NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm not entirely sure why my thread was closed. Well, why the more serious one was closed, I mean. My OP wasn't a troll, at least not intentionally in anyway. In the locking post, it was implied that a discussion was cropping up in spite of my post, but I had every intention of sparking a conversation.

Not that I'm trying to appeal the decision. I'm sure the decision is final. But I'm genuinely scratching my head at it.

You may not have meant it to be trolling, but little details like this in the OP --

(after quoting a Republican supporter's email)
Seriously? Is it really possible to be that retarded?

On the bright side, there was this little nugget of "wisdom":

sure made it sound that way.

This board has its share of Republican posters. They may wish to comment on how their party could mend its fortunes, and Democrat posters may wish to oppose -- or ridicule -- their ideas or arguments. Fine, this is a political debate forum.

But when you start a thread with the implication that all people who support the views you quoted are retarded and incapable of genuine wisdom, you're trolling.

Even so, sometimes people are willing to ignore provocation for the sake of a reasonable discussion. I let the thread alone earlier hoping that would happen, and for a while, it seemed to be (though not on the topic -- it'd wandered off into third parties).

But by the last page we're back to this:

What the hell is that suppose to mean? Do mean the retards that shouldn't be allowed to vote or the majority of republicans? And if someone says samething, they'd better hope they can duck.
In b4 "What's the difference?"

Which is why I said "mea culpa" -- my mistake for leaving it alone earlier.

From what I've seen of your posts generally, you probably weren't intentionally trolling, but your tone took it there.

The in b4 was supposed to mean that I anticipated someone making that statement. Perhaps an eye-rolling smiley would have helped there.

As for the first post, I was going to say that I was just expressing an opinion and not trying to shoot down half the discussion, but then I remembered that an opinion need not be false to constitute trolling. So it would seem that I was in error.

My apologies.

As for the first post, I was going to say that I was just expressing an opinion and not trying to shoot down half the discussion, but then I remembered that an opinion need not be false to constitute trolling. So it would seem that I was in error.

My apologies.

If you've got the point, which, from the above comment, you seem to have done, there's no need to apologise. It was a mistake that you've learned from.

It's okay to express an opinion provocatively, but you have to phrase the provocation so that people who disagree with you will still want to engage you constructively.

If your first post gives them cause to think that your only response will be an insult, they won't bother joining in, or will do so just to fling insults back.