"I feel like I am repeating myself and that the true underlying issue is that you, V. Kemp / Mister Spock, do not see the point that in an ad rem discussion, one can make their points with ad rem arguments. There is no need to result to ad hominem arguments, nor insensitive remarks, as they do not add anything to similar ad rem arguments content-wise, and they only take away from the discussion."
That's cool. Just ignore everything I said. 
"Calling someone a troll does not add anything contentwise to just telling that someone is trolling."
I went over this extensively. You didn't touch anything I said.
"However, when you say that those people are (again) trolls or just simply "elementary school students with inflated egos", you are making ad hominem attacks again."
I simply referenced them. You're ignoring the definition of an ad-hominem fallacy which you posted: I've never based any argument on what labels I reference trolls or other spammers with. You're implying otherwise by presuming I'm making ad-hominem attacks which clearly do not fit the definition you were so kind as to provide.
"you quite often add an argumentum ad hominem as well to boot it. And that is where your argumentation becomes unacceptable for a civilised debate."
You make the ridiculous assumption that there's any civilized debate going on when I'm insensitive. And, again, you claim ad-hominem attacks where your own cited dictionary definition clearly disputes this claim.
"However, when you reply to an undecent discussion in an undecent way, you are just adding to the hopelessness of the overall discussion."
That's your opinion on what's productive.
"As I've said before, it just increases the sum of fallacies."
Again presuming I made fallacious statements which I clearly did not. What fallacies? When have I ever substituted a fallacy for an argument?
"However, resorting to calling a person a troll (rather than simply saying that what he is posting is trolling) is clearly directed to the poster, even if it does have a basis on the subject matter."
Yet it's not substituted for an argument or relied on as a premise.
"There is a simple alternative to calling the person a troll (an argument ad rem that shows that the poster's arguments are trolling), and so is is not necessary to resort to those ad hominem arguments."
Nothing is "necessary." Basing an argument on something not being "necessary" is pointless.
"but it is when you refer this ridiculousness back to a flaw in the opponent's character, or when you base the opponent's character based on these flaws and conclude that, because his posts are ridiculous, that therefore the poster must be ridiculous as well (which would discredit all his arguments due to a character flaw: a clear argumentum ad hominem)."
I simply reference trolls as trolls, and communists as communists. If there was any contention on the matter I'd certainly reevaluate my language. But there isn't. Someone crying about it while never disputing it is hardly a reason to cater to their whimsical emotional preferences in language choice.
"However, when one starts to call out the poster for not participating, that point (the opponent does not participate in the debate) becomes an ad-hominem attack."
I'm sure I could phrase much language to entirely be references to posts and never posters, but I fear it would only be lost on some people even more easily. In any event, pointing out an obvious fact relevant to the discussion is not an ad-hominem attack. We're talking about labels here: At worse, insensitive words. (And I dispute half of the ones mentioned here. But there've certainly been others. ) Not personal "attacks," nor ad-hominem arguments in which such attacks are relied upon as if they were logical arguments.
It's a matter of correspondence not even directly about the topic but about the discourse (or, lack thereof). It's like an aside saying "hey uh... wanna actually talk about the topic?" It's not a substitute for content and is never presented as such. It's not an ad-hominem attack. It's a simple observation that arguments aren't being made, and it's an invitation to make them.
"Just pointing out that there is a lack of a counter would have sufficed, the comments on the opponent's self are not necessary."
This ignores the overall health of the forum and the tenacity with which trolls spam.
"I hope you are still following me and my "linguistic tools"." followed by "I do not see how the use of linguistic tools would be an ad hominem attack...."
Do I really need to spell it out for you? If you imply that someone might be incapable of a simple intellectual achievement.... Okay. Enough said. I hope you didn't really need the help.
"One is not a communist unless oneself presents himself as being a communist and comes out for it."
You can't literally rape the English language, so I guess it's not a crime. But no, language doesn't work that way. Words mean things. You can pick and choose which ones you like, but they still mean the same thing and can be just as appropriate and accurate whether someone likes them or not. In fact, whether or not someone has a positive emotional reaction to a word is, as it turns out, completely irrelevant in regard to whether the word means what it means. Words mean what they mean regardless of how anybody feels about them. Words are accurate or inaccurate regardless of whether or not someone likes them.
In the instance brought up, no ideas differing from the label were ever offered. If they had been, the word used may have been inaccurate. But that was not the case. Continually speaking as if there was ever any dispute over my word choice is just silly, because there never was. There was "Don't refer to me as that whaaaaa" but never "You're wrong because [ ]."
Everything you're saying ignores this simple fact. I don't ad-hominem attack anyone over disputed labels, I just use succinct language like a sensible human being. It's not as ridiculous, over-generalized, insulting, or irrational as you claim.
All of your statements are predicated upon the notion that I'm using simple language as ad-hominem attacks when this is never the case. My simple language has never been questioned or disputed, only cried about on rare occasion. That one person cries about language and never disputes it doesn't make that language ad-hominem attacks.
"You do not need to refer to a poster's communist ideals, they are not the subject matter on hand and therefore only are used to make guilt by association arguments."
In the matter in question, there really isn't any subject matter at hand. It's just vague platitudes with absolutely no specificity, ever. No simple questions seeking clarification are ever answered. Only the vaguest actions are proposed, and those are abstract, broadly stated goals without ANY suggested means.
Thus we arrive at me dismissing trolls as trolls. Ohnoes, so mean. QQ.
