# General > The Literature Network >  When is it trolling?

## The Atheist

I raised a thread in here some months ago suggesting that a member was trolling, therefore breaking the rules, so I'm not going to suggest anything like that here, but instead want to find out how LitNet decides what trolling actually is.

Wikipedia states: _In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion._

Knowyourmeme states: _A troll is someone who will state something only with the intention of stirring up controversy. Typically the statement is so absurd that only the most noobish of noobs will get offended and respond._

I believe that both those descriptions accurately depict what an internet troll is.

Can we have an official explanation of how Admin decides what constitutes a troll at Literature Network?

----------


## G L Wilson

Troll is the new term for witch.

----------


## papayahed

I have to wonder why people feed a troll. 

This isn't a popularity contest we don't just ban posters because we don't like what they have to say. If you don't like a specific topic or poster the best bet would be to ignore that particular thread. It is beyond me why people complain about threads yet post to that thread.

----------


## The Atheist

> I have to wonder why people feed a troll.


Me too - I can do it successfuly myself. 




> This isn't a popularity contest we don't just ban posters because we don't like what they have to say.


I wouldn't advocate that, but it's also not relevant to what I'm asking. 




> If you don't like a specific topic or poster the best bet would be to ignore that particular thread. It is beyond me why people complain about threads yet post to that thread.


Why don't we take that attitude to politics, then? 

That's the part I find somewhat inconsistent - politics is banned because it's divisive; so why not just allow posters not to post in political discussions? It's all pretty much grist from the same mill.

----------


## G L Wilson

> I have to wonder why people feed a troll.


Because people are human and not a bunch of saints.

----------


## papayahed

> Me too - I can do it successfuly myself. 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't advocate that, but it's also not relevant to what I'm asking. 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't we take that attitude to politics, then? 
> ...


Interesting, you guys are whining about someone posting about trivial, inconsequential matters what is going to happen with a topic as heated as politics? 

None of which matters since the owner of the site has decided No Politics.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> None of which matters since the owner of the site has decided No Politics.


Yep, pretty much end of discussion when it comes to politics.

I'm glad there's no political discussions here, personally, though it's always been a bit fuzzy as to what constitutes a political discussion for me, but I think I'm getting the hang of it.  :Smile:

----------


## YesNo

Personally, I don't mind trolls. When they come in with their nonsense, it makes me realize not to take myself too seriously. 

I especially like the young trolls between 12 and 15 years of age. They don't really know how to participate in the arguments and lack the ability to use irony effectively. I love it when they connect to their alternate accounts to respond to their own posts thinking no one knows. It is too _cute!_ 

I know trolling is not polite internet behavior, but a lot of us aren't always models of courtesy for them either.

----------


## The Atheist

> Interesting, you guys are whining about someone posting about trivial, inconsequential matters what is going to happen with a topic as heated as politics?


No, I am not "whining", so please don't come that one. I've pointed out, both here and in lack of posts, that I don't care about the actual trolling.

*I am asking [again] what constitutes trolling.*

The forum's rules state:




> 4. In general, you may not use your membership privileges here via posting text or images in the forums, signature lines, tags, blog entries or blog comments, profile visitor messages, social groups, photo albums, or private messages for:
> 
> a) flaming, baiting, *trolling*, or ad hominem (personally attacking or insulting other members), ...


 (emphasis mine)

Now, I reckon with many years and tens of thousands of posts under my belt, not to mention having set up and administered boards, that trolling falls into distinct, accurate, and above all universally agreed, criteria. There are threads here now that almost every member of this board would consider to be both inflammatory and trolling.

Whether that is good or bad is of no relevance to me whatsoever. I have no problem avoiding trolls and find them hysterically funny most of the time - and I like to keep an eye on conspiracies to find out the latest.

What matters is this:

*Literature Network bans trolling.
*

Ergo, *no current threads are considered by adminstration to be trolling*.

*Can we please have a definition of what does constitute trolling at this site*.

While this may seem like trivia to you, the one thing I place above all others in belonging to a forum is consistent application of the rules. As it stands, the current situation displays a contradiction between the written rules and their application - or a misunderstanding of what those rules mean. So far, implementation of the rules has been pretty well 100% in line with the stated intention and written form of the rulebook.

