New forum offense: Trollnaming

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Does anyone else here think that "trollnaming" is a creepily doublethink name? If it's flaming why not just call it flaming?

I respect the goals of the rule here, (though a rose by any other name....) but, the name is kind of creepy.

It's a very specific subset, imo.
It's has a whole other series of connotations to me.

[Smartass alcoholics]

It's getting very hard to debate with a particularly stubborn person and not think "is this guy trolling, or am i not making a good argument?"
Most of the time he's just messing with me, but sometimes i have to refine my way of typing out thoughts. It gets a bit frustrating.

[Reploid Productions]

It's getting very hard to debate with a particularly stubborn person and not think "is this guy trolling, or am i not making a good argument?"
Most of the time he's just messing with me, but sometimes i have to refine my way of typing out thoughts. It gets a bit frustrating.

Well, if you have reason to suspect he is "just messing with you" (aka possibly trolling), then file a report in Moderation and one of us can take a look. Calling "Troll!" in a thread doesn't contribute to a discussion nor does it bring mod attention to the potential problem.

[Phaggotnygger]

You've gotta be kidding me.

[Smartass alcoholics]

It's getting very hard to debate with a particularly stubborn person and not think "is this guy trolling, or am i not making a good argument?"
Most of the time he's just messing with me, but sometimes i have to refine my way of typing out thoughts. It gets a bit frustrating.

Well, if you have reason to suspect he is "just messing with you" (aka possibly trolling), then file a report in Moderation and one of us can take a look. Calling "Troll!" in a thread doesn't contribute to a discussion nor does it bring mod attention to the potential problem.

I know, but its kinda my way to gnaw at something until i can't tell what it is anymore. I don't go around throwing "Troll!" or "Flame!" whenever i want xD

[Neo Art]

You know, nearly three months in to this ruling, I have to retract my earlier criticism of it. I now see that the warnings for "trollnaming" that were handed out, officially and unofficially, were utterly justified.

I now understand how calling someone "troll" could be considered disruptive to serious, honest, and willing discussion, and as such, significantly hampered the productive discussion by such members as Objectiveland, The Mongol Ilkhanate, Tamriela and Ikarouss. What an utter injustice it was to call these fine, upstanding, serious discussion having pillars of the NSG community such base, crass, disgusting things as "trolls", and what a righteous and utterly justified set of rules it was that prevented people from calling Objectiveland, the Mongol Ikhanate, Tamriela and Ikarouss "trolls". And the warnings people received for calling Objectiveland, the Mongol Ikhanate, Tamriela and Ikarouss "trolls" was in no way what so ever spurious and nonsensical.

Indeed, and I say this without a hint of irony, they are shining examples of what NSG is today.

[AiliailiA]

This thread was a sticky once, wasn't it? An Announcement even?

And it's been set loose in General ...



The rule mostly affects posters to General.

If the thread has been set loose here to solicit opinion about the rule itself: let me say that I do not approve of the rule.

I spoke in favour of instituting the rule (or something like it).

I'm so embarrassed I can't bear to read it.

I have changed my mind.

And I demand a poll.

[Tmutarakhan]

what a righteous and utterly justified set of rules it was that prevented people from calling Objectiveland, the Mongol Ikhanate, Tamriela and Ikarouss "trolls"

Nothing prevented anyone from calling them trolls on the Moderation board, the result of which is the absence of these people from the present board.

[AiliailiA]

You know, nearly three months in to this ruling, I have to retract my earlier criticism of it. I now see that the warnings for "trollnaming" that were handed out, officially and unofficially, were utterly justified.

I now understand how calling someone "troll" could be considered disruptive to serious, honest, and willing discussion, and as such, significantly hampered the productive discussion by such members as Objectiveland, The Mongol Ilkhanate, Tamriela and Ikarouss. What an utter injustice it was to call these fine, upstanding, serious discussion having pillars of the NSG community such base, crass, disgusting things as "trolls", and what a righteous and utterly justified set of rules it was that prevented people from calling Objectiveland, the Mongol Ikhanate, Tamriela and Ikarouss "trolls". And the warnings people received for calling Objectiveland, the Mongol Ikhanate, Tamriela and Ikarouss "trolls" was in no way what so ever spurious and nonsensical.

Indeed, and I say this without a hint of irony, they are shining examples of what NSG is today.

