Possible flaming troll?

[The Nihilistic view]

viewtopic.php?p=18480331#p18480331

I can understand how some people might agree with right-wing policy, we're all different, but I don't understand how you can knowingly support UKIP policy, or even that vile shit stain of a man who so defaces Britain's image in Europe by constantly releasing from his toxic mouth a tirade of anti-European xenophobia and prejudice (not that image matters, but it doesn't help relations in Europe when we have cumrags like Farrage speaking their minds). His politics are personal. He isn't looking out for the country. If UKIP are elected, which they most certainly won't be, all they'll serve to do is ruin the economy. They're a one policy party - what will they do after we're out of Europe? Impose their narrow-minded politics on the rest of us, because that's all right-wing ideology is. It's emphasis on the individual, it's emphasis on the right to make money more than the quality of life for its poorest citizens, and it's emphasis on downright degeneracy and an unregulated free market. This puts me in a sticky situation, because I'm all for freedom of speech and freedom of the individual (despite being a proponent of the collective views of syndicalism), but I hate that people believe this sort of thing.

Obviously my left-wing views have shone through here, but that's not to say I truly support any of the left-wing parties in the UK, much less any party for that matter. They're all a load of bollocks, they're all the fucking same. Labour is just the Red Conservatives, Lib-Dem are the Conservatives Lite, and all these other parties don't have a hope in hell for election, so what's even the point? I hold politics close to my heart, it's just a shame it's so fucking retarded. No one has any right to impose what they think upon others. It is painfully clear that I despise the right, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't defend your right to believe it.

Such a difficult topic to discuss without getting angry or seeming contradictory.

The underlined especially, just seems designed to make people angry.

[Farnhamia]

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=279864&p=18480460#p18480460

[Cosszka]

Hey guys,

Nihil, I can understand how it might have annoyed you that I posses an opposing set of beliefs, but saying that I'm trolling when it's a perfectly legitimate statement is pretty wrong. You could have began a discussion or opposed me with some fact perhaps, rather than reporting me to the mods.

Farn, I understand you're just doing your job as a moderator and that's it's necessary to keep things relatively sensible, but I think that labeling my words as trolling is wrong. Fair enough to the warning, but I'm not trolling. I'm not trying to spark a war, I'm not trying to incur a reaction, I'm stating my opinion. It's freedom of speech. I don't understand how it is unacceptable for me to say that? There must be a better designation if it is at all deserving of any punishment.

Thanks for your time,
Coss.

EDIT: and how is a post like this not trolling or flaming? The connotations of referring to Farage as a pseudo-Hitler by using the Nazi salute chant is just downright wrong. I don't accept this warning as legitimate. It's an overreaction. If he can play out to his stereotype, can I do the same as an the angry lefty?

UKIP and Nigel Farage.


SEIG HEIL!!



Might as well play to our stereotype.

[Farnhamia]

Hey guys,

Nihil, I can understand how it might have annoyed you that I posses an opposing set of beliefs, but saying that I'm trolling when it's a perfectly legitimate statement is pretty wrong. You could have began a discussion or opposed me with some fact perhaps, rather than reporting me to the mods.

Farn, I understand you're just doing your job as a moderator and that's it's necessary to keep things relatively sensible, but I think that labeling my words as trolling is wrong. Fair enough to the warning, but I'm not trolling. I'm not trying to spark a war, I'm not trying to incur a reaction, I'm stating my opinion. It's freedom of speech. I don't understand how it is unacceptable for me to say that? There must be a better designation if it is at all deserving of any punishment.

Thanks for your time,
Coss.

Your opinion could easily have been expressed without calling someone "that vile shit stain of a man."

[Cosszka]

Hey guys,

Nihil, I can understand how it might have annoyed you that I posses an opposing set of beliefs, but saying that I'm trolling when it's a perfectly legitimate statement is pretty wrong. You could have began a discussion or opposed me with some fact perhaps, rather than reporting me to the mods.

Farn, I understand you're just doing your job as a moderator and that's it's necessary to keep things relatively sensible, but I think that labeling my words as trolling is wrong. Fair enough to the warning, but I'm not trolling. I'm not trying to spark a war, I'm not trying to incur a reaction, I'm stating my opinion. It's freedom of speech. I don't understand how it is unacceptable for me to say that? There must be a better designation if it is at all deserving of any punishment.

Thanks for your time,
Coss.

Your opinion could easily have been expressed without calling someone "that vile shit stain of a man."

