#1 ·
I find myself constantly questioning where the line is drawn when it comes to tolerated trolling. Take today, for instance:
Up until that point, the discussion was entirely free of ad hominem attacks—if you ignore a bit of labeling, even from the moderators. Then, out of nowhere, some user jumps in, misquotes their opponent, and tries to discredit them based solely on how long they've been active on the site. On sites like Bloomberg or The Wall Street Journal, this kind of rhetoric usually isn't permitted, but lately, it seems the mods are just looking the other way...
Can someone please define whether this type of provocation is acceptable here? I need to know if I should bother responding, or if the moderators will step in to preserve an actual argument-based, civil discussion...
Up until that point, the discussion was entirely free of ad hominem attacks—if you ignore a bit of labeling, even from the moderators. Then, out of nowhere, some user jumps in, misquotes their opponent, and tries to discredit them based solely on how long they've been active on the site. On sites like Bloomberg or The Wall Street Journal, this kind of rhetoric usually isn't permitted, but lately, it seems the mods are just looking the other way...
Can someone please define whether this type of provocation is acceptable here? I need to know if I should bother responding, or if the moderators will step in to preserve an actual argument-based, civil discussion...