Trolling let's define it here and also vote on if it should be given RED TRUST

[cryptohunter]

Let us define trolling.

It would seem that people are trying to use trolling as some umbrella term and give it red trust?

What exactly is trolling? and why does it essentially mean you are likely to scam people exactly?

Is trolling making up lies? and having no point to your post?

Come what defines a trolling post.

[1713874521]

1713874521

[1713874521]

1713874521

[1713874521]

1713874521

[1713874521]

1713874521

[1713874521]

1713874521

[1713874521]

1713874521

[rhomelmabini]

Are you the King of Poll, or the Prince of Troll?
Instead of discussing more sensible ideas you're just starting every post of yours with HATE to someone you'd like to, I guess that's define trolling.
Consider yourself as one base on your recent post history.

Add to the poll.

Yes trolling should be given red trust because you are more likely to scam waste time to someone.

Let us always remember the rules and know that trust is not moderated. Easy as that.

3. No trolling.

[cryptohunter]

Are you the King of Poll, or the Prince of Troll?
Instead of discussing more sensible ideas you're just starting every post of yours with HATE to someone you'd like to, I guess that's define trolling.
Consider yourself as one base on your recent post history.

Add to the poll.

Yes trolling should be given red trust because you are more likely to scam waste time to someone.

Let us always remember the rules and know that trust is not moderated. Easy as that.

3. No trolling.

Can you explain

1. what is trolling to you - see below before answering

2. why a troll would be more likely to scam someone


Also as a side interest.

1/Can you tell me why it is wrong to hate a proven scammer or scam enabler and bring evidence and facts to present they are scam enablers and trust abusers?

2/ can you tell me why it wrong to hate a scammer or scam enabler for red trusting you for threatening to tell others factual events demonstrating your claims

Do you realise your previous post is net negative and if not can you explain why it is not.


Take your time, but do not run away and thanks for voting

Is english your first language just so I am aware of any language barrier that may have arisen.

What do you mean trolling is not moderated? is that a typo?

[Alone055]

a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.

Does that sound anywhere like yourself to you? 

[hilariousetc]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.

Asking what the definition of a trolling post is is like asking what is constructive. Purely subjective. Sometimes people come across as trolls when in fact they're just idiots, just like sometimes people think they're making substantial posts when they're really not. Does trolling automatically make you a scammer? No, but I would be less likely to trust a troll, especially if it's their full time job here. Would you trust someone in real life who just acts like an immature jackass all the time and never takes anything seriously? Probably not.

[cryptohunter]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.

Asking what the definition of a trolling post is is like asking what is constructive. Purely subjective. Sometimes people come across as trolls when in fact they're just idiots, just like sometimes people think they're making substantial posts when they're really not. Does trolling automatically make you a scammer? No, but I would be less likely to trust a troll, especially if it's their full time job here. Would you trust someone in real life who just acts like an immature jackass all the time and never takes anything seriously? Probably not.

Oh interesting.

I mean if they are presenting facts that should be known to the board then is that trolling to you?

What about people responding in an immature way to others that have trolled them or tried to abuse systems of control to their detriment...are they trolls even when presenting facts?

Can you show me one of these assumed substantial posts that are not substantial?

I am interested in your specific subjective interpretation of a troll and and to understand via examples and step by step what helps you This is a substantial post because many people are having their reputations ruined with red trust over another very subjective opinion from many different people.

Are you in any way refering to me in your post. Let's be clear. If so please explain this to me.

Would you trust someone who expressed a liking for lemons or not? should then be given red trust?

these are serious questions and not a troll.

What is your opinion of lauda and his past history here. Has he ever trolled people?  has he ever protected and enabled scams? has he misused other peoples money for personal gain, has he ever tried to extort people?

Should lauda be a DT member??

Have you recently deleted my posts on this board? if so can you explain why? I would like to discuss it in public because I want to understand the reasoning behind it.

Please answer all points even the lemons - that is not trolling this comes directly from a DT member that lemons loving or dislike is grounds for Red trust.