I'm quite happy with the discipline level required in posts here - after all, my single [unfair, boo!!  :Biggrin: ] infraction was four years ago - because the rules are applied consistently.

If you can explain what the rule means, or heck, change the rules and allow it - I don't care.

I just want to understand. 




> None of which matters since the owner of the site has decided No Politics.


Yep, and I raised a thread on the very subject a couple of years ago and am quite happy not to have it as a subject. That's why I've been reporting threads that seemed to cross the line.

I was obviously right, because those threads which had strayed in Party central that I reported disappeared.

----------


## MarkBastable

Originally Posted by papayahed 
_I have to wonder why people feed a troll._


To put it less prejudicially, why do some people pay attention to trolls?

And the answer, I think, is that some of us are predisposed to ignore the irritations in our lives, and some tend to confront them. The ignorers generally think the confronters are wasting their time, and the confronters think the ignorers are wimping out. 

Either way, the troll is causing grief - and it doesn't matter which of the above factions you lean towards, because that grief is visited upon the community as a whole.

PS I'm suddenly overwhelmed by the inclination to buy a round of celebratory drinks.

----------


## qimissung

It's interesting that you ask this question, Atheist. I've quoted you a few times to my kids who respond "Trolls on the internet, Mom."

My point is, I think it's somewhat subjective.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

I think the mods are pretty consistent when it comes to when it comes to trolling, as consistent as they can be, at least. Really, when it comes down to it, trolling is just a matter of personal discretion, no? How can one really define whether or not something is trolling behavior, aside from the obvious extremes? 

Trolling has such an odd definition, because almost any thread that brings something interesting (at least, to me) can often be seen as trolling. To provoke an emotional response seems the perfect reason to create a thread. 

I think the mods are doing just fine, especially with the Musicology threads, which I know is what has spurred this thread. I think, for the most part, he is trolling, but the mods monitor the threads, and once they start getting more personalized, or circularly redundant, they're locked.

----------


## billl

One thing that I imagine would sort of cast a wrench into a mod's "Is this sincere or trolling?" calculations would be the existence of a thread or threads that appear to be trolling, but nevertheless end up being, say, a nearly year-long debate between basically just two enthusiastic individuals, amounting to more than 500 replies.

----------


## MystyrMystyry

I agree Billl - but is unintentional trolling considered trolling? Especially when the so-called troll begins his own thread, at the heart of which would seem to the uneducated a troll argument?

There is a so-called 'troll' on this forum the likes of which I've experienced nowhere else, a troll who is not actually a troll (Vitamin D deficient maybe, but not by any definition a troll.

We simply need, therefore, a new word to define a particular psychological condition that can stand for Paranoid Conspiracy Theorist, or PCT (you know the kind - Mel Gibson portrayed one in that film 'Conspiracy') which do actually exist amongst us.

They are harmless, not known to carry weapons of any sort even for self-defence, and don't generally attack people with personal insults - but they have every right to respond in kind if people start to do it to them.

So should these PCT's be ridiculed - or nurtured? Or both?

I think when you first come across one it can be confusing, but upon realising what is actually wrong you may find that a bit of understanding can perhaps help them in their recovery.

----------


## The Atheist

> It's interesting that you ask this question, Atheist. I've quoted you a few times to my kids who respond "Trolls on the internet, Mom."


They wouldn't be the first!

Pretty much everyone who starts topics is called a troll at some stage, but there is a pattern of behaviour that makes a troll stand out from the masses.




> Trolling has such an odd definition, because almost any thread that brings something interesting (at least, to me) can often be seen as trolling. To provoke an emotional response seems the perfect reason to create a thread.


Yep, I just agreed with you. It's the pattern and repetition that makes a trol a troll. 




> I think the mods are doing just fine, especially with the Musicology threads, which I know is what has spurred this thread. I think, for the most part, he is trolling, but the mods monitor the threads, and once they start getting more personalized, or circularly redundant, they're locked.


If that's the case, there isn't a problem - we just need to have the rule changed to describe what is and isn't allowed.

One clear definition of what constitutes trolling and where the line is drawn for posting here.




