New forum offense: Trollnaming

[Vandover]

Shouldn't this be in moderation or the One Stop Rules Shop?

[San Leggera]

Shouldn't this be in moderation or the One Stop Rules Shop?

It applies to discussion in General, so the announcement belongs here.. It's already been added to the OSRS.

[Laerod]

Shouldn't this be in moderation or the One Stop Rules Shop?

People don't regularly check the OSRS as you've just demonstrated (or you would have known that it's already in there), making the announcement a necessary step to call people's attention.

[Vandover]

Shouldn't this be in moderation or the One Stop Rules Shop?

It applies to discussion in General, so the announcement belongs here.. It's already been added to the OSRS.

With the way it's written,it seems more like an order than a discussion.

[San Leggera]

It applies to discussion in General, so the announcement belongs here.. It's already been added to the OSRS.

With the way it's written,it dosen't seems more like an order than a discussion.

Let me rephrase. The new trollnaming rule applies mainly to threads in the General forum, which is why the announcement is in this forum.

[Dorlania]

all hail the mods for this necessary, wonderful and amazing new rule thank you so much!

what this man said

[Vandover]

all hail the mods for this necessary, wonderful and amazing new rule thank you so much!

[I'm going to post a pic here]
Not sure if serious or sarcasm.

[Baran-Duine]

Good move. Any chance you can add the "fixed" thing as well?

There's already an official policy on "fixing" posts.

[Nadkor]

Good move. Any chance you can add the "fixed" thing as well?

There's already an official policy on "fixing" posts.

There is?

I've been asking semi-regularly for a few years now in the "the mods are shit/good" threads that pop up occasionally for it to be banned. I must have missed any announcement.

[San Leggera]

There's already an official policy on "fixing" posts.

There is?

I've been asking semi-regularly for a few years now in the "the mods are shit/good" threads that pop up occasionally for it to be banned. I must have missed any announcement.

The 'fixed' policy was re-defined in July, I believe. (Unless you're referring to quote editing being completely banned)

Quote Editing: Changing what someone said in a quotation without indicating that a change has been made, especially when it casts the person in a bad light and changes his or her meaning will be treated as flamebaiting or, if appropriate, trolling. The tradition here is to indicate the ORIGINAL words changed by reproducing them and using the strike tags and adding the changes in blue or some other color -- so that the original context is clearly visible. The tradition is also to add the word "fixed" to the post. Note that doing this in such a way as to make us thing you're trying to annoy someone may well end in moderation getting involved.

[The Blaatschapen]

There's already an official policy on "fixing" posts.

There is?

I've been asking semi-regularly for a few years now in the "the mods are shit/good" threads that pop up occasionally for it to be banned. I must have missed any announcement.

From the OSRS:

Quote Editing: Changing what someone said in a quotation without indicating that a change has been made, especially when it casts the person in a bad light and changes his or her meaning will be treated as flamebaiting or, if appropriate, trolling. The tradition here is to indicate the ORIGINAL words changed by reproducing them and using the strike tags and adding the changes in blue or some other color -- so that the original context is clearly visible. The tradition is also to add the word "fixed" to the post. Note that doing this in such a way as to make us thing you're trying to annoy someone may well end in moderation getting involved.

So not exactly what you want.

[Nadkor]

There is?

I've been asking semi-regularly for a few years now in the "the mods are shit/good" threads that pop up occasionally for it to be banned. I must have missed any announcement.

The 'fixed' policy was re-defined in July, I believe. (Unless you're referring to quote editing being completely banned)

Quote Editing: Changing what someone said in a quotation without indicating that a change has been made, especially when it casts the person in a bad light and changes his or her meaning will be treated as flamebaiting or, if appropriate, trolling. The tradition here is to indicate the ORIGINAL words changed by reproducing them and using the strike tags and adding the changes in blue or some other color -- so that the original context is clearly visible. The tradition is also to add the word "fixed" to the post. Note that doing this in such a way as to make us thing you're trying to annoy someone may well end in moderation getting involved.

Ah, right.

Yeah, that explicitly states that saying "fixed" is the correct way to do it.

Which is rather the opposite of what I'd like to see.

[Ethel mermania]

The 'fixed' policy was re-defined in July, I believe. (Unless you're referring to quote editing being completely banned)

Ah, right.

Yeah, that explicitly states that saying "fixed" is the correct way to do it.

Which is rather the opposite of what I'd like to see.