I want some of what you're smoking.

It's irony you say? Well pass it around and fire it up for me. Bogart.

[Neo Art]

what a righteous and utterly justified set of rules it was that prevented people from calling Objectiveland, the Mongol Ikhanate, Tamriela and Ikarouss "trolls"

Nothing prevented anyone from calling them trolls on the Moderation board, the result of which is the absence of these people from the present board.

Indeed, those warnings must have been justified, and those four shining pillars of the NSG community being, in no way trolling, otherwise we've entered the realm of absurd, for warning people for "trollnaming" people who were, in fact, deleted for trolling (ok, well, one was for posting past a mere BAN for trolling). Because that would mean that moderators are handing out warnings for trollnaming ACTUAL trolls.

Which was the point of the "trollnaming" rule right, that calling people "troll" was disrupting actual legitimate conversation? Because the "in no way troll" posters above, were really trully interested in having serious conversation. So warning people for trolling trolls would mean they were warning people for "disrupting the serious conversation" of people who, by their own admission, weren't interested in having serious discussion.


And that would just be stupid.

So I'm sure that's not the case. After all, if that were a concern, I'm sure somebody would have predicted it three months ago, when this thread was active

[Tmutarakhan]

*snip*

The usefulness of naming trolls on the General board is exceeded only by the usefulness of lengthy rants about the usefulness of naming trolls.

[Neo Art]

*snip*

The usefulness of naming trolls on the General board is exceeded only by the usefulness of lengthy rants about the usefulness of naming trolls.

I have always considered myself an extraordinarily useful individual, and I'm glad to see you're finally coming around to the truth of that.

[Galloism]

The usefulness of naming trolls on the General board is exceeded only by the usefulness of lengthy rants about the usefulness of naming trolls.

I have always considered myself an extraordinarily useful individual, and I'm glad to see you're finally coming around to the truth of that.

There's a lawyer joke in there somewhere.

[Ethel mermania]

The usefulness of naming trolls on the General board is exceeded only by the usefulness of lengthy rants about the usefulness of naming trolls.

I have always considered myself an extraordinarily useful individual, and I'm glad to see you're finally coming around to the truth of that.

it is importance to have confidence in this world.
*nods*

[Forsher]

This thread was a sticky once, wasn't it? An Announcement even?

And it's been set loose in General ...



The rule mostly affects posters to General.

If the thread has been set loose here to solicit opinion about the rule itself: let me say that I do not approve of the rule.

I spoke in favour of instituting the rule (or something like it).

I'm so embarrassed I can't bear to read it.

I have changed my mind.

And I demand a poll.

Really?

It is so much better now that one doesn't have to read endless pages of "troll". On the other hand, the endless pages of "you're wrong" are that much more noticeable.

[TomKirk]

I have always considered myself an extraordinarily useful individual, and I'm glad to see you're finally coming around to the truth of that.

it is importance to have confidence in this world.
*nods*

Maybe we should have a rule against lawyer-naming. Many people do consider "lawyer" to be a flame, after all. Since, as Neo points out, it is no defense against a trollnaming charge that the person you named has in fact been officially ruled a troll, it would be against the rules to call Neo a lawyer, even though he in fact is a lawyer.

[Forsher]

it is importance to have confidence in this world.
*nods*

Maybe we should have a rule against lawyer-naming. Many people do consider "lawyer" to be a flame, after all. Since, as Neo points out, it is no defense against a trollnaming charge that the person you named has in fact been officially ruled a troll, it would be against the rules to call Neo a lawyer, even though he in fact is a lawyer.

Lawyers are also popularly viewed as outstanding members of society. It is defence attornies like Massingbird who are disliked.

The point of outlawing trollnaming is that even though a thread may have trollish origins it can still spark decent discussion. However, that is very difficult when you get a bunch of uncoperative nations whose total contribution can be summed up as "calling other nations trolls."

Really, it is also an extension of the "mod impersonation" rule. The reason being a lot of the people called trolls prior to the trollnaming rule's introduction weren't trolls. Here is the most ridiculous example I can remember. And that is why this rule is needed.

[Xomic]

Maybe we should have a rule against lawyer-naming. Many people do consider "lawyer" to be a flame, after all. Since, as Neo points out, it is no defense against a trollnaming charge that the person you named has in fact been officially ruled a troll, it would be against the rules to call Neo a lawyer, even though he in fact is a lawyer.