> I think when you first come across one it can be confusing, but upon realising what is actually wrong you may find that a bit of understanding can perhaps help them in their recovery.


This doesn't address the topic at all and is an ill-concealed _ad hominem_ suggesting someone may have a mental illness, purely based on behaviour in an anonymous-posting forum.

----------


## MystyrMystyry

That's the third time witless anonymous comments have dismissed something I've said anonymously - I'm beginning to think the real troll on this forum is the one who least suspects it

----------


## Calidore

> Yep, I just agreed with you. It's the pattern and repetition that makes a trol a troll.


I think it's more a matter of intent. If the poster is simply looking to get reactions and attention by whatever means, that's trolling. A poster who believes what he's saying and is truly trying to convince others isn't a troll, even if he insists on being wrong. A troll doesn't care if he's right or wrong because that isn't the point. 




> This doesn't address the topic at all and is an ill-concealed _ad hominem_ suggesting someone may have a mental illness, purely based on behaviour in an anonymous-posting forum.


If that behavior suggests a complete and sincere detachment from reality, it's a valid observation.

----------


## YesNo

> That's the third time witless anonymous comments have dismissed something I've said anonymously - I'm beginning to think *the real troll on this forum is the one who least suspects it*


That's an interesting idea.

I see trolling as a form of verbal abuse. With verbal abuse in general it is hard to tell who the abuser really is since all the participants are blaming everyone else of abuse. As long as I'm not part of such an exchange, I use the following rules of thumb to identify the real abuser.

1) The verbal abuser is the one who whose mouth is running the most in the argument.

2) The verbal abuser is the one who claims that others are the real verbal abusers.

----------


## MarkBastable

> That's an interesting idea.
> 
> I see trolling as a form of verbal abuse. With verbal abuse in general it is hard to tell who the abuser really is since all the participants are blaming everyone else of abuse. As long as I'm not part of such an exchange, I use the following rules of thumb to identify the real abuser.
> 
> 1) The verbal abuser is the one who whose mouth is running the most in the argument.
> 
> 2) The verbal abuser is the one who claims that others are the real verbal abusers.


I think it's easier than that. 

I've never seen a group-troll directed at an individual. So the troll is the person standing there on his own, gleefully mouthing off while surrounded by irritated people.

----------


## qimissung

These are probably two different things, first the troll, then the responses to him/her, but I'm not sure they can be separated. It states in the rules (which I copied from a thread closed due to these issues  :Smile: ):

a) flaming, baiting, trolling, or ad hominem (personally attacking or insulting other members),
....

d) threatening, harassing, abusing or intimidating other members,
....

h) any other interruptive behaviour that negatively affects other members’ fair use of this site.

One might provoke the other, but neither are allowed, it would seem.

I also think Mystry's point is valid. In fact an ad hominen argument is not always a fallacy. I think it speaks to the compassion and leniency of the moderators that they have some flexibility built into their system, and perhaps take each case on its own merits. I don't know this, as they have never said as much to me.

As it says in Wikipedia:

_An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the truth of a claim to a negative characteristic or belief of the person advocating it.[1] The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy,[2] but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue_

----------


## G L Wilson

Paranoia and panic add up to magic, it is magic how mediaeval most people are.

----------


## The Atheist

> I think it's more a matter of intent. If the poster is simply looking to get reactions and attention by whatever means, that's trolling. A poster who believes what he's saying and is truly trying to convince others isn't a troll, even if he insists on being wrong. A troll doesn't care if he's right or wrong because that isn't the point.


No problem, but again would require a rule change. 




> If that behavior suggests a complete and sincere detachment from reality, it's a valid observation.


No.

It was a polite way of saying someone was mentally ill, which is another way of saying "you're insane". 

If you genuinely believed someone at your work was mentally ill and wanted to help, would you take them aside and try to get them to talk - or analgously, send some PMs to get a private dialogue started - or would you shout at at work, "Hey, Sylvia, you're acting paranoid, I really think you should see a mental health professional - your behaviour is irrational and detached from reality!"




