It goes back to the definition of trolling which I’m not sure means simply no effort at discussion which you could apply to all the false equivalencies which WG was referencing previously. It seems to require some clear intent at inciting an off topic accumulation of people to go against another person.seacoaster wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 10:09 amI agree with tech here about the Brooklyn post. Not advocating any action; I am just saying that there is no effort at discussion, only indictment based on a false narrative.tech37 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 7:56 amApologies for veering off-topic but I have to ask... how is the above post not trolling? This is not a whiny complaint on my part like others on this board who consistently respond with that charge when unhappy or frustrated with what has been posted, especially when it comes to PB (quite unfairly IMHO). This is simply a question regarding the subjective/nebulous term "troll" and how it's being applied by people with autocrat temperaments on here in order to control discussion.
Don't get me wrong, as far as I'm concerned, the poster above has every right to post outrageous or stupid content (and often does). Their credibility will take a hit either by push back from others or simply by being ignored. Unless clearly stated board rules ("troll" could not be further from clearly stated) are broken, then posters and their posts should not be censored, canceled, boycotted, or penalized. This should apply to everyone.
Seems like there are already sufficient board rules...don't fix what ain't broke.
Right it’s baiting others not the act but intent which is hard to often know but in some cases it takes extreme cognitive dissonance to pretend to not see. Here’s one definition
with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses,[2] or manipulating others' perception. This is typically for the troll's amusement, or to achieve a specific result such as disrupting a rival's online activities or manipulating a political process. Even so, Internet trolling can also be defined as purposefully causing confusion or harm to other users online, for no reason at all.[3]
The one who’s got shot earned this. I’ll be interested in seeing what defenses in this specific case that actually happened not theoretical draws out.