What's new
By:

Reputation Comments, positive and negative

colton said:
Hopper, how many times do we have to go into this? In this case the rule is "no trolling". Clear enough. The question is whether this would constitute trolling. If you think we can or should list EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE WAY TO TROLL in the rules, then you are sadly mistaken. I don't even think it's possible, because there are probably an infinite number of ways to troll.

So, anytime someone trolls (or comes close to trolling) in a new way, it's necessarily a judgment call on the part of the moderators. No one has brought up this particular trolling method... until today. Someone officially complained to me about it, so I'm going to bring it up with the moderators and see what they think--if infractions should be issued for doing that or not.
Click to expand...

I vote that they should get an infraction for it. I know I'm not a moderator but signing a name to a statement that is not them should be a cause for banning.
 
colton said:
In this case the rule is "no trolling". Clear enough. .
Click to expand...


Well, Colton, you say "clear enough," like it's a given. I too thought it was "clear enough," because the FAQ's specifically define "trolling:"

FAQ's said:
Trolling: Deliberate attempts to disrupt the usability of the boards will be considered trolling. These include (but are not limited to) comments made solely to provoke reactions, bizarre formatting of posts, extremely large images, many new threads started right after each other, etc.
Click to expand...


Come to find out it is far from limited to "deliberate attempts to disrupt the usability of the boards" and all that is said to include by the FAQ's. So I longer consider it "clear" at all. Is there a new definition of "trolling" that we haven't seen?
 
Stickler said:
What, Hopper, no apology?
Click to expand...


Stickler, I will readily concede that is wasn't you. I never said it was. I did say that if I had to guess, I would say it was you. I even set forth many of the suspcious circumstances that would make me think it could be you. If I hear a strange noise outside and think it might be a burgler, but find, upon investigation that it's only my drunk homey, I'm not gunna apologize to him for thinkin he might be a burgler. My suspicions were reasonable, under the circumstances.
 
Hopper said:
Come to find out it is far from limited to "deliberate attempts to disrupt the usability of the boards" and all that is said to include by the FAQ's. So I longer consider it "clear" at all. Is there a new definition of "trolling" that we haven't seen?
Click to expand...

I don't understand you. What isn't clear?
 
colton said:
I don't understand you. What isn't clear?
Click to expand...
I don't want to git another infraction, Colton. Are you seriously asking me for an answer? I mentioned the reason to you before, but you indicated that you didn't want to hear it or consider it.

Part, but only part, of the reason I don't think it's too clear has been discussed in this thread: https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php...threads-and-posts-are-intended-to-be-so-bland...

I will also mention this: I have received infractions for the very things which you (as I understood you) said would NOT be an infraction, based on the "trolling" definition.
 
Last edited:
Hopper said:
Stickler, I will readily concede that is wasn't you. I never said it was. I did say that if I had to guess, I would say it was you. I even set forth many of the suspcious circumstances that would make me think it could be you. If I hear a strange noise outside and think it might be a burgler, but find, upon investigation that it's only my drunk homey, I'm not gunna apologize to him for thinkin he might be a burgler. My suspicions were reasonable, under the circumstances.
Click to expand...

Your accusations were multiple. Your suspicions were ridiculous and stupid (go figger, eh?). When you smear somebody based on nothing but the fact that you've got a burr under your saddle about that person, and then it comes out that you were wrong, and your smears had no basis in fact, apologizing seems like the least thing. Not you, though. You wouldn't man up like that. No sir, eh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top