> These are probably two different things, first the troll, then the responses to him/her, but I'm not sure they can be separated. It states in the rules (which I copied from a thread closed due to these issues* ):
> 
> a) flaming, baiting, trolling, or *ad hominem* (personally attacking or insulting other members),
> ....





> ...I also think Mystry's point is valid. In fact an ad hominen argument is not always a fallacy.


Nobody said it was a fallacy. 

It is, as you kindly quoted, against the rules.

Maybe you missed my "and"?

----------


## YesNo

> I think it's easier than that. 
> 
> I've never seen a group-troll directed at an individual. So the troll is the person standing there on his own, gleefully mouthing off while surrounded by irritated people.


A witch hunt would be an example of "group-troll" behavior.

----------


## OrphanPip

I don't particularly care about the trolling. It amuses me more than anything, the black Jane Austen thread and the stationary Earth thread are two of my favourites on this site. Hilarious stuff.

----------


## G L Wilson

> A witch hunt would be an example of "group-troll" behavior.


Definitely, I think.

----------


## MarkBastable

> A witch hunt would be an example of "group-troll" behavior.


Well, perhaps. I think what that actually would be is not trolling, but a witch-hunt.

Still, even if a witch-hunt can be defined as 'a gang of trolls', I've never seen it happen in a forum. Perhaps I've just been lucky to hang out with reasonable bunches of people.

----------


## MystyrMystyry

> zaqxswcdevfrbgtnhymjukilop...
> 
> If you genuinely believed someone at your work was mentally ill and wanted to help, would you take them aside and try to get them to talk - or analgously, send some PMs to get a private dialogue started - or would you shout at work, "Hey, Sylvia, you're acting paranoid, I really think you should see a mental health professional - your behaviour is irrational and detached from reality!"


I would if the behaviour was observably repetitive, not shout it out no - but again I'm capable of incredible things - not like some tiny little boring men who don't know when to stop banging on about something

For the record:

The OP was the only one to use the word insane (I merely mentioned a known psychological condition and side-referrenced Vitamin D deficiency as a possible cause for abject behaviour, and in fact pointed to no-one in particular)

The OP seems to want to believe only what they want and interpret it as only they see fit

----------


## The Atheist

> I don't particularly care about the trolling. It amuses me more than anything, the black Jane Austen thread and the stationary Earth thread are two of my favourites on this site. Hilarious stuff.


Couldn't agree more. I'd not seen anyone promoting the earth as the centre of the universe before, and using a time-lapse photo aimed at the northern celestial pole as evidence was brilliant.

I will repeat again so there's no confusion:

I am merely trying to resolve what seems to me to be an anomaly in the rules. Yes, I am quite fussy like that - I'm equally happy with or without rules, but if you're going to have them, then use them. If they need changing, then change them. 

I'm finding it hard to figure how that question is causing so many assumptions and objections to come out, but that's life.




> ...but again I'm capable of incredible things - not like some tiny little boring men who don't know when to stop banging on about something...


Ho hum.

Hint: if you check back, I am not the one off track here.




> The OP seems to want to believe only what they want and interpret it as only they see fit


See, it's even simpler than that. 

I posted it in this section to get feedback from moderation and administration. It seems to have somehow become a discussion subject, but until the actual Literature Network position is posted, none of the other posts count for anything beyond bumping post counts.

When that interpretation is given, I will be finished here. If the opportunity to answer isn't taken up, I guess I'll have to make assumptions about it.

Thanks for your valuable input.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

You know that saying about making a mountain out of a mole hill? It's a stupid saying, but it works. . . .

----------


## MystyrMystyry

By banging on I of course referred to the original thread - 4 years ago was it?

----------


## G L Wilson

Witch finders are always in need of clarification. Who can I touch? Who is off limits? What am I doing? Where am I going? Why is the sky blue? Why are my sheep sick? Why am I sick? Why, oh why? Who, oh who? Him, her, that over there! It's all so vicious, it's incredible.

----------


## The Atheist

> You know that saying about making a mountain out of a mole hill? It's a stupid saying, but it works. . . .


Asking one question is making a mountain out of a molehill? Must have tiny mountains around your way.




> Witch finders ....





> I'm finding it hard to figure how that question is causing so many assumptions and objections to come out, but that's life.

