General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List')

So how would define a debate forum troll? Does Hooah fit that description?

LoL, Paul. You've never been at the receiving end of Hooah's meanspirited trollish messages, most of which equal or pass what Moose posted.Adminnemooseous has been quite lenient with Hooah. The lengthy suspension, like when he suspended Jar a while back was not because of a single message. It was the ongoing trollish nature of their MO that served to deserve the belated action of a moderator.These lengthy suspensions occur regularly with creationists. When have I ever aired complaints on any of them? How about you citing otherwise to support your allegations?

quote:

---

LoL, Paul. You've never been at the receiving end of Hooah's meanspirited trollish messages, most of which equal or pass what Moose posted.

---

I don't favour unfair treatment for those who attack me.

quote:

---

Adminnemooseous has been quite lenient with Hooah. The lengthy suspension, like when he suspended Jar a while back was not because of a single message. It was the ongoing trollish nature of their MO that served to deserve the belated action of a moderator.

---

A week's suspension for no apparent reason is hardly lenient. Especially when accompanied by a contentless personal attack placed in a topic proposal of all places.

quote:

---

These lengthy suspensions occur regularly with creationists. When have I ever aired complaints on any of them? How about you citing otherwise to support your allegations?

---

Do you deny complaining about so-called "biased" moderation ?

There's no singular definitive description. The general guideline might be to say a troll is someone who expresses a viewpoint insincerely with a view purely to garnering significant response or fostering intercommunity arguments.The more of a storm they can cause, the better.It is possible to troll evolutionists here quite easily. Unfortunately it would simply be by posting lots of creationist talking points so they would be largely undetectable. See Poe's Law for ancillary information.Creationists here are very hard to troll in the larger sense of the term. There are few of them so any response won't be particularly impressive. And again, the most straightforward way to do it if you were interested would be to simply raise evolutionist talking points. So again, they would be largely undetectable. Not that I have seen. I would not regard him as the ideal debater, and I can see why you dislike him. But trolls are not people that are merely unpleasant to others, or are disliked by someone.

Well, I think you're misunderstanding my critique of Moose simply because the only lens through which you judge moderator action is whether they hammer my side just as much as yours.I'm talking about something that is beyond sides; I think Moose's problem was that he was a bit of a sleeping bobcat - for a week or two at a time there'd be no indication that he was even following the board, some situation would slowly devolve over a couple of days, and then finally Moose would bestir himself to hand out suspensions based entirely on one or two most recent messages, completely divorced from context. There was just no telling what would set Moose off, but once he was, you could rely on him taking exactly the wrong action. I'd be surprised if there was any moderator so frequently overruled as Moose.

There's too much analysis going on under the subtitle "An Ill Treated Moose's Last Straw."I'm changing to a new subtitle to honor Moose, who always encouraged us to use appropriate subtitles.I suspect this was a simple case of MUI (or MWI if you prefer that acronym). Here the "M" stands for "moderating" and I am using the acronyms in analogy with "DUI" and "DWI".

If that is the case, has he too much pride to admit as such? I can think, off the top of my head, of a fair number of us who come back the next day with a "sorry guys, had a few too many last eve" and that is that. But Moose left after this charade. Why he left is unbeknownst to all of us, but it says a lot.

I see now why you defended our Hooah troll. What your lengthy biased explanation ( hardly a definition} better describes debating because, as you know, in debate boards people judge debaters on how correct [i]they think the other is[i]. Others would not agree and debate otherwise. It's called debating, whether one's paradigm is correct or not. It could be judged by trolling, but you know how that goes as to where debating leaves off. .Thats where bias is rife in most boards.A more concise definition of a debate forum troll is as I cited from the link. The term originated in Norway in a folk tale where the troll prevented the movement across the bridge. He would jump out from under it and demand a toll before crossing. He contributed nothing in the process.In debate forums, it could be members on either side of the isle Here at EvC, we have a few who post their nasty little one or two one liners or repetitively demand what has already addressed, complaining if they don't get a response.I am doing a little study on how many trollish messages my Cavediver science thread garnered per page. Perhaps I'll do a thread on it. We can seriously study what trolls are, who they are and how frequently they stall movement of that lengthy thread. We can see which side of the isle does the most of this.I could do the same with the last Exodus thread where I get blamed by Admin and some of the trolls themselves for it's length etc.AdminModulous, imo, this is why you suspended Adminnemooseous who saw Hooah as a troll. Imo, if the moderators would recognize trolls for what the are and do, the long dragged out threads would be more concise, interesting and objective.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My understanding of the meaning of "troll" is the same as Modulus and the usual derivation is not from the mythical beasties, but from an alternate spelling of "trawl" (as in "trolling for flames").

quote:

---

I am doing a little study on how many trollish messages my Cavediver science thread garnered per page. Perhaps I'll do a thread on it. We can seriously study what trolls are, who they are and how frequently they stall movement of that lengthy thread. We can see which side of the isle does the most of this.

---

Given the fact that the thread was mainly composed of your attempts to deny the obvious fact that your ideas were in conflict with thermodynamics - a fact already established in earlier discussions - I somehow doubt that the study will be in any way objective.

Whereof is this link you claim to have posted. The only link you posted on ths thread about this subject is a dead link.Your understanding of the derivation of the term troll for the internet is wrong. It comes from the fishing troll not the mythical creature troll. It has been turned around to be a noun but it has a different meaning than the troll you are citing. If you do have any evidence to your claim please post the link. Claiming you already posted a link is not sufficient.

Except for the part where I defended neither Hooah nor trolls. I do believe that I said

quote:

---

There's no singular definitive description.

---

And went on to explain how good trolls can make their efforts indistinguishable from standard debating at a forum such as this. I'm not sure which link you are referring to, but the prevailing wisdom is that the term actually derives from from fishing, rather than from Norwegian folklore. Getting them confused is common enough. I've have already given the reason why I suspended AdminMoose, but you are free to be of the opinion that I was being deceitful.

My definition does not rely upon any etiology.Troll: anyone out to make troubleIt isn't uncommon for someone to unintentionally make trouble, and I call this "trollish behavior."--Percy

The bonafide trolls see Buzsaw as the troll. You and the trolls see me as the perpetrator of undue lengthy creationists threads such as the Exodus threads, the Cavediver et al thread, etc. I get blamed for their trollish posts which accounts for a lot of the thread bandwidth.Adminnemooseous would have seen it differently than AdminPd did. He knew and attempted to diminish the activity of the real trolls.Admin PD saw me as the troll when she suspended me. It was my on topic message, responded by two trollish ones which got me suspended.When I finish my study on this I'll air the results.

I don't see you as a troll (note: this is not accepting your claim that I am a troll), you're just arrogant and ignorant. You don't meant to cause trouble, it just follows in the wake of your poor performance in the threads you participate in.

Are the trolls really trolling the trolls if they are trolling the trolling trolls? It is the trolls who are the trolls and the Buz who is not trolling the trolling trolls? Then who was phone? Ah HA! It is the trolls who are trolling Buz and Buz is not trolling! Everyone else is a troll and Buz is not trolling trolls?God damn I need my reddit fix......