And who am I hurting by stating my opinion of this so-called newborn-messiah of the British political world? Does anyone really take offence to what I say? Can they? This is not a personal attack on anyone who supports UKIP, it's what I think about the support of UKIP, particularly Farage. I could have expressed my view without the use of expletives, by why else do expletives exist if not for emphasis and accentuation? This is nothing short of petty. It is pedantic and "politically correct" rubbish. Freedom of speech exists so that we can speak our mind; consider the long and arduous past of male and female universal suffrage, consider the long path it has been to get to the point where we can say what we think, only to then be repressed because someone is hurt that I've spoken my mind and offended their soft, right-wing sensibilities?

[Farnhamia]

Your opinion could easily have been expressed without calling someone "that vile shit stain of a man."

And who am I hurting by stating my opinion of this so-called newborn-messiah of the British political world? Does anyone really take offence to what I say? Can they? This is not a personal attack on anyone who supports UKIP, it's what I think about the support of UKIP, particularly Farage. I could have expressed my view without the use of expletives, by why else do expletives exist if not for emphasis and accentuation? This is nothing short of petty. It is pedantic and "politically correct" rubbish. Freedom of speech exists so that we can speak our mind; consider the long and arduous past of male and female universal suffrage, consider the long path it has been to get to the point where we can say what we think, only to then be repressed because someone is hurt that I've spoken my mind and offended their soft, right-wing sensibilities?

You were warned for trolling, not flaming. Your characterization of Nigel Farage could easily have evoked an angry response from someone who supports the UKIP. Free speech is not license to say anything that comes into your head. We make use of language filters in public discourse, which the forums are, to keep from discussions becoming brawls.

Since, however, you feel so strongly that you have been done an injustice, I'll send up a flare for a second opinion. Please be patient.

[Cosszka]

And who am I hurting by stating my opinion of this so-called newborn-messiah of the British political world? Does anyone really take offence to what I say? Can they? This is not a personal attack on anyone who supports UKIP, it's what I think about the support of UKIP, particularly Farage. I could have expressed my view without the use of expletives, by why else do expletives exist if not for emphasis and accentuation? This is nothing short of petty. It is pedantic and "politically correct" rubbish. Freedom of speech exists so that we can speak our mind; consider the long and arduous past of male and female universal suffrage, consider the long path it has been to get to the point where we can say what we think, only to then be repressed because someone is hurt that I've spoken my mind and offended their soft, right-wing sensibilities?

You were warned for trolling, not flaming. Your characterization of Nigel Farage could easily have evoked an angry response from someone who supports the UKIP. Free speech is not license to say anything that comes into your head. We make use of language filters in public discourse, which the forums are, to keep from discussions becoming brawls.

Since, however, you feel so strongly that you have been done an injustice, I'll send up a flare for a second opinion. Please be patient.

Ok, thank you for your time and consideration. The reason I am contesting this ruling is not because it is excessive or harsh, but because I deem it to be unfair; this is not an attack on your ability to moderate, it is just a rebuke to your sentence. My comments were not intended to evoke a response, they were not purposefully inflammatory, nor did I want to upset anyone in particular. It may have been somewhat of an attack on the right, but then again, that's the nature of politics. Not everyone agrees, so I felt the need to vent and express my opinion. Hence, I am contesting.

[The Nihilistic view]

You were warned for trolling, not flaming. Your characterization of Nigel Farage could easily have evoked an angry response from someone who supports the UKIP. Free speech is not license to say anything that comes into your head. We make use of language filters in public discourse, which the forums are, to keep from discussions becoming brawls.

Since, however, you feel so strongly that you have been done an injustice, I'll send up a flare for a second opinion. Please be patient.

Ok, thank you for your time and consideration. The reason I am contesting this ruling is not because it is excessive or harsh, but because I deem it to be unfair; this is not an attack on your ability to moderate, it is just a rebuke to your sentence. My comments were not intended to evoke a response, they were not purposefully inflammatory, nor did I want to upset anyone in particular. It may have been somewhat of an attack on the right, but then again, that's the nature of politics. Not everyone agrees, so I felt the need to vent and express my opinion. Hence, I am contesting.

I have never thought it allowable to vent on the forums due to it's inherent ability to provoke other angry responses. The same goes for any subject, saying things like cumrag and vile shit stain of a man along with a few other choice words is on many topics at risk of causing angry responses. Whether intended or not is not the issue to me, but the effect. To me that effect is to not to really see any argument other than a vent at a group of people who support a certain thing. Causing one to focus on the choice words and to well you can imagine what I may think and have to control and not respond in an angry manor. The thing is you can claim all you like but the effect seems contrary to what you claim in my opinion. Hence referring it to higher powers and hoping nobody will come across it and start some kind of flame or troll war.