----------


## G L Wilson

No-one likes to be called a troll, especially by one stirring for a fight. You're not a copper by any chance, are you, The Atheist?

----------


## YesNo

> Well, perhaps. I think what that actually would be is not trolling, but a witch-hunt.
> 
> Still, even if a witch-hunt can be defined as 'a gang of trolls', I've never seen it happen in a forum. Perhaps I've just been lucky to hang out with reasonable bunches of people.


One of the problems with verbal abuse is that the people most guilty of it don't think they (we) are doing anything wrong. The abuse is justified with self-righteousness or claiming that other people agree with them.

An example of a witch-hunt, or a group-troll, in a forum would be when someone is perceived as being weak. When other posters jump in just to ridicule the person, those other posters turn into trolls. 

I don't really mind trolls in forums, since it gives me a chance to practice patience when confronted with inane remarks. However, I can see how moderators or site owners don't like trolls. Trolls drive people away from a site. I can also see how there would be a notice warning the rest of us that trolling is not allowed on a site. It gives moderators the option but not the obligation to deal with verbal abuse.

----------


## MarkBastable

> One of the problems with verbal abuse is that the people most guilty of it don't think they (we) are doing anything wrong. The abuse is justified with self-righteousness or claiming that other people agree with them.
> 
> An example of a witch-hunt, or a group-troll, in a forum would be when someone is perceived as being weak. When other posters jump in just to ridicule the person, those other posters turn into trolls. 
> 
> I don't really mind trolls in forums, since it gives me a chance to practice patience when confronted with inane remarks. However, I can see how moderators or site owners don't like trolls. Trolls drive people away from a site. I can also see how there would be a notice warning the rest of us that trolling is not allowed on a site. It gives moderators the option but not the obligation to deal with verbal abuse.


I agree with all that, except, perhaps, that we might disagree over the definition of 'troll'. I think mine is narrower than yours - for instance, I would say that trolling was a deliberate and active attempt by one person to provoke, irritate and generally cause discord. The reactive group activity you're talking about I guess I'd call bullying - which isn't pleasant either.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> Asking one question is making a mountain out of a molehill? Must have tiny mountains around your way.


No. The question is the molehill; all the other crap is the mountain.

----------


## The Atheist

> No-one likes to be called a troll, especially by one stirring for a fight. You're not a copper by any chance, are you, The Atheist?


More of a silver, really.




> No. The question is the molehill; all the other crap is the mountain.


Ok, just the timing of your post coming straight after mine. I agree completely.

----------


## Atehequa

> I think the mods are pretty consistent when it comes to when it comes to trolling, as consistent as they can be, at least. Really, when it comes down to it, trolling is just a matter of personal discretion, no? How can one really define whether or not something is trolling behavior, aside from the obvious extremes? 
> 
> Trolling has such an odd definition, because almost any thread that brings something interesting (at least, to me) can often be seen as trolling. To provoke an emotional response seems the perfect reason to create a thread. 
> 
> I think the mods are doing just fine, especially with the Musicology threads, which I know is what has spurred this thread. I think, for the most part, he is trolling, but the mods monitor the threads, and once they start getting more personalized, or circularly redundant, they're locked.


Seemingly. I've been on a good many forums and have found that their administrators and moderators in puppet persona form are some of the biggest trolls around. What better way to run off someone they don't like without tarnishing their regular posting names ?

----------


## The Atheist

> Seemingly. I've been on a good many forums and have found that their administrators and moderators in puppet persona form are some of the biggest trolls around. What better way to run off someone they don't like without tarnishing their regular posting names ?


That would never happen here. In my view the moderation and admin here are the all-round best management team on the entire internet.

Which is why I find it hard to figure that the central question remains unanswered.

----------


## G L Wilson

> That would never happen here. In my view the moderation and admin here are the all-round best management team on the entire internet.
> 
> Which is why I find it hard to figure that the central question remains unanswered.


God was once considered a good manager, it seems that you are in need of a substitute. Instead of looking for the next messiah, The Atheist, why don't you look to yourself to see if you are not a troll?

----------


## togre

When trying to define "troll" and "trolling" I can't help but paraphrase what a Supreme Court Justice said with regard to pornography--"I cannot define it, but I know it when I see it."

