• Key
  • Key
  • Player
  • Offline
  • Posts: 990
  • Tag points: 11

Re: Poll: Should IC Politics trolls, flamers, and hijackers be banned?

Ok, I'll say this, no Hijackers and flamers shouldn't be banned, because your view of what constitutes "flamers" and "hijackers" is so all ecompassing that it's laughable at best.  Anything can be proclaimed on a whim by any single individual as hijacking or flaming.  I could call you a little weasel, and it could be true that you are a weasel, but to ban me for saying it and labeling as "flaming" is a little bit absurd.

I mean when republicans go around saying, "well we'll just have to ban liberals from politics", well ANYTHING can be labeled LIBERAL.  And that's a very good example.  Your basically wanting to ban anyone that has a "heated" discussion where emotions can run high.

=^o.o^= When I'm cute I can be cute.  And when I'm mean, I can be very very mean.  I'm a cat.  Expect me to be fickle.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Xeno
  • Xeno
  • Player
  • Offline
  • Posts: 4,779
  • Tag points: 34

Re: Poll: Should IC Politics trolls, flamers, and hijackers be banned?

@Key Perhaps we need to define trolling, flaming, hijacking, then.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 7,941
  • Tag points: 14

Re: Poll: Should IC Politics trolls, flamers, and hijackers be banned?

Ok, I am of two minds here.


1) Xeno does not debate, he does not reply to strong arguments countering his idea's, he has idea's "off the chart", and his posts seem more off topic than most in threads he does not create.

2) I trolled him hard, trying to get him in to Zarf's construct for a political ipcc group, I was utterly off topic, rude, and mean. I apologize.

But as to the rest of the post, the oglu thread is anemic to the whole equation. It is what I suffer on the other hand as well. A well verbosed reply may occur, but it is unread.

Conversly as well I suffer from those ignoring my postss to continue with an argument on grounds they are familiar with.

I once argued I think 20 different aspects of global warming with someone, because he would not take single arguments as a part of a whole. I had to win 20 different debates, then tie it into a final, for him to concede fighting it was not worth while.

But honestly xeno is the worst for picking a topic, and never ever EVER listening to legit criticism of his posts.


Was this trolling? Or legit opinion?

Everything bad in the economy is now Obama's fault. Every job lost, all the debt, all the lost retirement funds. All Obama. Are you happy now? We all get to blame Obama!
Kemp currently not being responded to until he makes CONCISE posts.
Avogardo and Noir ignored by me for life so people know why I do not respond to them. (Informational)

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 5,595
  • Tag points: 241

Re: Poll: Should IC Politics trolls, flamers, and hijackers be banned?

Hmmm....


1: As of now, I would ask you what the purpose of your post is.
2: I think there's a somewhat simple way to distinguish between trolling and legitimate indictments of someone's discourse.  If people were required to post links as evidence, then readers would know for a fact that such was based on historical truth, rather than just anecdotal evidence.  I did this same thing as you, using links/quotes to prove such an argument, at which xeno made amends for the specific actions.

In addition, requirements of evidence links force the poster to consider what he is about to say before actually saying it... it forces the writer to put his credibility on the line...



This is a more complicated matter, dealing with an odd fine line.  It is probably best dealt with later, but that's just my take on the matter.

Make Eyes Great Again!

The Great Eye is watching you... when there's nothing good on TV...

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Xeno
  • Xeno
  • Player
  • Offline
  • Posts: 4,779
  • Tag points: 34

Re: Poll: Should IC Politics trolls, flamers, and hijackers be banned?

Trolling is stating a position merely in order to attract adversive opinion.

How's that for a def?

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 5,595
  • Tag points: 241

Re: Poll: Should IC Politics trolls, flamers, and hijackers be banned?

The problem is that your distinction is based solely on intent.

1: If I have a secondary reason of any kind, I'm in the clear.  BG's mocking of you would be 100% legitimate under your definition.
2: Determining intent just by reading a post is quite difficult.

Make Eyes Great Again!

The Great Eye is watching you... when there's nothing good on TV...

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 7,941
  • Tag points: 14

Re: Poll: Should IC Politics trolls, flamers, and hijackers be banned?

Sometimes intent is different? Like my trying to get Xeno on topic via trolling?


Anyhow in reference, my purpose of my previous post here was to discuss the topic, but I think it is fair, to others, is it trolling to say what I said?

However, I think we could include this disclaimer in trolling

; does not discuss the topic on hand, or discourse from the topic, is not relevant at all; includes deliberate attacks upon a, or multiple, poster(s) without substantiating claims even if portions of the post are talking about the topic, but not continuing the topic.;

Those two portions I believe could be included in a generalization/definition of trolling, but not without other definitions.

Everything bad in the economy is now Obama's fault. Every job lost, all the debt, all the lost retirement funds. All Obama. Are you happy now? We all get to blame Obama!
Kemp currently not being responded to until he makes CONCISE posts.
Avogardo and Noir ignored by me for life so people know why I do not respond to them. (Informational)

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 5,595
  • Tag points: 241

Re: Poll: Should IC Politics trolls, flamers, and hijackers be banned?

I'll save that.  Not sure if it will be our final definition, but it's worthy of note.

Make Eyes Great Again!

The Great Eye is watching you... when there's nothing good on TV...

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 4,369

Re: Poll: Should IC Politics trolls, flamers, and hijackers be banned?

I was always on topic and addressing content. It was just with occasional content-driven insults. That makes me insulting, not a troll by any of your definitions. tongue

[I wish I could obey forum rules]

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Xeno
  • Xeno
  • Player
  • Offline
  • Posts: 4,779
  • Tag points: 34

Re: Poll: Should IC Politics trolls, flamers, and hijackers be banned?

I like Einstein's work on defining trolling in terms of: irrelevance, personal attack, but I don't think we can expect every poster to substantiate everything (although we all know we should).  Also, I believe intent can be discerned from a post.

Lastly, in terms of flaming, I think we should make it clear that posters need to differentiate between the position a poster takes and the poster him/herself.  Could it be acceptable, for instance, to say that an argument is idiotic, but unacceptable to call someone an idiot.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 5,595
  • Tag points: 241

Re: Poll: Should IC Politics trolls, flamers, and hijackers be banned?

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> I like Einstein's work on defining trolling in terms of: irrelevance, personal attack, but I don't think we can expect every poster to substantiate everything (although we all know we should).  Also, I believe intent can be discerned from a post.


Actually, if you look in the forum rules (#4), there is actually a rule saying posts must be substantiated.  I was as shocked as you are to see this... but this would create a standard which the moderators could enforce.
I only put in the "unsubstantiated" portion because, obviously, if we want to indict people of trolling, we as a community need to be able to call them out on such issues, requiring us to walk a fine line between indicting and personally attacking someone.


> Lastly, in terms of flaming, I think we should make it clear that posters need to differentiate between the position a poster takes and the poster him/herself.  Could it be acceptable, for instance, to say that an argument is idiotic, but unacceptable to call someone an idiot.


Agreed 150%.  I actually forgot to write that in my draft...

Make Eyes Great Again!

The Great Eye is watching you... when there's nothing good on TV...

0 Dislike 0 Post Points