"If you are not claiming character flaws, nor using labels as a basis for argument, then why do you even have to add such a label to a person?"
Sometimes in posts responding to a multitude of people, it is desirable to reference posters' ideas. Simply referencing the people who share a person's ideology is not an ad-hominem attacks. One might mention "Hitler and other fascists" to give context and clarity to a statement. I don't know where you get the bizarre notion that ever using words to mean things and using those words to refer to people on occasion is inherently ad-hominem attacks all of the time.
"Again, I stress the fact that this adds nothing to the ad rem arguments, and are therefore unnecessary and should be avoided because people can feel offended and can claim abuse"
And you would have forums filled with trolls which immediately turn away anyone with a brain who might otherwise have participated. You have not provided alternative means of encouraging better behavior. The crying suggests I am effective; and I attack ideas, not people. A little insensitivity, often in jest, does not fallacious arguments make.
"I think this quite accurately debunks your disagreement with the fact that the points I made about that line."
You just claimed that an ad-hominem fallacy was present but didn't reference what it was. You didn't even respond to my argument, just beat up a straw-man. I didn't argue that ad-hominem attacks are rational argumentation because I included other stuff too. I explained why nothing constituted ad-hominem attacks and you ignored this. Quite accurate indeed. Just not sure what you were talking about.
"I hope I am being clear enough now, if not, I am perhaps not understanding the arguments you use to disagree with my points."
We're on to something now I can feel it!
"Could you outline them in a clear, punctual way, such as I used to dissect that one line?"
I don't think I'm capable of being that unclear.
"If we have already reached the point where these forums have deteriorated to a garbage bin, then clearly your strategy of using fallacies to counter fallacies has not worked as you had expected it to (to prevent these "trolls" from running amok, as you stated), or at least not optimally."
That's not remotely rational. You have no basis for presuming any level of effectiveness.
"The fallacy-ridden posts (I think we can establish that at this point?) you have used at times in the past, only contribute to this situation without dialogue or debate, with all of the namecalling."
What fallacy-ridden posts? Redefine words all you want, calling an apple an apple doesn't imply an irrational hatred toward trees.
"Yes, you point out a very clear fault in the ignoring strategy, that I had forgotten to account for. I have myself wasted some time on tiring discussions with people not willing to give way on any of their arguments, not even when logically and accurately countered."
I hardly expect logical debate, but it's the very clear intention of never discussing anything that I equate with trolling. It's hardly a stretch to interpret repeated talking-points spam with 0 responses to anything actually said in a discussion as trolling. It's non-responsive garbage posted with the intention of getting reaction. If the level of discussion/debate was low, that'd be one thing, but there's often very clearly no intention of discussing anything, ever.
Throw in references to structuring society based on alien technology and it becomes a bit more obvious in some cases.
"Warning other users before they waste their time may be a valid reason to post...."
Every day!
Sometimes I do get a kick out of reading some of it. Watching a troll (oh crap can I say this?! IS ANYBODY OFFENDED?! OH CRAP SUDDENLY EVERYTHING I SAY IS IRRATIONAL CAUSE I USED THAT WORD!) describe, ultra-vaguely, his notions of a perfect society built around alien technology is pretty hilarious. But this isn't the place.
"Perhaps we could introduce some kind of rating system on these politics forums, such as many other political forums (and just forums in general) use. Of course we have the tag system, which apparently was being worked on (although I have not heard any news of recent developments in quite a long time). Still, maybe we could use this in the future."
That couldn't hurt, but at this point I expect literally nothing. The damage has been done!
"This is however just theorizing and does not give a solution to the problem at hand of the time-wasting discussions without content. But with the mods' more serious stance on the advocating and control of the politics forum, perhaps certain fmods who have knowledge of political debate can warn people when a discussion is going nowhere, saving valuable time."
They're not up to the task. Trolling about aliens escapes their moderation and even gets moderator responses. Because we can seriously contribute content to someone's ideas of society built around fictional alien technology! (in a thread not about some such hypothetical theorizing) Yeah, that has a place on a politics forum in threads about political philosophy and pragmatism!
Just what the politics forum needs more of. This guy:
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/11837275.jpg
"Of course this is just speaking from personal experience, which is never a solid argument, but I hope you see my point of how ad hominem attacks made against serious debaters may scare them away and therefore be detrimental to the debate."
No, I completely understand where you're coming from. And I'm not arguing that ad-hominem attacks are legitimate debate content.
But, after having been here forever, I lose concern for proper and polite debate when those I'm responding to wouldn't know logical argumentation if it punched them in the face. Sometimes it's more succinct to reference certain posters' ideologies with a word that groups them with others who share their beliefs and can be discussed conveniently. If anyone actually took issue with their ideas being misrepresented, that'd be a legitimate discussion to have and it's possible that certain words' continued usage (when disputed) could constitute ad-hominem attacks.
But insofar as that's never happened, I just don't think it's a big deal around here. It's not our biggest problem, and in the case of my calling a communist a communist, it's just silly to begin with. We've examined the most ridiculous example of a label which has never been disputed because, without any argument or explanation, it was cried about.
Most of my insensitive language is in jest or being dismissive of blatant trolling. On a politics forum we're never going to agree on anything, but we don't have to hate each other. There's no reason we can't throw in jabs and ball-busting without derailing discourse. Of course, if there's no discourse, there's nothing to derail. And if someone is eager to stop discussing something without making it obvious that they've abandoned their position(s), suddenly a little jab becomes a huge personal attack to cry about.