I have been warmed for less harsh words before without purposefully trying to inflame because how it comes across to other people was it made them angry. But one just has to learn not to vent or say such inflammatory things and if it is a joke or sarcasm to make sure it's clear in the post so people don't get the wrong idea. Hence it's been about six months since my last warning. Rather than feel affronted take it as an opportunity to learn what not to post in future, that's what I did after a bit. One can debate without using such inflammatory language thus why I felt personally the post was trollish and confrontational in nature especially after you have twice said that your venting.

[Farnhamia]

We've all expressed our opinions on this. While we're waiting for another opinion from Moderation, I'm locking this.

[Farnhamia]

*waves a flag at the rest of Moderation*

[Ardchoille]

It's true that calling a politician names is not flaming anyone on NS. But, depending on the names, it can be trolling. We enforced this so strictly during the US elections that people got warnings for referring to a US pollie by the gentle name of "Mittens".

Trolling can happen without intent. The names you chose for the object of your disdain were such that they would seriously anger anyone with an opposing view. When you are speaking of a party politician, you are not just speaking of a person, you are speaking of a party image in which many strong and varied emotions are invested.

Attacking such a person, not just his ideas, with very strong insults raises the temperature of the thread so that even those neutral on the subject could have the "my Utterly Worthy side/the Absolutely Awful, Fiendish and Despicable other side" reaction triggered. This is fine when done by chanting at a football game, but not fine on a site where the aim is reasoned debate.

I note that you are generally a careful poster who has had no real problems in the time you've been here, but that doesn't cancel out the fact that this one time you went too far. Hoping it will help you put the brakes on when discussing subjects on which you feel deeply, I uphold Farnhamia's warning.

[Virana]

Trolling can happen without intent.

I haven't analyzed this particular ruling enough to make my own judgement call, but, with all due respect, this statement seems to contradict the definition of trolling from the One Stop Rules Shop.

Trolling/Baiting/Gloating: Trolling is defined as posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example). Someone disagreeing with you does not equate to trolling. Intent is incredibly important and will be judged by the moderators to the best of their abilities. Disagreements are expected and conducting yourself in a civil manner is ideal. Trollbaiting is the action of making posts that attract trolls. A prime example of trollbaiting would be gloating over the results of an election.

Just felt that was relevant to the discussion.

[Ardchoille]

Intent is incredibly important, as are history and circumstance. If Cosszka had had the sort of post history that convinced Farn he had intended to rile everyone up, I doubt she would have stopped with a warning; equally so, if the circumstances had been that his statement was made at the end of a string of increasingly inflammatory posts.

People who troll without meaning to can feel wrongly accused when they read the brief official definition --they know they didn't intend to cause offece (or whatever effect their statement caused, up to and including total flamewar, lock and bans). That's why I took the trouble to assure Cosszka that, based on his record, I felt the gaffe was the result of his own emotions, not of any desire to anger other posters. As he seems to be a generally reasonable person, I expect he will take the warning as a reminder and make no further appearances as the subject of a Moderation complaint.

Yet, obviously, we can't let even people with the purest of intent make unnecessarily heated statements that may draw even greater heat -- and rulebreaking -- from others. That simply gets in the way of the forum's purpose. That's why we have to put a brake on unnecessarily inflammatory language, while still allowing vigorous debate. It's a line both players who make the posts and mods who make the decisions about the posts have to walk.

In general, I feel that remembering the simple mantra "don't be a dick to others" helps players far more than the most exacting, blackletter interpretation of the OSRS. Sadly, the latter, carried to excess, can see good intentions turn into rules lawyering, obscuring the actual purpose of the rules.

[Cosszka]

Thanks to everyone here for taking the time to consider the punishment, and thanks Arch for outlining the reasons why and clearing it up. I trusted Farn's judgement but wasn't really sure why it was trolling, so naturally I contested it.

[The Archregimancy]

Thanks to everyone here for taking the time to consider the punishment, and thanks Arch for outlining the reasons why and clearing it up.

Ardchoille is an Australian woman; I am a British man living in Dubai - but given the number of times people transpose "Ard" and "Arch", I'm beginning to think it's harder to tell the difference than I thought it was.

The only shared characteristics are that we're both debonair, witty, and mean copy-editors.

Short version: Ard should be taking any credit due here, not me (Arch).

[Cosszka]

Thanks to everyone here for taking the time to consider the punishment, and thanks Arch for outlining the reasons why and clearing it up.

Ardchoille is an Australian woman; I am a British man living in Dubai - but given the number of times people transpose "Ard" and "Arch", I'm beginning to think it's harder to tell the difference than I thought it was.

The only shared characteristics are that we're both debonair, witty, and mean copy-editors.

Short version: Ard should be taking any credit due here, not me (Arch).

I had to re-read the name to actually notice the 'd' nestled in there! Thanks to Ard*.