaker card?

Well, I guess it stops people from arguing over whether someone was actually trolling or not. If they weren't trolling, the moderator just decided they were disrupting the thread, EOD... 🤷

And what exactly constitutes "disrupting the discussion"?

In my estimation, many people mistake a genuine disagreement for disruption, particularly when someone offers a well-reasoned, thoroughly explained counterargument that challenges their own perspective. 😁

Dennis Jackson38 said:And what exactly constitutes "disrupting the discussion"?

In my estimation, many people mistake a genuine disagreement for disruption, particularly when someone offers a well-reasoned, thoroughly explained counterargument that challenges their own perspective. 😁

It's the same thing as trolling. That's why we have moderators to decide which is which... 😉

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 🙂.

I am truly grateful to the heavens that someone saw fit to initiate this discussion with such a high level of intelligence and foresight.

MalaVrana said:"Trolling" is such a beautifully elastic term. It’s incredibly stretchy. And mods just use it whenever they feel like being difficult."🙂

What about those moderator clones who act like common pests, trolling people all over this forum?

Take, for example, some user with a mystic vibe and a string of numbers—I can't recall the exact handle right now. Every single one of her posts is pure trolling. Literally every single one. And yet... nothing happens. No warnings, no bans, nothing.🙂

Since you're already throwing accusations about mod clones, who exactly are we talking about? I've been using this handle since the Usenet days, back when IRC was my whole world, so I don't see much point in running clones. Honestly, this conspiracy theory of yours feels a little over the top.

It’s roughly like having an IP address that lets you pinpoint someone's exact location through a tracking program. ☕

I'm with Alex on this one. This is definitely an issue that should have been handled better.

The only thing I'm stuck on is what you'd actually call it based on what you wrote. Where does someone acting intentionally dense fit in? Is that just trolling, or does it count as disrupting the discussion? 🤷

Look, I get it—there are plenty of clueless people out there. But honestly, jumping into a debate when you clearly can't follow along or don't know the subject matter? That feels like disruption too.

Navigating the vast spectrum of individual perceptions within a single discussion thread is a remarkably delicate discipline.

However, we have reached a point where there is such an overwhelming saturation of the terms "troll" and "trolling"—used by general users alike, not just the moderators—that it has become genuinely impossible to gauge the boundaries of how far a person can push a debate before they cross the line into actual bad faith.

If you ask me, as long as a conversation remains engaging, active, and keeps the participants invested (it doesn't necessarily need to be polite or pleasant—after all, we are debating and sharing viewpoints here, not attending a Sunday service or a silent theater performance where everyone has to act like a ray of sunshine), I believe we could afford to broaden our definition of what constitutes trolling.

Of course, I fully grasp that on a subreddit like Politics, which is incredibly sensitive and exhausting for the moderation team to police, it’s impossible to allow too much room for purely personal biases. But regarding social subreddits, where the entire foundation is built upon expressing opinions against a certain topic... well, everything seems to be categorized as trolling these days.

I realize that applying such broad labels is the easier path, but truth be told, it is starting to cause friction. This is especially evident in user-moderator communications. It becomes particularly tricky because, if we strictly follow the rulebook, there are moments when even a moderator enters what could be described as a "quoted" trolling mode. (In my view, that isn't trolling, but from a user's perspective, it certainly feels that way, even if it's excused for the moderator).

Personally, I lean toward the idea that we should loosen the reins slightly and adopt a more tolerant approach to regulation.

That being said, if we are going to relax the rules, we absolutely must define those boundaries more clearly first.

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.

Is the name of something really the most important thing about it?
I mean, I don't know, it just doesn't feel that way to me, especially for people who actually give a damn about having a conversation that isn't cluttered with useless noise and distractions.

brightpuma said:I'm with Alex on this one. This is definitely an issue that should have been handled better.

The only thing I'm stuck on is what you'd actually call it based on what you wrote. Where does someone acting intentionally dense fit in? Is that just trolling, or does it count as disrupting the discussion? 🤷

Look, I get it—there are plenty of clueless people out there. But honestly, jumping into a debate when you clearly can't follow along or don't know the subject matter? That feels like disruption too.

Look, why not just skip the "trolling" ban and go with a custom "disrupting the conversation" strike instead? Why make things more complicated than they need to be?

Sophia Thomas7 said:Look, why not just skip the "trolling" ban and go with a custom "disrupting the conversation" strike instead? Why make things more complicated than they need to be?

Honestly, I haven't really seen many warnings like that. Actually, I don't think I've seen even one... 🤷

Besides, how much would a warning like that even "cost"? 10 points? 35 points?

hollowtrucker77 said:Is the name of something really the most important thing about it?
I mean, I don't know, it just doesn't feel that way to me, especially for people who actually give a damn about having a conversation that isn't cluttered with useless noise and distractions.

Too often, moderators get hung up on a username rather than the actual quality of the debate. They label a handle as "trolling" just to push people away from the conversation and the pdf.

And just imagine if we actually had to sit there and debate whether it was genuine trolling or just someone intentionally derailing the whole conversation
😁

I won't multi-quote every single individual post—just a few collective observations here.

Does the specific label of a ban actually matter? I’d argue it does—because if it didn't, we wouldn't have distinct categories for off-topic posts, harassment, trolling, and so on; we’d just hand out an arbitrary number of penalty points and say goodbye. So, it seems someone, somewhere, decided that my thread actually had enough merit to warrant introducing a "ban taxonomy"—otherwise, the only rule this Forum would ever need to implement (copyright Jack) would be a simple "don't be a jerk."

But there's more to it—and here comes the part that’s easiest to mock: much like how every janitor nowadays gets rebranded as a "facilities manager," it isn't quite right to lump vastly different types of disruptive behavior under the single umbrella of "trolling," or to dress up completely different users in the same "troll" uniform. It might be funny, sure, but it’s just as counterproductive to the health of the community to label a harmless goofball and some absolute chaos-agent like Miles... oops, I mean 😁 Sarah.

Therefore, I still maintain that providing clearer definitions makes sense; this isn't merely about rebranding a "trolling ban" as a "discussion disruption ban."

One more thing: I made it very clear that formalizing the rules won't somehow prevent a moderator from acting like an idiot or a nuisance—after all, even "real" laws are subject to various legal interpretations, let alone the rules of an online community. I also explicitly stated that there will always be a "gray area" where arbitrary moderator judgment takes over—but the whole point is to ensure that this gray area is limited strictly to those instances where no specific rule exists to cover them.