[hilariousetc]

Would you trust someone who is erratic, unstable and acts like a fool? Some people call that trolling and sometimes it's just their natural immature behaviour. Either way that's up to the individual as to whether they trust them or not. Sometimes people don't trust others if they spread what they believe to be lies or misinformation about them or others. The person or troll may or may not believe the info is untruthful and it may or may not be. That's why issues need to be taken on a case by case basis.

Liking lemons or not is subjective taste and irrelevant to whether you're trustworthy or not. Someone who acts like a buffoon is different matter, but it's down that individual person whether they don't trust them or not. I think some trolls likely do deserve negative trust and some don't, but that depends on the specific behaviour. If someone acts like a buffoon 99% of the time then I would be less likely to trust that person. As to whether you want to leave feedback for that is entirely down to the individual.

[cryptohunter]

Would you trust someone who is erratic, unstable and acts like a fool? Some people call that trolling and sometimes it's just their natural immature behaviour. Either way that's up to the individual as to whether they trust them or not. Sometimes people don't trust others if they spread what they believe to be lies or misinformation about them or others. The person or troll may or may not believe the info is untruthful and it may or may not be. That's why issues need to be taken on a case by case basis.

Liking lemons or not is subjective taste and irrelevant to whether you're trustworthy or not. Someone who acts like a buffoon is different matter, but it's down that individual person whether they don't trust them or not. I think some trolls likely do deserve negative trust and some don't, but that depends on the specific behaviour. If someone acts like a buffoon 99% of the time then I would be less likely to trust that person. As to whether you want to leave feedback for that is entirely down to the individual.

True or untrue is not for debate. If there is evidence in black and white that people said or done things in their post history why would there be need of opinion if you can observe clearly they did or said something.

Also strong corroborating events to an argument or view must be analysed and if they make a reasonable case they must not be dismissed.

Unstable how? what defines unstable.... do they stop presenting facts and start stating unsubstantiated claims with no corroborating evidence or events at alll? or just talk total nonsense that has no support people can review? or unstable how?

Acting like a fool depends on what you mean. If they can provide observable fact for their claims and they are important then the manner of presentation is funny or even if it is extreme (still fact based) due to prior behaviour toward them by to others then no of course I would not think they will scam me. Why would I?

If you can just re read and answer clearly on my prior important questions that would be very helpful. That broad answer does not really provide any insight to what your opinions are.

I am not trying to pick any fights with you I want to understand your opinions and grounding for them only.

Everything needs defining and drilling down as much as possible if you are trying to automate or decentralise power/control mechanisms else they just get abused and broken and provide zero or negative influences.

You want fair, you want transparent, you want systems that encourage optimal results in terms of optimal solutions and answers to problems you need enforceable mandates and criteria that are defined or it all become a mud slinging match like it is now with the truth being drowned out by dilution and people that don't even understand the issues.

[rhomelmabini]

Can you explain

1. what is trolling to you?

cryptohunter -

a troll person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the bitcointalk forum to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,^[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses^[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,^[3] whether for the his amusement or a specific gain.

[hilariousetc]

True or untrue is not for debate. If there is evidence in black and white that people said or done things in their post history why would there be need of opinion if you can observe clearly they did or said something.

People seem to think the earth being flat or not is up for a debate regardless of the objective truth. Surely it's also up for debate on whether someone is an idiot or a troll or not?

Unstable how? what defines unstable.... do they stop presenting facts and start stating unsubstantiated claims with no corroborating evidence or events at alll? or just talk total nonsense? or unstable how?

Are you actually going to ask me to define every single word? How many times do I need to use the word subjective (or does that need defining now). Do you actually expect me to list every possible instance or scenario there might possibly be of somebody falling under the banner of being unstable?

Acting like a fool depends on what you mean. If they can provide observable fact for their claims and they are important then the manner of presentation is funny or even if it is extreme (still fact based) due to prior behaviour toward them by to others then no of course I would not think they will scam me.

