Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 10:33 pmOstroeuropa wrote:I'm guessing from the modposts in this thread that it will only be applied in cases where no actual content has been put forward, just the accusation of trolling. But really, that may as well fall under the spam rules since if you accept the idea that just calling someone a troll is a post of no content, then it counts as spam, doesn't it?
This. It seems we're still allowed to demonstrate/conclude that someone is a troll in a reply outside Moderation, and generally to name trolls as long as it's not spammy. (For the record, that status quo is my desired end.) This fundamental duality renders the rule as written meaningless; just try to find a new, enforceable rule in this text:
This new "rule" appears to be an empty vessel designed to deliver other, perfectly serviceable rules through a pure-interpretation methodology (no categorical imperative is outlined which could not already be inferred by existing rules). The fact that it's already devolved to the point of all spirit and no letter in a day or less is most troubling to me. While I admire the intent, the rule's own description utterly fails to explain it, and we have to rely on a separate discussion thread to get even a general sense of the rule's boundaries. I get the sense that there was an attempt to cover this in the OP/rule ("Warnings...actual debating"), but in practice, it's less of a helpful explanation than a delineation of moderation tactics, which is as pointless as it is out-of-place. Adding insult to injury, "as a substitute for actual debating" raises even more questions of interpretation, which go unanswered until moderation is pressed to explain in the discussion thread.Calling another player "troll" in discussion threads is getting out of hand.
The moderators have decided to add a new violation category, trollnaming, which can fall under the categories of flaming, flamebaiting, trolling, or simply spam, depending on moderators' interpretation of use. Warnings for trollnaming will be handed out to egregious violators at first, in hopes of curbing this practice. If that fails to get people's attention, the penalties may be applied to anyone using the term "troll" as a substitute for actual debating.
This kind of jumbled rulemaking is a poor substitute for actually explaining your existing rules. Why are we here talking Philosophy of Spam when you could have just enforced the existing spam rule with the explanation that, yes, saying "TROLL!" and not much else totally counts as spam? I'm wary of any rule which relies almost entirely on case-by-case interpretation which should already be taking place under the other rules; at best it's a sign of myopia in the moderation department (or just the NSG mods, I don't know), but at worst a trend in the direction of all-interpretation rules makes it difficult for autistics and other literal-minded people to participate freely.
On reflection, it seems your goal is to encourage appropriate self-censorship and back it up with the familiar warning/punishment system. Why not just say that, so we understand what you mean and can abide by it? At most, this merits a "New interpretation", not a "New offense".
ETA:
NERVUN wrote:It's the TROLL! posts that are now not.
What is it about the spam/meme rule(s) that was(/were) inadequate for dealing with them?
Norstal wrote:Good. Now when will you mods take my advice and make a rule about proper grammar and spelling?
Is this supposed to be something other than naked racism/nativism? Just Kidding
LOL 