There is an element of discretion in identifying and responding to a troll. But that doesn't make it subjective--A troll _is_ a troll.

With regards to this forum, without resorting to hyperbole, I have found the moderating on this site very consistent and of a high quality.

----------


## MarkBastable

> That would never happen here. In my view the moderation and admin here are the all-round best management team on the entire internet.
> 
> Which is why I find it hard to figure that the central question remains unanswered.






> God was once considered a good manager, it seems that you are in need of a substitute. Instead of looking for the next messiah, The Atheist, why don't you look to yourself to see if you are not a troll?


Now, looking at the first post and the response that it apparently provoked, you have to say that that second post - man, _that's_ grade-A mainlined pure chem trolling.

----------


## YesNo

> Now, looking at the first post and the response that it apparently provoked, you have to say that that second post - man, _that's_ grade-A mainlined pure chem trolling.


Yes. I think you're right! It doesn't get finer than that.  :Smile:

----------


## Vonny

> I agree with all that, except, perhaps, that we might disagree over the definition of 'troll'. I think mine is narrower than yours - for instance, I would say that trolling was a deliberate and active attempt by one person to provoke, irritate and generally cause discord. The reactive group activity you're talking about I guess I'd call bullying - which isn't pleasant either.



I don't think the person in question is a troll, whatever a troll is.

I called him "mean-spirited", and then mentioned a couple of facts of my life history. 

He replied, "When you were a child you did not think as a child." (That post has been removed now.) 

So I knew this was a thinking and feeling person. 

In another instance, when I gave a more detailed account of my life (including details of a horrific surgery I underwent) I was told by someone who isn't supposed to be a troll, that I'm "naive," which was unsettling to me when I feel that I've lived several lifetimes.

----------


## G L Wilson

Musicology is the man in question, is he not? I have only run across one of his posts and he seemed quite mad to me but certainly no troll.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

Well, Musicology has been banned, so I guess he was doing something to break the rules.  :Nod:

----------


## tailor STATELY

The trolling language seems fine by me.

What's wrong with PM'ing an admin if you feel that your particular issue hasn't been addressed ? I have, and it works. I wasn't too happy about the advice given, but it was just and gave closure to my issue.

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY

----------


## G L Wilson

> Well, Musicology has been banned, so I guess he was doing something to break the rules.


For what reason was he banned? Did he inject venom in the veins of some? Well, I have been bitten by a snake, it nearly killed me but in the end it did me no harm. Why must we be objective when there is no such thing as objectivity? It makes no sense to me but it must make sense to some who imagine that that which does not exist is perfect and therefore they are perfect, unhuman and without blemish. The name troll convicts the innocent until what is left is a society of stool pigeons and worms. If I must go on my belly to an idiot, I would rather do it on my own terms. There is no honour in repression as there is no honour in exile, only shame.

----------


## Vonny

> For what reason was he banned? Did he inject venom in the veins of some? Well, I have been bitten by a snake, it nearly killed me but in the end it did me no harm. Why must we be objective when there is no such thing as objectivity? It makes no sense to me but it must make sense to some who imagine that that which does not exist is perfect and therefore they are perfect, unhuman and without blemish. The name troll convicts the innocent until what is left is a society of stool pigeons and worms. If I must go on my belly to an idiot, I would rather do it on my own terms. There is no honour in repression as there is no honour in exile, only shame.


This is well said. I thought at first he was very angry, until someone who knew him better said that he found his outbursts "refreshing." Then I realized it was just his style and eccentricity, and that I had misunderstood him. 

I find also that the cruelest and most insensitive of remarks, the kind that tend to "hit below the belt", are usually said in a polite manner.

----------


## Delta40

Perhaps we need Lit-Net Psychiatric Forum to cater for a broader audience?

----------


## Calidore

I tend to agree that he wasn't a troll, in that his entire purpose wasn't to provoke, nor do I think anyone wanted him banned because of his, shall we say, alternative viewpoints. The problem was probably a combination of the double standard he held himself and his "opponents" to regarding evidence of their respective opinions, and especially the belligerence and abuse he subjected everyone to when they pointed this double standard out. Vigorously arguing fairly is one thing; the way he did it was quite another.

