So let me get this straight, people are not required to back their claims up and asking them to do so is somehow attempting to deflect or derail the topic? Well, let's leave that to one side for the moment. If the genus of this thread is about what Sam said in that thread, there is no room for debate. She trolled. Look at the definition. Look at the topic. The topic had nothing to do with her post. It was about terrorism in Dallas. But Sam being Sam, simply used that as a springboard to launch into a vague and not relevant criticism based on her erroneous perception of the US foreign policy. Not that this even matters. Sam's opinion could actually be correct and valid and it still would have been trolling. It had nothing to do with the topic. Nothing.
A fine discussion here. For my edification as a new moderator, I'm asking members to contribute specific recommendations here in this thread as to how you (as a member) would prefer that trolling behavior be discouraged around Sciforums, providing methods of sanction that you would personally consider both effective and acceptable. It will probably be advantageous NOT to mention specific trolling members, but would be helpful to use common and recognizable hypothetical examples of trolling behavior along with your own examples of judicious moderator response.
In your post, you can find most of the trolling features. You are labeling, naming a member, out of the mentioned thread which can't be replied further, with a quick note of bashing her opinion. And then claiming this has nothing to do with member's opinion. it's how you handle the thread, not what you put in as an opinion related with the title. What's this? Correctly marketing one's thread? And you are talking of what, trolling?
it isn't that sam has "misconceptions" about US foreign policy, it's mainly about how she rags on the US at the exclusion of any other country.
ejderha: "Let's start with not to bash people as trolls just because we disagree with them." I agree. Let's define trolling with enough specificity that only such trolling is punished. leopold99: "it isn't that sam has "misconceptions" about US foreign policy, it's mainly about how she rags on the US at the exclusion of any other country." Is there any other country that is currently perturbing world events more than the USA?
Bullshit. Bullshit. Read again. I am not bashing her opinion. I said her opinion didn't matter: "Sam's opinion could actually be correct and valid and it still would have been trolling. It had nothing to do with the topic. Nothing." That's the point. That's where trolling comes into it. She posted something that had nothing to do with the topic. Now at some point, subjectivity does enter into it. I believe the rules speak of inflammatory language used to incite an emotional response. All of that is obviously a judgment call, but in the case being cited, a moderator made what I view as the correct call. Sam seemed to be using hyperbolic language to lob yet another attack on the US. And she knows what response that will bring, because she has experienced what that brings for YEARS here. So sorry, she cannot pretend to be naive or a victim or anything else.
Member Note: If you cannot name one example and back up the assertion handily, then you have no quarrel with Sam.
An interesting take - is the poster responsible for all easily anticipated responses, so that an otherwise innocent post (let's assume for a sec taht we are not referring to SAM's post as referenced here, that reference itself an uninvited deflection from the OP) that incites the common trolls to extra vigor, is to blame for their behavior? Clearly inciting to riot is unwelcome. But how much personal attack do we reasonably blame on the victim ? Is SAM at fault for the allegations appearing here, for example, where the OP was put in fairly general terms and without namings?
I am not excusing anyone's actions. But you cannot go into the proverbial theater, yell fire and then complain that the crowd rushing out of the theater stepped on your toes. To apply this to Sam, she has yelled fire in more threads than I can count. And yet she still plays the victim card every time people abuse her. Now the abusers are guilty of abuse, but Sam is clearly guilty of inciting outrage, not to mention trolling and irrelevance.
Sam is our beloved queen....how can anyone abuses her ?. Trolling is so vague and misused so many times here .
Actually, you are wrong. Trolling as a specific, identifiable meaning; one which is accepted amongst the mod team. You, however, have attempted to muddy the term and make it vague and ambiguous to serve your own purposes: remove accountability, specifically from your post content. It's obvious why, you like to grand-stand and make baseless and unsubstantiated accusations, particularly against the west (i.e. here). You've been warned in the past about these actions, so it stands to reason that your grand-standing now is part of a concerted effort to absolve yourself of any guilt from your actions. I mean, why trouble yourself with things like proof and substantiation when it's ever so much more easy to just run around roughshod without any accountability! ~String
Hence the OP. It's about a specific rhetorical technique, invalid, identifiable, usable in almost any context and involving almost any issue, that derails threads into off topic arguments with reliable frequency on this forum. I propose using it and any similar repetition offenses that people may be able to identify, to assemble a catalog of behaviors that identify trolling in its clearer presentations without reference to the actual content or point being argued.
I have no guilt because I am not a criminal . You and I differ when it comes to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan . You accuse me of many things and the Administration was notified . As far as I am concerned yoiu should not be a mod . You owe me nothing and I owe you nothing . Having mods like you here is both embarrassing and bizzare to say the least . I answer to my inner conscious and believe it or not : I am fair, just, peaceful and a humanist .
It may seem immoderate, but maybe we should approach things from the other end: Good Faith. If the Accused displays it and conveys it, then s/he cannot be a witch, er, I mean troll.
A fine suggestion, but what if one party does act in good faith and the other one repeatedly ignores it? A purely hypothetical situation, of course.
