I fixed the link posted by Colibri and quoted by SoulFrost.
And I fixed the link again to link to the post I originally meant to link to.
See also the previous post which gives more explanation.
Can I suggest that this is a very solid stance and I hope it’s used more widely? Because…I do. 
There are very few positions that are defacto trolling, but there are many, MANY ways of stating an otherwise reasonable position that are.
There’s nothing troll-worthy about the position that (say) child protective services is out of control and insanely overzealous*. It’s trolling to say “CPS is a group of fucking Nazis who are trying to destroy our families and anyone who disagrees with me supports child-rape.”**
It’s even worse trolling if the troll falls back on the “My post is my cite” or “I don’t follow links that disagree with me.” routine.
*I don’t hold this position.
**I don’t hold this position either.
Wow. I think this illustrates the superiority of my definition of trolling (as I stated in the OP). It seems ridiculous to me that a mod is required to determine if a poster sincerely believes something or is just posting it to get a rise out of people. And it’s laughable that that thread was OK when people thought he sincerely believed it but against board rules when he didn’t.
Why is it such a bad thing to try to get a rise out of people (as long as that is not the only thing a particular poster is doing)? It’s easy to get to know who’s who. I think people are well aware that I like getting people’s goat every once in a while (even Barack HUSSEIN Obama knows it by now). I don’t think my goat-getting posts have done any irreparable damage.
Fenris, thank you for providing more good examples of the superiority of my definition. It’s just ridiculous to me to have a concept of a “trolling post.” Either a person is a troll or they aren’t. Life’s hard enough without all the pedantic hair-splitting necessary to determine a trolling post from a non-trolling post.
I’m pretty sure that nobody really believed that he really believed that.
The amount of hair splitting is exactly the same. We normally don’t ban people on their first offense, even for trolling, so we might say that they troll in an individual post rather than calling the person a troll immediately.
Quit pretending to not know exactly what you were doing, and why you were warned for doing so. It’s quite disingenuous you know.
Rescinded.
So what exactly is it that I was doing, and why was I warned for doing so? Please share with the class.
The simple solution for all such worries:
Read more. Post less.
So if I post less, the mods will develop a definition of trolling that isn’t completely insane like the current definition? Perhaps you should read my posts in this thread again–it appears you have misunderstood.
The definition on the board is the same as the definition is everywhere else on the internet. Regardless of how much you argue, when it comes to your definition versus the definition that the whole rest of the world uses, the whole rest of the world wins. All the rules-lawyering and sophistry in the world loses out to the cold, hard bullet of reality.
“In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]”
“an internet user who sends inflammatory or provocative messages designed to elicit negative responses or start a flame-war. (As a fisherman trolls for an unsuspecting fish.)”
“In ‘The Art of Trolling’ published on the web it is suggested that ‘in Usenet usage, a “troll” is not a grumpy monster that lives beneath a bridge accosting passers by, but rather a provocative posting to a news group intended to produce a large volume of frivolous responses. The content of a “troll” posting generally falls into several areas. It may consist of an apparently foolish contradiction or common knowledge, a deliberately offensive insult to the readers of the news group or a broad request for trivial follow-up postings.”
Well, you posted three definitions, and your first two disagree with your third.
I agree with the first two–that is, a “troll” is a person that posts nothing but (or largely nothing but) posts intended to stir shit up. I think that a normal poster that occasionally makes a post designed to stir shit up is not a troll, and such posts are not “trolling posts.”
Sorry. Just wrong. A person is not “a liar” because they have, on one occasion or another, told a lie. A person who exceeds the speed limit in a particular situation is not, de facto, a scofflaw. Choosing to call a person a liar who has never kept a penny of another person’s money, always attempted to return found property, never cheated in business or taxes or marriage, and never said “I love you” for the sole purpose of to getting laid just because that person described a mediocre play in glowing terms to encourage a budding actor to pursue his or her dreams is rather silly. (So is my example, of course, but I would hope you could then grasp the point.)
I realize that there are people who do hold that one action sets a person’s personality in concrete, but that is a pretty rigid, (actually brittle), way of looking at the world and you are not going to persuade anyone who does not already see the world in those binary terms to your position.
What you think <-------------------------------------------------------> How much anyone else gives a shit “what you think” compared to “what is”
“But police officer, I’m not a speeder. I was only speeding this once for shits and giggles, but I don’t do it all the time, and it’s people who speed all the time who are called SPEEDERS.”
Can you think of any sane reason why the powers that be would want anyone to act like a raging asshole trying to cause flame wars and stir people up some of the time? What makes you think that somehow unacceptable behavior is alright so long as its not something you’re always doing? It takes so little intellect working for so small a period of time to understand why that’s patently stupid that really it seems unlikely that this thread serves any purpose than a sort of last flame-out to get yourself banned, having sensed that you’ve outlived your welcome.
tomndebb and Sage Rat, you are both assuming your own conclusion. That is, your examples are all of things that are wrong (lying, speeding, cheating stealing). But it is my contention that occasionally making a post for the sole purpose of tweaking someone is not a wrong thing to do. It’s only wrong if that is all a poster does.
He was being given the benefit of the doubt. And then he removed all doubt. Warning issued.
Rand Rover, you could and likely would also receive the benefit of the doubt, too, if you dialed it back enough to leave some reasonable doubt. Ultimately it’s the mods’ call, but in my opinion, you haven’t been leaving any room for reasonable doubt.
I just noticed something that I hadn’t noticed til I read this thread. It’s this statement with the important bit bolded:
I didn’t post it in Great Debates. I posted it in IMHO and it got moved to GD and from there to the Pit. I have no control over where it gets moved to. I wouldn’t dream of starting a thread like that in GD.
So the warning was a GD warning and as such inappropriate since it wasn’t a GD thread. Therefore it should be rescinded with an apology.
I await such and I still want to execute all the religious people if possible, but in an IMHO/Pitty kind of way. Not in a GD kind of way.
I think you’re trying to argue the staff into an unreasonable and untenable binary position, Rand Rover. And I don’t see why we should allow “occasional” tweaking.