I agree with Nadkor, i have done it before, but i would like to see the process considered baiting. Because all it does is bait the original poster.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm reserving judgement until I see it applied a few times.
As a rule it's a bit too broad for my taste but rules lawyering is frowned upon anyway, so dependent on how wide a net the mods cast this could either work out well or be quickly reversed...hopefully.
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?
So i'm unsure. If it can be used to punish people who accuse someone of trolling after or during a post where they have provided content, especially exhaustive content. (Wall of text explaining why the thing makes no sense or is inflammatory with one sentence asking if they are trolling.) then it may be too draconian.

[The Blaatschapen]

Ah, right.

Yeah, that explicitly states that saying "fixed" is the correct way to do it.

Which is rather the opposite of what I'd like to see.

I agree with Nadkor, i have done it before, but i would like to see the process considered baiting. Because all it does is bait the original poster.

I have to agree that it is highly annoying sometimes.

I guess we can maybe bring this up in Moderation?

[Baran-Duine]

There's already an official policy on "fixing" posts.

There is?

I've been asking semi-regularly for a few years now in the "the mods are shit/good" threads that pop up occasionally for it to be banned. I must have missed any announcement.

I don't know that an announcement was made, but basically the fixed meme is tolerated so long as you make it clear what has been changed.

[San Leggera]

Ah, right.

Yeah, that explicitly states that saying "fixed" is the correct way to do it.

Which is rather the opposite of what I'd like to see.

I agree with Nadkor, i have done it before, but i would like to see the process considered baiting. Because all it does is bait the original poster.

Not in all cases. Sometimes it's merely adding more information to a post by another user, other times it's a joke being elaborated.

[Ethel mermania]

I agree with Nadkor, i have done it before, but i would like to see the process considered baiting. Because all it does is bait the original poster.

Not in all cases. Sometimes it's merely adding more information to a post by another user, other times it's a joke being elaborated.

i have never seen it used to add more information to a post. It has always been used as a bait, troll, or as you say, a joke. To be fair, sometimes the joke is pretty funny. But i would put up with the loss of that joking ability to get rid of the bait and flame.

[Laerod]

Not in all cases. Sometimes it's merely adding more information to a post by another user, other times it's a joke being elaborated.

i have never seen it used to add more information to a post. It has always been used as a bait, troll, or as you say, a joke. To be fair, sometimes the joke is pretty funny. But i would put up with the loss of that joking ability to get rid of the bait and flame.

But you are about to.

[The Black Forrest]

A very unnecessary rule which restricts users' speech and ultimately is protecting a VERY small, VERY thin skinned minority of people. If you have a problem with being called a troll on an internet forum, I highly suggest you take a trip to just about every other site on the internet which allows users to submit comments/posts. I am generally skeptical of the phrase "modtyranny" but I think this is definitely a reach.

It's become a growing concern because it's being used to shut down debate, which isn't what this forum is for.

To paraphrase Max, people will state silly things. The whole point of having General is to allow other people to point out just how silly or factually incorrect such a thing is.

The problem has been though, as of late, that what we've been getting is:

Poster A: Makes thread with some kind of remark that is outside the POV of just about everyone else.

Posters B-J: TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL!

Poster A: I'M NOT A TROLL!

Poster K: No, but you're wrong because of...

POSTERS L-X: TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL!

Poster A: I'M NOT A TROLL! I'M NOT! I'M NOT I'M NOT!

The post actually addressing the original topic is lost in pages of troll remarks and the OP gets to spend more time defending themselves against it than to actually defend their statement. Eventually we wander by and have to lock the whole thing because the thread has become naught but AM NOT and ARE SO posts repeated endlessly. Which, getting back to Max's statement, isn't what we want. We're not every other commenting/debate sites, we're NationStates.

What about calling poe's law? Does that fit under trollnaming?

Depends, are you actually adding anything else to the debate?

To clarify, what we're after is posts that just scream "troll" without actually bothering to address the arguments put forward.

What about the case of a person who keeps posting the same POV which gets trashed and ends up with:

Poster A: Makes thread with some kind of remark that is outside the POV of just about everyone else.

Posters B-J: TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL!

Poster A: I'M NOT A TROLL!

Poster K: As replied to your last couple threads (or post if POV is parroted rather then defended) , but you're wrong because of...

other posts: Troll, troll, troll, etc., etc.

MODS step in and so many days later a new thread with the same POV........