Lawyers are also popularly viewed as outstanding members of society. It is defence attornies like Massingbird who are disliked.

The point of outlawing trollnaming is that even though a thread may have trollish origins it can still spark decent discussion. However, that is very difficult when you get a bunch of uncoperative nations whose total contribution can be summed up as "calling other nations trolls."

Really, it is also an extension of the "mod impersonation" rule. The reason being a lot of the people called trolls prior to the trollnaming rule's introduction weren't trolls. Here is the most ridiculous example I can remember. And that is why this rule is needed.

But... surely if a thread, even if it was started by an opening poster by someone with less than good intentions, is going to spark an interesting and valuable discussion, it's going to do so regardless of whether or not the opening poster is called a troll or is holding a troll position? If anything, by restricting "trollnaming" to filing a report in the mod forum, it's only going to increase the chance that these potentially interesting threads are going to be shut down and locked.

I mean, in a majority of threads I see in NSG, the first few responses are rarely substantive or contribute anything significant to the thread anyway, it's only until half way down the page, or deeper, into the thread do you tend to see content that actually is substantive or holds an argument or contributes or whatever you want to call it.

[Forsher]

Lawyers are also popularly viewed as outstanding members of society. It is defence attornies like Massingbird who are disliked.

The point of outlawing trollnaming is that even though a thread may have trollish origins it can still spark decent discussion. However, that is very difficult when you get a bunch of uncoperative nations whose total contribution can be summed up as "calling other nations trolls."

Really, it is also an extension of the "mod impersonation" rule. The reason being a lot of the people called trolls prior to the trollnaming rule's introduction weren't trolls. Here is the most ridiculous example I can remember. And that is why this rule is needed.

But... surely if a thread, even if it was started by an opening poster by someone with less than good intentions, is going to spark an interesting and valuable discussion, it's going to do so regardless of whether or not the opening poster is called a troll or is holding a troll position?

Most threads do not get off the ground. A good thread needs on topic exchange of ideas and trollnaming is inherently anti-exchange. The only exchange possible is contesting the accuracy of the accusation, which isn't the topic itself. That means the trollnamers must be crushed by the sheer force of decent posters. However, that doesn't happen because trollnaming snowballs. One person does it and then there's a whole lot of people who agree and imitate of go "^this" or "/thread" which is even more anti-exchange than trollnaming itself.

There are a heap of really good threads that don't get off the ground purely because not enough people disagree with the OP. Ever seen a pro-life abortion thread OP?

If anything, by restricting "trollnaming" to filing a report in the mod forum, it's only going to increase the chance that these potentially interesting threads are going to be shut down and locked.

Not really. As I've said before most trollnamers are wrong. They are simply trying to shut up the opposing viewpoint. No trolling is actually reported. This is why there was no massive spike in moderation reports for trolling post-introduction. I compared "troll" to "you're wrong" earlier and the latter replaced the former, not moderation reports. And the latter was already "troll" for those who didn't trollname.

I mean, in a majority of threads I see in NSG, the first few responses are rarely substantive or contribute anything significant to the thread anyway, it's only until half way down the page, or deeper, into the thread do you tend to see content that actually is substantive or holds an argument or contributes or whatever you want to call it.

Yes. But a lot of threads can be described as this poster versus that poster. Likewise, pages of "troll" are off-putting and buries posts that are pro-exchange which limits a thread.

[Forsher]

Thirteen pages containing "trolling" in moderation from 24 September - 14 December, which is a span of 81 days. The previous 81 days generated, thirteen pages.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Yes, yes, all very cute, and I'm sure we're all terribly amused by the usual missing of points in order to try and score some for oneselves.

If players hadn't been dodging discussion IN FAVOR OF simply screaming 'troll', pointing, and flailing about, it wouldn't have become an issue. I don't think any one of us denies that some players do indeed troll. Nor that there are some who intend to do nothing but that. Let us not be disingenuous in our assessment of the situation, folks.

It had become a problem. We do not in fact warn everyone who dares utter the word 'troll'. We do continue to warn folks for trolling. Players are capable, we think, of knowing the difference between suggesting a player is trolling when making a moderation report, and resorting to 'lol trolz' responses in lieu of 'I think you are wrong and this is why' options.

Keep Calm, and Carry On.