Have you read the rules? The answer lies within them.
So you are saying trolling covers more than just trolling.
Why is conversational English so difficult for you?
Well of course you are, since you say trolling covers more than trolling.
I am comfortable with the intelligence, English comprehension, and good judgment of our moderators. I'm sorry you are not.
In a political forum, troublemakers are anyone you (generic you, not personal you) highly disagree with and are not afraid to call you out on things they disagree with.
Absolutely false. That may be your definition; it is not mine. You are not the only conservative poster here. Some exhibit the same sorts of misfit behavior you do (though none so egregiously), some do not. I don't believe I've ever accused Fern, EagleKeeper, or Charrison of trolling, for example. Even though we frequently disagree, they consistently contribute intelligent and reasoned discussion ... even when they're calling me out.
Frankly, that's been my point for a long, long time. P&N needs more of them and fewer of you. We would have far more productive and thought-provoking discussions if we did. It is your behavior, not your ideology, that leads us to call you out for trolling.
If you start behaving yourself, acting in good faith here, I believe you'll find the complaints about your behavior will drop dramatically. You will also be able to stop obsessing about where the lines are drawn. Follow the spirit of the rules instead of continually plotting on how to exploit the rules and you won't need to worry about moderators.
Just today a mod, while posing as a non mod, used his mod powers to falsify a poll in a thread because he did not like the view of the poster. Since said poster is not going to be infracted for it, that means it is ok to falsify things in our posts, right?
Oh, grow up. He very effectively -- and humorously -- made a great point, aptly demonstrating one of the many reasons Internet polls are practically worthless. That simple example was more effective than hundreds of words of discussion.
By the way, if you read those rules I mentioned, you will find this is not the place for mod call-outs. I figured you'd want to know that since you're such a stickler for rules.
Without a usable defintion that everyone has to follow, we have people using random definitions based on their personal views. This may work in the Digital and Video Cameras forum, but not where people are so diametrically opposed and vocal about it.
Using the word "random" over and over still doesn't make it true. The definition of trolling must necessarily be imprecise because it is rooted in intent. That doesn't make it random.
You know the rules. Don't troll. Don't derail threads. Don't post misinformation. Don't lie. In short, behave yourself. It's really simple.
What is trolling?
Sigh. If comprehending "trolling" still escapes you, feel free to start by concentrating on the rest of the list. Don't derail threads. Don't post misinformation. Don't lie. In short, behave yourself. It's really simple.
Finally, I note you've once again altered my quote, silently omitting a significant portion of my comment:
[ ... ]
I don't think the forum "working together" has anything to do with it. Some people will not behave. That is a fact of life in a forum like P&N. I think the moderators shouldn't have their hands tied with a bunch of red tape when they need to deal with those who misbehave. I am in favor of letting them exercise good judgment.
[ ... ]
So? Welcome to life. If you believe rules are being applied against you unfairly, perhaps it's time for a little introspection. Everything the mods know about you comes from your comments on this forum. If those comments have caused them to perceive you as a troublemaker who deserves punishment, you should take a good, hard look at your behavior and figure out why that may be. I'll be happy to help if you're at a loss.
I believe America's laws prove exactly what I'm talking about. How many times have we heard of miscreants avoiding prosecution because they did something that was clearly wrong yet wasn't technically illegal? Or maybe they did something that is illegal, but there is not quite enough evidence to convict (e.g., cannot prove intent). Rules fail because they are too rigid, because they cannot encompass every possible scenario. That's why people intent on poor behavior love sharply-defined rules. It means they can run rampant, they can exploit the loopholes, while moderators stand back with their hands tied.
As someone who's been in management for over 25 years, I know first hand how frustrating it is to deal with a troublemaker who loves to exploit the rulebook. I shouldn't have to, our employees are at-will and I don't have any unions to deal with. I do, however, have HR departments, which in large companies tend to love rules, hate risk, and dismiss concerns about productivity. It becomes a real pain in the butt. Fortunately, I get paid well to endure such frustration. Our moderators don't, which is why I don't want to throw more hurdles in front of them.
The other difference between laws and forum rules is laws have severe consequences. Consequently, we have extensive laws and legal processes to ensure innocent people aren't punished. The rights of the defendant are paramount because the consequences are severe.
There's no need for that in a social forum. If a moderator makes a mistake, you aren't imprisoned. You don't lose your livelihood or your property. You get a sanction, and unless you're waaaay over the line, that's it. If it was a mistake, and you are generally well-behaved, nothing else comes of it. You got chided, there's a note in your file, life goes on.
But even if you are a troublemaker, justly earning sanction after sanction, the consequences are minimal. You eventually lose posting privileges on this forum for a short time. That's it. It's frustrating if you want to be heard, maybe a bit embarrassing, but there's no material harm to you. That's why society needs extensive, well-defined laws, while P&N gets along just fine with a few general rules. You are at no risk of harm if a moderator makes a mistake.
Therefore, applying the same "rule" you've invented in other threads, your failure stipulates that you agree with this section of my post. In particular, you agree that moderators should not have their hands tied with a rigid definition of "trolling". You agree that a detailed definition of "trolling" is inherently too narrow and actually hurts the forum. You also agree that real-world examples from America's legal system demonstrate how rigid rules often obstruct fair and accurate decisions. Finally, you agree that the lack of significant consequences for breaking P&N rules clearly demonstrates why all your fussing about rules and detailed definitions is ill-considered and a waste of bandwidth.
Fantastic! I believe I speak for much* of P&N in saying we are delighted you've finally come to your senses and recognized the blatantly obvious. Thank you.
(*Most of the rest have you on Ignore, so they don't know or care what you're fussing about.)
Facebook
Twitter