From our site rules (emphasis mine):
I18. Trolling is the posting of inflammatory posts with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional (often angry) response. Trolls aim to disrupt normal on-topic discussion, often by raising tangential or irrelevant hot-button issues. Trolling posts are intended to incite controversy or conflict and/or to cause annoyance or offence.
Trolls are damaging to online communities because they attempt to pass as legitimate participants in discussions while actually seeking to disrupt normal conversation and debate. If permitted to remain, trolls tend to reduce the level of trust among members in an online community. One consequence may be that truly naive posts are rejected by sensitised members as just more examples of trolling.
Frankly I could say that any post you write is inflammatory, provokes some readers into an emotional response.
And that you do it to cause annoyance or offence.
That doesn't make it so.
Just because you were irked doesn't mean that was the intention of the post.
If you assume bad-faith at the outset you will see it, or course.
That still doesn't mean that what you see is the way it is.
Surely you should first warn the person about the sepcific nature of the post that you have issue with.
You did: it was a matter of relevance.
He explained twice why it was relevant.
And it was.
You warned him for "trolling".
Sarkus posted an inflammatory post with the intent to provoke a specific reader - me - into an angry response. He intended to annoy me, at the very least, and perhaps to cause offence.
You have no evidence of this intent.
None.
You are confusing the fact that you were provoked into an angry response with that being the intention.
To provoke?
Sure.
One provokes others into seeing the flaws in what they have said.
Into an angry response?
That would seem to be on you.
No evidence of intention whatsoever.
If anything,
he is the one who was irked by
your initial insult.
Then
your subsequent insult.
Trolling by Sarkus?
No.
And you're doing nothing to help clarify why it is.
Sarkus has developed a bad habit of stalking me around the forum, attempting to pass as a legitimate participant in discussions while actually seeking to disrupt normal conversation and debate. This is repeated behaviour from Sarkus. This was not a first offence.
Responding to you is "stalking"?
You're both regular and frequent posters.
This is a ridiculous attempt at justification.
It speaks only to bias on your part.
And your insecurity.
Are we to take from this that the rules for "trolling" should now include "Sarkus responding to anything James R posts"?
It is clearly you treating Sarkus differently from other posters.
It is bias on your part.
And it still doesn't explain what he did that was "trolling".
Your
bolded comments above are not borne out in what he posted.
I will add the text of the warning I sent to Sarkus, for additional clarity and transparency:
So because
you got irked by something he said, that's "trolling"?
Yet at no point did you actually explain to him
what you got irked by, but rather focussed on
relevancy?
This is all so baffling.
It's almost like you know the warnings were not justified, either for "trolling" or for anything else you are trying to come up with.
But you can't find a way to resolve the matter.
So we're just left with confusion.
Is this all clear enough for you, Baldeee, or are you still struggling to understand what went down with your little friend?
It's clear that the issue was not with what Sarkus posted, but with
you being challenged.
The initial comments was on-topic.
The challenge was on-topic.
You argued about relevancy.
It was relevant.
At no point did you tell him it was "inappropriately personal", if that really
is the issue you had.
I can see clearly enough what went on between you and Sarkus and Parmalee.
Your accusation of, and warning for "trolling" by Sarkus simply does not stack up.
So I'm still confused, as are probably many here, by what you're saying to now justify the warning you gave him.
www.sciforums.com
