Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was reviewing the terms of service and noticed that there is a provision which states "No Trolling Allowed" but there is no actual definition of what "trolling" means.
I'm asking because I recently had several posts deleted for "bickering with a troll." However, I thought that the posts I made as well as the posts made by the alleged "troll" were not arbitrary. I felt that they were relevant to the topic at hand, and that they were overall very reasonable.
Of course I could be mistaken, but either way I feel like a bright-line standard for "trolling" would be helpful, so that users can identify it when it exists and know to avoid responding to a troll.
My concept of trolling is also somewhat hazy. I think a troll is someone who is more interested in picking a fight, in being provocative, in trying to humiliate other posters, than in an intelligent and respectful discussion. It's an odd word to us older folks, and I've picked up my hazy understanding just by osmosis from hearing people talk about it over time. I would love to hear from experienced moderators if they think my definition is close, and if not, to correct it or enlarge upon it.
Your definition is pretty accurate IMO. Trolls are no longer those ugly little men hiding under the bridge like we use to read about as kids.
Trolls often post outrageous comments just to get others all upset. Many times they disappear after the first post. Many times they make general statement like 'Why is everyone in X stupid'.
If you quote a post and that post is deleted then your post will be deleted too.
Mods may refer to a member who was previously banned as a troll.
If you have questions or concerns you can always send a DM to the moderator.
The lack of a definition prevents members from inventing a new way to annoy with posts that isn't covered by the definition of trolling. If the ToS defined it with 35 bullet points, someone would invent an annoyance that wasn't covered by any of them.
The ToS isn't a lawbook that is meant to cover all situations in explicit detail. It's more like a constitution, both general and specific. There are plenty of places online where you can find a definition of trolling. From what I've seen, those definitions tend to be general as well.
I define trolling as "posting to annoy, rather than inform." Members sometimes consider someone who consistently posts opinions that they disagree with to be a troll. That usually isn't the case, no matter how annoying they may find those posts they disagree with.
The lack of a definition prevents members from inventing a new way to annoy with posts that isn't covered by the definition of trolling. If the ToS defined it with 35 bullet points, someone would invent an annoyance that wasn't covered by any of them.
The ToS isn't a lawbook that is meant to cover all situations in explicit detail. It's more like a constitution, both general and specific. There are plenty of places online where you can find a definition of trolling. From what I've seen, those definitions tend to be general as well.
I define trolling as "posting to annoy, rather than inform." Members sometimes consider someone who consistently posts opinions that they disagree with to be a troll. That usually isn't the case, no matter how annoying they may find those posts they disagree with.
Ok, thanks. These posts have been responsive to my understanding of the issue.
Trolling is like "obscene art" i.e., hard to describe, but you know it when you see it.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
Thanks. It was helpful to read that. The article's key words seemed to be "inflammatory", "intentionally provocative", and "disrupting normal on-topic discussion". This is in line with what everyone has been saying in this thread.
Thanks. It was helpful to read that. The article's key words seemed to be "inflammatory", "intentionally provocative", and "disrupting normal on-topic discussion". This is in line with what everyone has been saying in this thread.
Pretty much. The tricky part is - how do you judge someone's intentions from a post on the Internet?
Pretty much. The tricky part is - how do you judge someone's intentions from a post on the Internet?
Yes. I have great sympathy for you moderators, since these qualities are not either/or but on a continuum. So you must make judgement calls on the borderline cases, and those calls will not please everybody. I have encountered some very artful trolls who are skilled at making their provocations sound legitimate. In other words, they skate right on that fine line, but over time one can see they are trolling. Naturally I'll mention no names!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
