If “Trolling” is as easily recognised as some people would like to make out, perhaps it is time the board started punishing those who respond to them? Even the ones responding with the tired and pathetic “DNFTT” posts.
In absense of such a radical rule change, I’ll go along with glilly and ask for some of those rock-solid examples.
Ok, poor wording choice by me. People expect opposing viewpoints on often personally held beliefs, which, by their nature, may seem antagonistic, sometimes exacerbated by being a minority viewpoint.
So Sage, do you see Der Trihs’ Conservatives Are Evil rants as antagonistic (when conservatives are in the discussion)?
No more than I’d consider “Repent for the End is Near” guys wandering the streets to be lifestyle consultants. Someone who can’t debate shouldn’t be in GD, but if they are I can’t say that I give them any weight, let alone getting riled up about it.
Maybe I’m a bit dense today, but this message and your message in post 180 seem contradictory.
But looking at what you wrote in this post (if I’m interpreting it correctly), the referenced style of post is equivalent of a “the end is near” placard and therefore not trolling. But if that’s not trolling, what is?
Crazy is crazy. Trolling is nefarious.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12622981&postcount=162
That would seem to negate all accusations of my supposed trolling then. Thanks for confirming what I already knew.
Say what you mean - don’t be shy.
Please see post #173.
Posts 52, 58, 90, and an entire thread on the subject embedded in the smiley.
So, you disagree with Sage Rat’s definition? Have you got a better one?
No, I am merely stating that denying that your intention is malicious does nothing to assure us, because someone with malicious intent would say exactly the same thing.
And I’m asking you 2 straight questions. Refer to post #190 and then get back to me when you have a relevant response.
I was only commenting on that single statement of yours, and not on any particular definition of trolling.
Well, perhaps if you are snidely trying to imply that a person is a troll, or is trolling, you should at least have the guts to describe clearly what it is you are accusing them of?
Sorry-I don’t do “underhanded”. Just not my style.
I am only pointing out, as i did in the previous case, that denying that one is trolling is something one would do almost automatically, whether or not one was actually a troll to begin with. Anything personal you take out of the above statement is mere paranoia.
Well, just say “ivan, you’re a troll!” and stop being coy. Then we can get around to your definitive definition of what “trolling” is - or at least in my case - thereby increasing the educational value of your posting on this topic.
I’ve explained it a couple of times now, but you seem incapable of getting the point I was making.
Someone else want to give it a shot?
“It’s not worth debating with you, hence I’m not going to debate the point. If you got warned for trollery, irregardless of what the definition is, whether you agree with that definition, or whether you agree that you did it, if you keep getting warned for it, the end result is the same.”
Nice try, but no cigar. You see, I’ve not been warned for trolling, but I have had a few self-proclaimed troll-detectors accuse me of being one, and as it is a banning offense to be found to be a troll in these parts, I’d like to be sure exactly what it is you are trying to get me banned for.
Does that seem fair?