NationStates Jolt Archive

Just wanted to give a heads up on a poster I think is trolling...just in case it gets to the point where it is blatant, you can kind of have a pattern to look at.

Original statement, no big deal, a bit inflammatory, but not out of the norm:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9006123&postcount=77

Then, he admits to 'baiting a trap'.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9006245&postcount=87

Bit more background...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9006299&postcount=91

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9006384&postcount=97

Well, the trap comment merely shows him using a strategy often employed by myself: He sets up a logical trap inside his arguement and appears to say something that would weaken him, setting up the opposition to lose. It's more like planting land mines just in front of your troops and then ordering a retreat than actual trolling.

And, it appears he may be right about the attack, though he does turn around and attack the others. Otherwise, his arguement appears to reflect a problem of English rather than being actual insults. The problem is that English lacks a true set of neuter terms, for people who might be both sexes (hermaphrodites) or neither. "They" and "them" have been substituted in recent years, possibly as far back as Shakespeare.

And, really, you are not innocent either, as accusing someone of being a troll is technically flaming. I must congratulate you for turning yourself in as well.

Well, the trap comment merely shows him using a strategy often employed by myself: He sets up a logical trap inside his arguement and appears to say something that would weaken him, setting up the opposition to lose. It's more like planting land mines just in front of your troops and then ordering a retreat than actual trolling. Interesting analogy...

And, really, you are not innocent either, as accusing someone of being a troll is technically flaming. I must congratulate you for turning yourself in as well.
If it's considered flaming, I'll accept that...no point in trying to hide what I've said when it's all there in black and white. Who are you again?

Interesting analogy...

It's the closest thing I could think of. I use the tactic very frequently myself because it proves to be one worthy of use and provides my opponents with a false sense of superiority, which in turn causes them to be less cautious and allows me to maneuver my arguements to where I can deal with the resulting logical holes in their arguements.

If it's considered flaming, I'll accept that...no point in trying to hide what I've said when it's all there in black and white. Who are you again?

One of the people who has become experienced at what is acceptable and what isn't, through being on both sides of the situations several times. I'm also someone who has turned themselves in at least three times in the past.

I post frequently on the UN forum and spend most of my time there arguing. I'm also one of the biggest assholes on NS, and you may quote me on that.

And, really, you are not innocent either, as accusing someone of being a troll is technically flaming. I must congratulate you for turning yourself in as well.

No it isn't. Stop giving out entirely false advice.

No it isn't. Stop giving out entirely false advice.

GMC, I'm basing that information on a moderator decision on a topic back when I first arrived here under this account that, until today, I have not seen argued against by another mod.

GMC, I'm basing that information on a moderator decision on a topic back when I first arrived here under this account that, until today, I have not seen argued against by another mod.Link, please.

As for Ocalmsnoci... he doesn't seem to be "playing nice", but at the moment, I don't have time to review his posts in detail, so I can't quite put my finger on what, exactly, he's doing wrong. I'll try to get back to him when I can.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

It'll be later today. After awhile of trying, I'd figure I'd wait until posting died down and hopefully not have to deal with the error messages.

If it's considered flaming, I'll accept that...no point in trying to hide what I've said when it's all there in black and white. Who are you again?

You've done nothing wrong! :)

Accusing somebody of trolling or flaming baiting is not *always* an act of flaming. In this case, GMC (a moderator) is correct.

Here is why ... if every time you wanted to complain that somebody is trolling, griefing, or flaming, you yourself were trolling too, it would be impossible to complain about it. There really is some middle ground.

Mikitivity actually hit the ruling on the head (good think I pay attention to his posts on this forum). I think it was either Hack or Myrth who it was that got onto me about it. I'm still searching, but Jolt is being stubborn.

It was a case of calling someone a troll to their face vs. calling them a troll in a topic like this one. In this case, no. In the case of calling them one to their face with justification (specifically, a quote of the trolling in case a mod steps in), depends on the mod, but most likely not flaming. Calling them such without justification (said quote) is flaming, though not likely actionable if you are willing to argue the case and provide a scenario in which led you to the conclusion, which proves it to be a flame resulting from a set of circumstances in which you think you are justified and thus making it an innocent mistake.

Keep in mind I'm having to search about 6 forums for that ruling and, due to memory not including the exact terms, am trying multiple variations on each forum. If the search function crashes, blame me.

Stop being pedantic. Calling someone a troll is not flaming.