Then that's your opinion. Others may agree or disagree. You can present facts whilst still acting like a fool. If someone is stating facts but kicking and screaming and swearing whilst they're doing it then you can still choose not to trust them due to their erratic behaviour. You could be the most factual person on the planet but if you can't share or explain facts in a suitable manner then people are probably going to lose respect for you.

If you can just re read and answer clearly on my prior important questions that would be very helpful. That broad answer does not really provide any insight to what your opinions are.

Can you define 'clearly' and 'important'?   Regardless of what I tell you I don't think you'll accept anything I say so it's probably pointless even continuing the debate.

[cryptohunter]

True or untrue is not for debate. If there is evidence in black and white that people said or done things in their post history why would there be need of opinion if you can observe clearly they did or said something.

People seem to think the earth being flat or not is up for a debate regardless of the objective truth. Surely it's also up for debate on whether someone is an idiot or a troll or not?

This is not the same thing. I am saying that for example I now claim that you hilariousandco just said  "Surely it's also up for debate on whether someone is an idiot or a troll or not? "  then what is the point of debating if you said it or not it is there in black and white. You are talking about a complex issue for some that can not use their direct senses to confirm something for themselves and have to have faith in things they may not fully understand. This is completely different.

Unstable how? what defines unstable.... do they stop presenting facts and start stating unsubstantiated claims with no corroborating evidence or events at alll? or just talk total nonsense? or unstable how?

Are you actually going to ask me to define every single word? How many times do I need to use the word subjective (or does that need defining now). Do you actually expect me to list every possible instance or scenario there might possibly be of somebody falling under the banner of being unstable?

No not at all just asking for a definition or example of something you use to reach the opinion the person is unstable

Acting like a fool depends on what you mean. If they can provide observable fact for their claims and they are important then the manner of presentation is funny or even if it is extreme (still fact based) due to prior behaviour toward them by to others then no of course I would not think they will scam me.

Then that's your opinion. Others may agree or disagree. You can present facts whilst still acting like a fool. If someone is stating facts but kicking and screaming and swearing whilst they're doing it then you can still choose not to trust them due to their erratic behaviour. You could be the most factual person on the planet but if you can't share or explain facts in a suitable manner then people are probably going to lose respect for you.

Well yes but then you would look to the context surely and if they had any reason to be presenting OBSERVABLE FACTS in that manner. The fact remains they still presented observable truth and fact. Context is very important in all cases. The worst mistake one can ever make it to ignore context. Do you agree with that?

If you can just re read and answer clearly on my prior important questions that would be very helpful. That broad answer does not really provide any insight to what your opinions are.

Can you define 'clearly' and 'important'?   Regardless of what I tell you I don't think you'll accept anything I say so it's probably pointless even continuing the debate.

Well you were clearer than before but like i always say the devil is in the detail. The greater the details the clearer things get.

Important for the reasons I specified at the end of my last post.

I want to continue the discussion because finding out the true opinions of a global mod is very enlightening.  So far it has been reasonable and civil why not continue to explore this topic?

Please return.

[vlom]

i cant define trolling.
and i am sure that trolling is not scamming.

[mikeywith]

cryptohunter, you are not a troll , your ways of communicating with others are not polite enough IMO.

I voted  "no", i do not think you deserve a tag for being a troll or annoying or an accuser, but you also can't get away with your behavior of simply treating people with only 2 perspective of whether you are on my side or on the "gang's" side.

I encourage the DT members to remove their tags on you, and give you one more chance to debate/protest with better manners.

[cryptohunter]

cryptohunter, you are not a troll , your ways of communicating with others are not polite enough IMO.

I voted  "no", i do not think you deserve a tag for being a troll or annoying or an accuser, but you also can't get away with your behavior of simply treating people with only 2 perspective of whether you are on my side or on the "gang's" side.

I encourage the DT members to remove their tags on you, and give you one more chance to debate/protest with better manners.

Thanks for support.

They gave me red trust for presenting facts and highly probable events based on observable events and evidence ONLY. Not one statement was lacking substantial grounding or absolute fact.