[Sailsia]

The post actually addressing the original topic is lost in pages of troll remarks and the OP gets to spend more time defending themselves against it than to actually defend their statement. Eventually we wander by and have to lock the whole thing because the thread has become naught but AM NOT and ARE SO posts repeated endlessly. Which, getting back to Max's statement, isn't what we want. We're not every other commenting/debate sites, we're NationStates.

---

To clarify, what we're after is posts that just scream "troll" without actually bothering to address the arguments put forward.

Alright, fair enough.

[NERVUN]

I'm reserving judgement until I see it applied a few times.
As a rule it's a bit too broad for my taste but rules lawyering is frowned upon anyway, so dependent on how wide a net the mods cast this could either work out well or be quickly reversed...hopefully.
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?
So i'm unsure. If it can be used to punish people who accuse someone of trolling after or during a post where they have provided content, especially exhaustive content. (Wall of text explaining why the thing makes no sense or is inflammatory with one sentence asking if they are trolling.) then it may be too draconian.

The problem we've run into is the "But your rule on spam doesn't say..." That, and we are trying to stop a behavior.

My personal opinion (Meaning as always, it's up to the individual Mod and depending on the situation/history of the people involved), we're looking more to curb the "TROLL!" posts that don't actually add anything else in rather than "This post reaks of trolling for X, Y, and Z reasons because A source says..."

I agree with Nadkor, i have done it before, but i would like to see the process considered baiting. Because all it does is bait the original poster.

I have to agree that it is highly annoying sometimes.

I guess we can maybe bring this up in Moderation?

Indeed. You guys can bring up rule changes you'd like to see in Moderation at any time. We do actually listen. If the fixed meme is getting out of hand again, it might be something to take a look at. It used to be banned until a number of players asked for it back for joking purposes IIRC.

What about the case of a person who keeps posting the same POV which gets trashed and ends up with:

Poster A: Makes thread with some kind of remark that is outside the POV of just about everyone else.

Posters B-J: TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL!

Poster A: I'M NOT A TROLL!

Poster K: As replied to your last couple threads (or post if POV is parroted rather then defended) , but you're wrong because of...

other posts: Troll, troll, troll, etc., etc.

MODS step in and so many days later a new thread with the same POV........

It would depend a great deal as to what those threads were. Re-posting of locked threads is already against the rules.

[The Black Forrest]

I'm reserving judgement until I see it applied a few times.
As a rule it's a bit too broad for my taste but rules lawyering is frowned upon anyway, so dependent on how wide a net the mods cast this could either work out well or be quickly reversed...hopefully.
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?
So i'm unsure. If it can be used to punish people who accuse someone of trolling after or during a post where they have provided content, especially exhaustive content. (Wall of text explaining why the thing makes no sense or is inflammatory with one sentence asking if they are trolling.) then it may be too draconian.

The problem we've run into is the "But your rule on spam doesn't say..." That, and we are trying to stop a behavior.

My personal opinion (Meaning as always, it's up to the individual Mod and depending on the situation/history of the people involved), we're looking more to curb the "TROLL!" posts that don't actually add anything else in rather than "This post reaks of trolling for X, Y, and Z reasons because A source says..."

I have to agree that it is highly annoying sometimes.

I guess we can maybe bring this up in Moderation?

Indeed. You guys can bring up rule changes you'd like to see in Moderation at any time. We do actually listen. If the fixed meme is getting out of hand again, it might be something to take a look at. It used to be banned until a number of players asked for it back for joking purposes IIRC.

What about the case of a person who keeps posting the same POV which gets trashed and ends up with:

Poster A: Makes thread with some kind of remark that is outside the POV of just about everyone else.

Posters B-J: TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL!

Poster A: I'M NOT A TROLL!

Poster K: As replied to your last couple threads (or post if POV is parroted rather then defended) , but you're wrong because of...

other posts: Troll, troll, troll, etc., etc.

MODS step in and so many days later a new thread with the same POV........

It would depend a great deal as to what those threads were. Re-posting of locked threads is already against the rules.

that's what I suspected. Thank you Nervun-san.

[Blazedtown]

Very Tzeentchian. I approve.

[Natapoc]

Seems risky and a potential way for trolls to become immune from being reported.

If one calls out a troll for trolling then one can earn a "trollnaming" offense.
If one reports a troll then the wording implies that they can then be subject to a "mods as weapons" offense if their reports on people they view as being actual trolls are mistaken to be against a specific player (such as a troll)

What exactly then can one do if one finds one is being trolled if one can get in trouble for naming a troll in a thread as well as for reporting a troll repeatedly for being consistently offensive?