If you look at his "Popular Music" thread, you'll see an entirely different Musicology, one which I wish he would have let out more often.

----------


## Vonny

> Perhaps we need Lit-Net Psychiatric Forum to cater for a broader audience?


 :FRlol:  We need a cuckoo's nest sub-forum. Maybe we can get Jack Nicholson on board!

----------


## G L Wilson

> I tend to agree that he wasn't a troll, in that his entire purpose wasn't to provoke, nor do I think anyone wanted him banned because of his, shall we say, alternative viewpoints. The problem was probably a combination of the double standard he held himself and his "opponents" to regarding evidence of their respective opinions, and especially the belligerence and abuse he subjected everyone to when they pointed this double standard out. Vigorously arguing fairly is one thing; the way he did it was quite another.
> 
> If you look at his "Popular Music" thread, you'll see an entirely different Musicology, one which I wish he would have let out more often.


Then you think that he was just plain mean and deserved all he got? Yes. I am more careful around religious people than I used to be, they seem pretty witless to me but I must always remember that they are human beings and are beautiful in their own right. It is not always possible, but then human beings are not always rational. Weakness and immaturity are strong in me. When reason and love fail me, I am pretty much a berserker. But I will never make an excuse for myself, a man is responsible for his passions like the existentialists thought. The world is cruel and has no forgiveness for the weak but all the time in the world for the meek. God, they sicken me. God hates a coward but he hates a fool even more. If I was to pray for anything, it would be for the strength to overcome my foes. But glory and honour are dirty words nowadays, and what we have instead is the meek and their piles of vomit stinking to heaven, and the strong in retreat.

----------


## Vonny

> Then you think that he was just plain mean and deserved all he got? Yes. I am more careful around religious people than I used to be, they seem pretty witless to me but I must always remember that they are human beings and are beautiful in their own right. It is not always possible, but then human beings are not always rational. Weakness and immaturity are strong in me. When reason and love fail me, I am pretty much a berserker. But I will never make an excuse for myself, a man is responsible for his passions like the existentialists thought. The world is cruel and has no forgiveness for the weak but all the time in the world for the meek. God, they sicken me. God hates a coward but he hates a fool even more. If I was to pray for anything, it would be for the strength to overcome my foes. But glory and honour are dirty words nowadays, and what we have instead is the meek and their piles of vomit stinking to heaven, and the strong in retreat.


 :FRlol:  Oh my god, I know better use restraint and wait until this glass of wine wears off before I post here again!

----------


## Delta40

I find these posts so long and tiresome to read but I am struck by the word trolling. Didn't they live under bridges and snatch innocent little kiddies as they crossed? Is there a correlation here at all?

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

As to why Musicology was banned, I don't know. Only the mods do, and I doubt they will tell us, as it's between them and Musicology. If I were to guess, it was probably because he was warned several times to stop his provocative behavior (he also started making threads of a political nature, all of which were locked, yet he made several more), and ignored it, and, just from observing his manner, he probably smarted off to the mods themselves. 

It isn't easy to get banned from these forums. I'm sure the only person to blame for Musicology's ban is Musicology.

----------


## Scheherazade

*The following definition posted in OP sums it up nicely enough:* 


> Wikipedia states: _In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion._


*As it is often the case, this definition is open to interpretation; however, as the Forum moderators, we are given licence to exercise our judgement to determine what constitutes trolling under different circumstances.

I would like to emphasise that this Forum is not a democracy; we are all the guests of the Admin who offers this service free of charge and, at the time of registration, we all readily agree to follow the rules imposed by him.

I would also like to add that the reasons behind anyone's ban or warnings they might receive is not open to public discussion as this is a private issue between that person and the moderators. 

Please rest assured that it is not a decision we take lightly and is often a result of our repeated reminders and warnings fallen on deaf ears. We always listen to what everyone has to say on issues and reply to the best of our abilities; however, one thing we will not compromise is the Forum rules.

Now that everyone had a chance to air their views on many issues, I will now close this thread.

If you have any further any questions, please feel free to PM me.*

----------

