NationStates Jolt Archive

Warned here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9060178&postcount=35)


According to the TOS you directed me too,
Trolling: Posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example). While Trolls often make these posts strictly in an attempt to provoke negative comment, it is still trolling even if you actually hold those beliefs. Intent is difficult to prove over the internet, so mods will work under their best assumptions.

Note that posts of opinions you disagree with does not automatically equate with trolling. Disagreements are expected, as long as they are done in a civil manner. Max Barry has made it clear that he welcomes all opinions in civil debate, even those that are highly unpopular or minority-held. Make your case without the invective, if you want to avoid banishment as a Troll.

Trolling is also is used to refer to making obviously silly topics that people nonetheless will reply to, despite all common sense. Don't feed the trolls.



A joke in bad taste is not, by definition, made to anger. By the fact that there was no response in anger, clearly the other players were smart enough to figure that out.

Indeed given that the title of the thread itself is rudely dismissive of the pope's opinion ("Pope Rejects Condoms (and how is this news?) "), my response seemed entirely in keeping with a line of discussiont hat you were OK with. Indeed, I'm rather flabbergasted at how my comment can be singled out of a thread who's very initial premise that you let slide is:

"With that kind of mentality, who needs genocide when Mother Nature can just do it herself... The church is so retarded. It's no wonder we're not as advanced as we could be. "


Unless you feel that a question of sexual orientation in inherently less appropraite that calling people 'retarded'. Speaking for myself, I'd rather be gay than stupid...



So can you please explain exactly where the "trolling" line is because from where a new player sits, it's about as clear as GW's service record.....


Thanks.

To respond to your comments in the thread (and respect your statement that it be continued here)

Your post was clearly over-the-line in my opinion. Everything else in here is closer to the borderline and I need to confer with another Moderator before taking action.
--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation



So questioning the sexuality of the pope is CLEARLY over the line, to you....


but referring to him (and/or the church) as


"retarded"
"promoting genocide"
"a Nazi"
or, in reference to Africa, calling all the denizens thereof ignorant junglebunnies (to paraphrase the first reponse to that thread)

need a conference ?!?!?!?!?




Try stepping back and reading these threads as a newbie would. Frankly, if there ARE any rules around here they seem to be applied by happenstance at best, or due to personalitiy conflicts at worst.


But thank you for the educational trip down Inconsistency Lane..... it's an interesting landscape herabouts that Salvador Dali would have loved!

Do you really think it's a good idea to antagonise the mods?

You may not like the way they do things, but they're still going to do them, aren't they?

Do you really think it's a good idea to antagonise the mods?

You may not like the way they do things, but they're still going to do them, aren't they?

It may or may not be a good idea, but he's right.

To respond to your comments in the thread (and respect your statement that it be continued here)
So questioning the sexuality of the pope is CLEARLY over the line, to you....
but referring to him (and/or the church) as
"retarded"
"promoting genocide"
"a Nazi"
or, in reference to Africa, calling all the denizens thereof ignorant junglebunnies (to paraphrase the first reponse to that thread)
need a conference ?!?!?!?!?
Try stepping back and reading these threads as a newbie would. Frankly, if there ARE any rules around here they seem to be applied by happenstance at best, or due to personalitiy conflicts at worst.
But thank you for the educational trip down Inconsistency Lane..... it's an interesting landscape herabouts that Salvador Dali would have loved!

I do agree with the mods warning I also agree that LM has a point and I would request that the Mods look at the first page of this thread.

We're aware of the request and have been discussing it at some length. There is no need to bump this thread - in fact, doing so is counterproductive. You'll get a ruling when we post it.

I do agree with the mods warning I also agree that LM has a point and I would request that the Mods look at the first page of this thread.
May I remind mods (since I'm being targetted here and I'd thought I'd wait until morning after I slept, to make my counter argument) that I have frequently spoken out against religion here and have called religion stupid before. I did reword my original statement, however, it doesn't change what I think of the Catholic Church - however, I didn't in my posts insult Catholics (because if I did, I'd be insulting my family). If you read carefully, you'll realise I am taking a cheap shot at the church in terms of its outdated policy.

Thank you. And yes, I fed the troll in an attempt to be a smartass. Yes, my statements were unnecessary, but there have been plenty of times when there have been people ranting who've posted equally as questionable material. But if you check my history, I'm fairly well behaved though (but known for being stupid)

And yes, I fed the troll in an attempt to be a smartass.

One quick look at that thread and you can clearly see, he was not trolling or anything else for that matter. In fact his comment was far more mild than some of the things said in that thread.

As well, given the Catholic church's recent events as of late, it wasn't exactly an unfounded accusation either. While he did say it obviously in a joking way. He also was commenting on the Pope/church not Catholics in general. Why he was singled out remains this morning a mystery to me.

Thank you. And yes, I fed the troll in an attempt to be a smartass. Yes, my statements were unnecessary, but there have been plenty of times when there have been people ranting who've posted equally as questionable material. But if you check my history, I'm fairly well behaved though (but known for being stupid)


Excuse the fuck out of me, but while I am discussing with the Mods whether or not my post really constituted trolling I would apreciate if you did not interject with your own ass-sucking to them about "feeding the troll" as it expresses a supposed conclusion on an undecided manner. Especially when YOU did not receive an official warning from what I can see. Besides, you can't very well feign ignorance of the fact that it was meant in jest (which is to say - NOT trolling) with the response YOU made acknowledging it as a tasteless joke. If anything, your response then SUPPORTS my position.