I have never actually made a statement on this entire meta board that is not either backed by FACTS or strong corroborating evidence/events.

If a person can show me even one statement I have made and I can not provide observable facts that either prove it true or provide reasonable and a high probability it is true then I will accept I have done something wrong.

[vlom]

only 2 perspective of whether you are on my side or on the "gang's" side.

sometimes there has to only black and white = only 2 perspectives. you have raise your voice so that people start thinking about things.
but after that you have to calm down and try to listen and to talk with each other.

[cryptohunter]

only 2 perspective of whether you are on my side or on the "gang's" side.

sometimes there has to only black and white = only 2 perspectives. you have raise your voice so that people start thinking about things.
but after that you have to calm down and try to listen and to talk with each other.

I agree.

There is the truth and there is lies. There is no let's meet in the middle and make a middle ground.

Some things are beyond absolute proof but if there is highly powerful corroborating evidence then that is enough that must still be taken very seriously.

Of course always civil discussion if they will allow it but no point just keep being nice to people that do everything they can to be openly hostile to you first.

[suchmoon]

cryptohunter, you are not a troll , your ways of communicating with others are not polite enough IMO.

I voted  "no", i do not think you deserve a tag for being a troll or annoying or an accuser, but you also can't get away with your behavior of simply treating people with only 2 perspective of whether you are on my side or on the "gang's" side.

I encourage the DT members to remove their tags on you, and give you one more chance to debate/protest with better manners.

It's pointless. I stood up for her when marlboroza tagged her and in return I got just more vitriol. She's not gonna change so it doesn't really matter at this point. I'm not going to even suggest that Lauda or TMAN revise their ratings. This is firmly in the "flat earth" type of dispute now. Some users are convinced that this level of reality-defying nonsense is a strong indication of untrustworthiness and I don't have any good argument against that anymore.

[cryptohunter]

cryptohunter, you are not a troll , your ways of communicating with others are not polite enough IMO.

I voted  "no", i do not think you deserve a tag for being a troll or annoying or an accuser, but you also can't get away with your behavior of simply treating people with only 2 perspective of whether you are on my side or on the "gang's" side.

I encourage the DT members to remove their tags on you, and give you one more chance to debate/protest with better manners.

It's pointless. I stood up for her when marlboroza tagged her and in return I got just more vitriol. She's not gonna change so it doesn't really matter at this point. I'm not going to even suggest that Lauda or TMAN revise their ratings. This is firmly in the "flat earth" type of dispute now. Some users are convinced that this level of reality-defying nonsense is a strong indication of untrustworthiness and I don't have any good argument against that anymore.

You don't have any arguments scammer

LOL here is suchmoons friend lauda on DT now pumping and lying about the now famous captive instamine that is PROVEN to have taken place.


apparently he says he was there and there was no instamine.... oh really???

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=560138.msg7535561#msg7535561



https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=560138.msg6748208#msg6748208

[Harkorede]

I voted "No", Just because someone is considered or proven to be troll doesn't make them likely to be scam anyone but, your voting options is bias and illogical, It obviously just portrayed your sentiments for creating the poll/thread. If a proven troll is tagged for being a troll without being regarded as scammer then its fine IMO, Just as an account trader with the most honest and successful deals would solely get tagged for trading accounts and not regarded as scammer.

[mikeywith]

It's pointless. I stood up for her when marlboroza tagged her and in return I got just more vitriol. She's not gonna change so it doesn't really matter at this point. I'm not going to even suggest that Lauda or TMAN revise their ratings. This is firmly in the "flat earth" type of dispute now. Some users are convinced that this level of reality-defying nonsense is a strong indication of untrustworthiness and I don't have any good argument against that anymore.

this is cryptohuner's problem, the moment you do/say something he/she dislike you become a potential enemy, I think if cryptohunter tackled the issue with a better approach he would have gotten better support from both DT and non-DT-members. i don't know TMAN and Lauda but i think if cryptohunter comes with a better behavior whatever issues they have can be solved easier.