Maybe my sense of humour is too coarse for this forum, and if so I will attempt to holster it in the future, but I still find this ruling in the face of everything else I read on these forums as bewildering. All I'm asking for is something better than the provided definition as it seems it is so bloody subjective as to require players to consult a Ouija board or majic 8 ball before posting and then sitting back and waiting to find out post-submit whether something is or is not deemed trolling.

--SNIP--
Actually, you pointed out my initial remark, so I thought I should have clarified my position on it. It just so happens it is in the thread that you're making your defense in.

While I acknowledged your remark, I did believe that it was trolling and I structured my reply around that.

Further, while I have attempted to remain diplomatic, you have chosen a less-than prudent approach. By remarking:

Excuse the fuck out of me, but while I am discussing with the Mods whether or not my post really constituted trolling I would apreciate if you did not interject with your own ass-sucking to them about "feeding the troll" as it expresses a supposed conclusion on an undecided manner. Especially when YOU did not receive an official warning from what I can see. Besides, you can't very well feign ignorance of the fact that it was meant in jest (which is to say - NOT trolling) with the response YOU made acknowledging it as a tasteless joke. If anything, your response then SUPPORTS my position.

I'll refrain from remarking on this, though you have clearly attempted to insult me, which might be considered flaming or flamebaiting, which may not be the best idea on any of the NS forums, least of all the moderation forum.

I did receive an unofficial warning, however, if you did care to note.

Further, Cognition had put an official warning in for trolling and cited for for feeding/borderline trolling, so I was working with a moderator charge and not an inconclusive one that implies finite.

Also, I would hope that if you're trying to appeal a decision that you don't violate more rules in the process.

Flame: Expressing anger at someone in uncouth ways with OOC (out-of-character) comments (i.e. swearing, being obnoxious, threatening etc). It does to watch what you post IC (in-character) as well unless the other posters know you're not serious. You do not need to curse to be a flamer. Erudite slams while maintaining a veneer of politeness can also be considered flaming. Flaming in the forums should be reported in the Moderation forum, in the game itself, through Getting Help Page.

Flamebait: Posts that are made with the aim of angering someone indirectly. Not outright flame, but still liable to bring angry replies. Flame baiting is a far more subtle and covert action; it is an underhanded tactic that is designed to provoke a response from another player. It's in the same context of trolling but with flamebaiting it's just the one person.

I'm sorry for hijacking this thread, mods, but something I had wrote was cited and it seemed to include me. I don't think it's fair if I'm told I can't express myself when I have been quoted and singled out for a remark of mine.

I am trying to get this matter reviewed by the other Moderators. Anything involving more than one Moderator usually invokes Bureaucratic Mod Slowness. In the meantime, I expect the bickering to stop.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Yes your moderatorship! :D as long as no one picks on me.

Sheesh, that is the longest-winded "refraining from remarking on this" I've read in a long while. I'd have hated to see it if you had said your peace!.... I just don't have that much free time during the day!



And I'd respond to your continued mod-wannabe ass-sucking in detail, but we have been requested to stop, and so I will.



Hardly seemed fair to let the admitted thread hijacker get the last word though....

BTW Cogitation,

I'm not being deliberately confrontational. But the facts of the matter are that you called me for trolling, and I disputed it. All I wanted was some clarification.

Instead, I move the discussion here at your request, and the first comment I get is from some schmuck telling me not to because I might "antagonize the mods". Yeah, whatever - fuck me sideways with a broomstick for doing what the Mods ask.

Then I get the one guy who giggled along with me at my crass and childish joke coming in to play "cover his ass" in MY thread by trying to make me look even worse while they stick their nose in the air and play little miss(ter) innocent with the pure heart and to "helpfully" advise me on the rules.


Well fuck him/her too because this isn't about them, nor is it their job to lecture me. That would be YOUR job and I have been patiently awaiting the decision as evidenced by the fact that it has primarily been others posting to this thread.


Now a polite, wussy person might have let his actions slide, bent over, and took it. I'm not a polite person. I use words like fuck and shit, and it seems that they are permitted here. And a polite person might have accused them of something like "pandering", "ingratiation", or some such bullshit cultured word. I prefer brutal honesty, and I call it ass-sucking. but it amounts to the same thing.


Now, if you tell me to stop using that term, I will of course refrain from it. But it still is what it is.


Anyway - I am done with this thread except, of course, to await the final verdict which I shall accept graciously no matter which way the ruling goes.

BTW Cogitation,

I'm not being deliberately confrontational. But the facts of the matter are that you called me for trolling, and I disputed it. All I wanted was some clarification.

<snip>

Anyway - I am done with this thread except, of course, to await the final verdict which I shall accept graciously no matter which way the ruling goes.In that case, it's probably best if this topic gets locked until a decision is reached.

iLock.

Again, keep in mind that this will take some time. Bureaucratic Mod Slowness.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation