Scrap the trolling rule?

[suchmoon]

This post:

in 5 years you have done nothing.  you have not added a single line of code to a single crypto project, and have not worked for a single blockchain startup
you remind me of zepher, did actually NOTHING for BTC, and like zepher, 6 months after your dead, people will forget all about you
oh, you worked for rollin.io, so you helped degenerates waste their money, woot?   all you HAVE done is extract $$$ for your own means from this scene, congrats?

LOL maybe in the next 5 years you will actually contribute to the technology that brings us all here....

Seemed like a good test for the trolling rule:

3. No trolling.

So I reported it as "100% trolling". It was marked as bad. Granted I could have added more info as to why I think it's trolling (attack on the OP, attack on a deceased forum member, false statements - 100% inflammatory content).

Is it trolling? If not - why? If yes - do posts like that have a chance of being removed (with a better report comment perhaps) or should we not bother?

[LFC_Bitcoin]

I think that post could definitely be seen as trolling. For a start it’s been made with an alt, throw away account. Speaking ill of the dead is definitely trolling, if I was a mod I’d defo have marked the report as Good.

I don’t think we should do away with the trolling rule tbh, suchmoon. This report obviously (wrongly imo) was marked as Bad but if we get rid of the trolling rule things would get a lot worse. Ass hats like cryptohunter would have free reign & be able to destroy this place.

Try not to get too disappointed about Bad reports, it’s better to keep reporting perceived trolling even if they don’t all get removed. Something is better than nothing. Keep up your great work, suchmoon.

[suchmoon]

I really don't care much about the bad report itself. If anything it's good news for me personally as I'm known to engage in trolly debates sometimes.

I know Bitcointalk has a much more... uhm... liberal definition of trolling than most other places so I'm interested what others think - if that post crossed the line here or not.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

I really don't care much about the bad report itself. If anything it's good news for me personally as I'm known to engage in trolly debates sometimes.

I know Bitcointalk has a much more... uhm... liberal definition of trolling than most other places so I'm interested what others think - if that post crossed the line here or not.

There’s nothing constructive about the post, its purpose is just to troll & the bit about Zepher is out of order imo.

[PrimeNumber7]

Trolling is not something that you disagree with. Nor is it something that is critical of someone you like. Trolling will generally be more than a single post.

I don’t agree with what he said, but he has the right to be critical of forum members, even if he does so in a way that is in very bad taste.

This is probably a great opportunity to practice having someone disagree with you and to practice a factual rebuttal to what someone who disagrees with you in an attempt to change their opinion.

[cabalism13]

Just voted for the 3rd one? (Reason: Just Trolling ✌😂)
This is an example of troll... ☝️
Also the quoted message is considered as a troll or maybe not, really... when you try to look at it hardly with four eyes, you'll see that this message was just meant to give his own grudge or maybe his ideals which is basically a sentiment. But if the quoted message wasn't suppose to be there because it was merely a retaliation then it should be removed.

if someone didn't get my point,... don't worry I didn't get it either. Perhaps I should, maybe, find my point somewhere else... LoL

[TECSHARE]

This rule is pretty much effectively non-existent anyway. I think it is there mostly as an out for when a user literally does nothing but being disruptive of the general use of the forum for other users, but doesn't break any of the other rules.

[DireWolfM14]

Is it trolling? If not - why? If yes - do posts like that have a chance of being removed (with a better report comment perhaps) or should we not bother?

It is obviously trolling, but it's also free speech.  I've never been particularly affected by trolls, I tend to ignore them for the most part.  I doubt LoyceV was hurt by it, he seems like he's got a thick skin, and knows how to shrug off the haters.  I don't know that I would have deleted that post myself (if I was a mod.)

I prefer free speech over enthusiastic moderation of trolling.  One man's troll and another man's...  I don't know what's the opposite of troll?  Rebel?  Protester?  Wise-cracker?  Whatever.  I voted for the first option; remove the rule.  It's fairly apparent that it isn't enforced anyway.  Just look at how long CH/TOAA has been trolling...  And still doing so.

I understand why you reported the post, though.  A fake newbie attacking LoyceV is more humorous than anything else.  What a fucking coward.  If you want to be critical of another member, find a way of expressing yourself without diving into attacks on the persons character.  And don't stoop so low as to attack the dead, without any legitimate reason to do so.  That whole part of the post was off-topic as well, so it's a gray area.  Still, it is dick-move, but that's no reason to delete it.

Slightly off topic; who's the moderator for the Meta board?

ETA:  OP is not stupid, and I'm sure that his offspring (suchmoonlets?) are adorable. 

[suchmoon]

It is obviously trolling, but it's also free speech.  I've never been particularly affected by trolls, I tend to ignore them for the most part.  I doubt LoyceV was hurt by it, he seems like he's got a thick skin, and knows how to shrug off the haters.  I don't know that I would have deleted that post myself (if I was a mod.)

I'm sure LoyceV will survive this calamity but just ignoring who it was against - the whole purpose of that post seems to have have been an inflammatory and offensive attempt to disrupt the thread. I'm glad it didn't succeed. There is nothing of value in that post as far as I can see. Just like we don't consider off topic spam posts as protected free speech (just reported one right here in Meta and it's gone now) there is no harm to anyone's free speech if zero-value inflammatory content is removed or moved.

Slightly off topic; who's the moderator for the Meta board?

I think hillariousandco and/or Cyrus were listed as mods at one point but there is no one currently so I'm guessing globals handle it.

ETA:  OP is not stupid, and I'm sure that his offspring (suchmoonlets?) are adorable.  

The people disagree:


Edited 2020-11-30 to fix a broken image

50% of the forum can't be wrong.

[truth or dare]

This post:

in 5 years you have done nothing.  you have not added a single line of code to a single crypto project, and have not worked for a single blockchain startup
you remind me of zepher, did actually NOTHING for BTC, and like zepher, 6 months after your dead, people will forget all about you
oh, you worked for rollin.io, so you helped degenerates waste their money, woot?   all you HAVE done is extract $$$ for your own means from this scene, congrats?

LOL maybe in the next 5 years you will actually contribute to the technology that brings us all here....

Seemed like a good test for the trolling rule:

3. No trolling.

So I reported it as "100% trolling". It was marked as bad. Granted I could have added more info as to why I think it's trolling (attack on the OP, attack on a deceased forum member, false statements - 100% inflammatory content).

Is it trolling? If not - why? If yes - do posts like that have a chance of being removed (with a better report comment perhaps) or should we not bother?

It appears that you are unable to understand the trolling rule here guaratees such a post is protected as accurate and valuable.

The promulgation of false and clearly debunked information as true.

Since his post is true.  Then why scrap the rule that defines this as clearly not trolling

Are you trolling suchmoon?

It is even more hilarious LFC bitcoin is meriting this trolling by suchmoon . Who would have suspected she would support this nonsense.

[DireWolfM14]

This post:

in 5 years you have done nothing.  you have not added a single line of code to a single crypto project, and have not worked for a single blockchain startup
you remind me of zepher, did actually NOTHING for BTC, and like zepher, 6 months after your dead, people will forget all about you
oh, you worked for rollin.io, so you helped degenerates waste their money, woot?   all you HAVE done is extract $$$ for your own means from this scene, congrats?

LOL maybe in the next 5 years you will actually contribute to the technology that brings us all here....

Seemed like a good test for the trolling rule:

3. No trolling.

So I reported it as "100% trolling". It was marked as bad. Granted I could have added more info as to why I think it's trolling (attack on the OP, attack on a deceased forum member, false statements - 100% inflammatory content).

Is it trolling? If not - why? If yes - do posts like that have a chance of being removed (with a better report comment perhaps) or should we not bother?

It appears that you are unable to understand the trolling rule here guaratees such a post is protected as accurate and valuable.

The promulgation of false and clearly debunked information as true.

Since his post is true.  Then why scrap the rule that defines this as clearly not trolling

Are you trolling suchmoon?

What I'm wondering is why you didn't just post it from your truth or dare account?  What are you afraid of?

[truth or dare]

This post:

in 5 years you have done nothing.  you have not added a single line of code to a single crypto project, and have not worked for a single blockchain startup
you remind me of zepher, did actually NOTHING for BTC, and like zepher, 6 months after your dead, people will forget all about you
oh, you worked for rollin.io, so you helped degenerates waste their money, woot?   all you HAVE done is extract $$$ for your own means from this scene, congrats?

LOL maybe in the next 5 years you will actually contribute to the technology that brings us all here....

Seemed like a good test for the trolling rule:

3. No trolling.

So I reported it as "100% trolling". It was marked as bad. Granted I could have added more info as to why I think it's trolling (attack on the OP, attack on a deceased forum member, false statements - 100% inflammatory content).

Is it trolling? If not - why? If yes - do posts like that have a chance of being removed (with a better report comment perhaps) or should we not bother?

It appears that you are unable to understand the trolling rule here guaratees such a post is protected as accurate and valuable.

The promulgation of false and clearly debunked information as true.

Since his post is true.  Then why scrap the rule that defines this as clearly not trolling

Are you trolling suchmoon?

What I'm wondering is why you didn't just post it from your truth or dare account?  What are you afraid of?

This is an example of trolling or what?

[Mitchell]

Not going to comment about the poll itself (so this can be considered off-topic), but fuck that person for shitting on Zepher. Who attacks a deceased forum member that was a friend to a lot of people?

[hilariousetc]

You should always add as much info as possible as mods probably aren't going to go investigating and they might not be aware of why you consider it trolling, but that's the sort of report I'd probably leave and neither mark good or bad, but there are far worse instance of trolling here that go unreported or unhandled.

I don't think we should get rid of the rule but it's obviously one where it's down to the opinion of the reporter and the mod who handles it. some people do get away with far too much trolling round here though.  

Slightly off topic; who's the moderator for the Meta board?

I think hillariousandco and/or Cyrus were listed as mods at one point but there is no one currently so I'm guessing globals handle it.

ETA:  OP is not stupid, and I'm sure that his offspring (suchmoonlets?) are adorable.  

I don't believe there's ever been a dedicated mod of Meta, but any Global or Admin can handle reports there, but the user is a Newbie so any patroller can handles reports against them and maybe that's what happened here.

[suchmoon]

I don't believe there's ever been a dedicated mod of Meta

I might have confused it with Reputation then.

[truth or dare]

I don't believe there's ever been a dedicated mod of Meta

I might have confused it with Reputation then.

Confused about the specific trolling rule here and many other things it seems.

Take a break.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Take a break.

You should take a permanent one.

[Carlton Banks]

Trolling is not something that you disagree with. Nor is it something that is critical of someone you like.

this

trolling has really always been defined as "(subtle) provocation on the internet"


subtle, because if the perpetrator does not go about it subtly, then the target will not be amply provoked

[suchmoon]

subtle, because if the perpetrator does not go about it subtly, then the target will not be amply provoked

If that's the case then we should definitely scrap the rule - sounds unenforceable.

[~DefaultTrust]

So I reported it as "100% trolling". It was marked as bad. Granted I could have added more info as to why I think it's trolling (attack on the OP, attack on a deceased forum member, false statements - 100% inflammatory content).

Is it trolling? If not - why? If yes - do posts like that have a chance of being removed (with a better report comment perhaps) or should we not bother?

No, this is not trolling. This is self expression. Moderators did everything right.

I think that post could definitely be seen as trolling. For a start it’s been made with an alt, throw away account. Speaking ill of the dead is definitely trolling, if I was a mod I’d defo have marked the report as Good.

That's why you will never be a moderator here.

People are afraid of being eaten by your DT1 gangs. That's why they are forced to express their opinion from alternative accounts.

[crwth]

As on my understanding trolling can be defined as:

Someone who easily spouts aggressive or inflammatory messages/posts for the purpose of upsetting people for their own entertainment.

It could be characterized as trolling but it's mostly hatred and his/her opinion on the topic. He is just a hater that knows LoyceV and is jealous of the achievements. It's just typical and should just be ignored. My two sats.

[DireWolfM14]

The people disagree:



50% of the forum can't be wrong.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.

This is an example of trolling or what?

No, it was an accusation.  But since you didn't deny that it's your alt, I'm retracting my accusations.  If it was your alt, you would have found some slithery, non-committal, half-assed way of denying it, sort of.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Yikes--Zepher hasn't been forgotten.  I have some nice copper BTC coins that were made in his memory and also a silver skull that he owned.

That post was totally trolling, but frankly if a rule can't or won't be enforced I think it ought to be taken off the books.  And since you have to be a seriously persistent and aggressive troll to achieve a permaban, I'd mostly be in favor of scrapping the rule.  I do think that dude's post was out of line, but I also believe in having the most freedom of speech possible--and there are other ways of dealing with a jackass like that that don't resort to having the rule book thrown at him.  The community could ignore him en masse, and that would probably be the best way of handling his posts if he's a complete troll. 

You can't feed attention to these idiots, because that's exactly what they want.  But if nobody is responding to their nonsense, they'll go away eventually.

And suchmoon, I have a hard time believing your kids are ugly.

[LoyceV]

the bit about Zepher is out of order imo.

Although I agree, I like to think of it this way: If some troll finds it necessary to mention you long after your death, you did something right and made a real impact!

I doubt LoyceV was hurt by it, he seems like he's got a thick skin, and knows how to shrug off the haters.

It's the internet, if the internet could hurt me, I'd have unplugged it a long time ago. I actually responded to it:

LOL maybe in the next 5 years you will actually contribute to the technology that brings us all here....

Hi fake Newbie, I'm flattered you created a new account just to talk to me!
Bitcoin's technology works fine. It needs users, and I'm pretty sure I've contributed plenty on that part.

The problem with CH-like trolls is of course there's no point arguing with them, it quickly goes off-topic, and then there's the famous quote about arguing with stupid people.

the whole purpose of that post seems to have have been an inflammatory and offensive attempt to disrupt the thread. I'm glad it didn't succeed.

That's actually a big win, it means many people now know it's pointless.

[suchmoon]

And suchmoon, I have a hard time believing your kids are ugly.

Hmm... maybe it's the other way round, maybe I'm ugly and my kids are dumb.

That's actually a big win, it means many people now know it's pointless.

So I guess we have to thank CH and "friends" for inoculating us against that.

[DireWolfM14]

So I guess we have to thank CH and "friends" for inoculating us against that.

Are you suggesting that TOAA was actually the vaccine for the cryptohunter virus, and not a mutation?

[Quickseller]

I think we should keep the rule for extreme cases.

And suchmoon, I have a hard time believing your kids are ugly.

Hmm... maybe it's the other way round, maybe I'm ugly and my kids are dumb.

I don’t think you are ugly. 💃 <— here is a SM emoji

[TheBeardedBaby]

If the rule stays, please provide a better definition of trolling. I literally live in the land of trolls and according to the locals they are just little insignificant grumpy troublemakers but not really dangerous. Living under the bridges and in gark woods.
Internet trolling doesn't have a complete definition so we have to put some borders.

[Lafu]

That's why they are forced to express their opinion from alternative accounts.

Because they have only no Balls to write with there Main Account and write things like that!
They share only there opinions with a Newbie or Alt Account and write shit with them.
If they would think first and at some stage just dont write anything would be better.
And if they express their opinion with there Main Accounts a lot of Users will see there real Face and acting.

[GazetaBitcoin]

I don't think it's trolling, but something way worst. This guy attacked a dead man! A dead man who can't defend himself! That's a desecration act!

Similar to the barbars which plundered dead bodies for their jewlery!

There are not enough enough words for describing such things. It's against any religion!

Fighting with dead people! Seriously?!?!?!

And about what Mitchell said. And also LoyceV:

The problem with CH-like trolls is of course there's no point arguing with them, it quickly goes off-topic, and then there's the famous quote about arguing with stupid people.

Oh and one more thing: truth or dare never said (as far as I know) he is not CH / TOAA. However, even if he said or not, I observed something interesting, to say the least: he tends to quote full OPs / full replies, as TOAA used to.

Maybe a coincidence, as The-Devil was saying. Maybe not.

Some of my posts coincide with an article by coincidence.

Edit: oh and a quick tip for suchmoon - man (ma'am ?), if I am allowed: please, please, don't involve your children in such discussions, not even for fun. They are sacred! I am also a father of a young one, only 8 months old, and I know what means being a parent. Children are our most precious aspects in this life, we must cherish them. As they will cherish us too, after years. They are angels!

[suchmoon]

8 months old [...] They are angels!

That's your problem right there. My kids are way past the angel stage

Point taken. I shall report myself for trolling myself.

[truth or dare]

I don't think it's trolling, but something way worst. This guy attacked a dead man! A dead man who can't defend himself! That's a desecration act!

Similar to the barbars which plundered dead bodies for their jewlery!

There are not enough enough words for describing such things. It's against any religion!

Fighting with dead people! Seriously?!?!?!

And about what Mitchell said. And also LoyceV:

The problem with CH-like trolls is of course there's no point arguing with them, it quickly goes off-topic, and then there's the famous quote about arguing with stupid people.

Oh and one more thing: truth or dare never said (as far as I know) he is not CH / TOAA. However, even if he said or not, I observed something interesting, to say the least: he tends to quote full OPs / full replies, as TOAA used to.

Maybe a coincidence, as The-Devil was saying. Maybe not.

Some of my posts coincide with an article by coincidence.

Edit: oh and a quick tip for suchmoon - man (ma'am ?), if I am allowed: please, please, don't involve your children in such discussions, not even for fun. They are sacred! I am also a father of a young one, only 8 months old, and I know what means being a parent. Children are our most precious aspects in this life, we must cherish them. As they will cherish us too, after years. They are angels!

I'm sure you'll find a great many more similarities if you pay attention. The question is are they deliberate or merely a sloppy disguise.

Not sure if your post is derailing or intentionally inflammatory though? either way perma ban could be the best solution.

Jokes aside, the post in question appears true, loyceV has not contributed code to bitcoin and has no achievements of real substance. No original thought provoking posts that really changed anything. An average or below average member who mostly copy and pastes forum raw data, and screams troll at those that crush his feeble mind in debate
Well when he is not drawing reference to his heap of merits he is overly proud of.

The point about the dead member seems irrelevant but I have no idea if the other points about this members are true or false. If anything said can be demonstrated to be untrue then produce your robust rebuttal. It could be seen as distasteful but wouldn't be trolling unless it was clearly untrue.

The rules on trolling are clear and well thought out considering it's bitcoin talk. You can not police what may be inflammatory to every member here. You could identify bogus and clearly untrue statements that are being promulgated (i remember someone else using that word quite often) as true and correct, and delete those and give a warning though.

I don't think it's worth a big thread to cry and complain that there are members capable of noticing loyceV is largely a copy and paste spammer, who has not contributed code to bitcoin nor is capable of contributing anything oh value to any kind of interesting and valuable debate. Shit posting net negative imbecile. One who wants to appear fair and impartial but too terrified to stand up to blatant abusers and scammers that could jeopardise his chipmixer dust

Came to complain he couldn't join a faucet, 5 years later still milking the forum at max possible rates with chipmixer and a paid avatar.


end silly thread. Anyone is free to present their opinion. Of what they say is true but unpopular does not mean you can cry for bans and censorship.

Debunk people's points or arguments. Demonstrate clearly they are presenting false and incorrect information or cry into your pillow or mommy's ear.

[Thekool1s]

We don't need to scrap it, however, I'm not sure if it applies to the post in question. I agree with what @PrimeNumber7 said... Trolling is not something that you disagree with. Nor is it something that is critical of someone you like. Trolling will generally be more than a single post. Having said that I believe the intentions should be also accounted for. E.G in this case, an alt account was created just to belittle LoyceV and Zepher to basically Provoke the community and the targets and I think @lolsalot succeeded in doing that Cuz here we are talking about whether we should scrap the trolling rule or not. I kinda feel like this should be considered a case of trolling, if @lolsalot really wanted to be critical of LoyceV and Zepher, they should have done it from their original account and not hide behind Aliases. So I kinda agree with your judgement there... "100% trolling" indeed.

[LeGaulois]

I voted No too, sorry but it's far to be an account trolling. A person can't be labeled as a "troll" because someone disliked his first post. It's not like he has 1000 posts constantly trying to create problems or create a controversy. Yes, he created a fake account, then?
Sometimes it's not a problem and sometimes it is, depending on the day of the week here. He gave his opinion if he can't then we all could be labeled as a "troll"

[truth or dare]

We don't need to scrap it, however, I'm not sure if it applies to the post in question. I agree with what @PrimeNumber7 said... Trolling is not something that you disagree with. Nor is it something that is critical of someone you like. Trolling will generally be more than a single post. Having said that I believe the intentions should be also accounted for. E.G in this case, an alt account was created just to belittle LoyceV and Zepher to basically Provoke the community and the targets and I think @lolsalot succeeded in doing that Cuz here we are talking about whether we should scrap the trolling rule or not. I kinda feel like this should be considered a case of trolling, if @lolsalot really wanted to be critical of LoyceV and Zepher, they should have done it from their original account and not hide behind Aliases. So I kinda agree with your judgement there... "100% trolling" indeed.

Speculation on intention, account origin and the rest makes zero sense and had nothing to do with the boards definition of trolling. That's quite an achievement and very funny. Your post is clearly nearer to trolling that the post in question.

What if his intention was to inject some truth and context to the false narrative?
From the only account he has created?
What if the message should be viewed on it's own merits?
What if it was true and not therefore the deliberate promulgation of false and incorrect information as true? or visa versa?
Who said a post can not be trolling if your other posts are not trolling?

Can someone just debunk the members points and denostrate they are untrue? else move along

[Thekool1s]

What if his intention was to inject some truth and context to the false narrative?

And what narrative are we talking about here?  LoyceV just created a thread about his journey on bitcointalk, Wasn't asking us to worship him or something. What False narrative here @lolsalot was correcting here?

From the only account he has created?

I'm not sure if you are drunk or merely trolling at this point. How in the world did @lolsalot know so much 2 forum members? Clearly has to be lurking here for a long time with no account which is kind of a stretch.

What if the message should be viewed on it's own merits?

The message had no merit unfortunately, just said the things which a person with an IQ of 69 can even figure out... 

Can someone just debunk the members points and denostrate they are untrue? else move along

Done! 

[truth or dare]

What if his intention was to inject some truth and context to the false narrative?

And what narrative are we talking about here?   LoyceV just created a thread about his journey on bitcointalk, Wasn't asking us to worship him or something. What False narrative here @lolsalot was correcting here?

From the only account he has created?

I'm not sure if you are drunk or merely trolling at this point. How in the world did @lolsalot know so much 2 forum members? Clearly has to be lurking here for a long time with no account which is kind of a stretch.

What if the message should be viewed on it's own merits?

The message had no merit unfortunately, just said the things which a person with an IQ of 69 can even figure out...  

Can someone just debunk the members points and denostrate they are untrue? else move along

Done!  

The narrative of pure congratulatory servile slobbering with no real context.

The other points you confess are speculation. Perhaps he is only interested in those that produce bitcoin code? and objects to merit given to other members. You need not create an account to read and accrue knowledge.

The truth always has merit. Its not a matter of figuring it out. Just historically correct statements that he believes are relevant.

Which parts of his post have you debunked and demonstrated were untrue? I must have missed those.

Until you demonstrate his points are undeniably incorrect you can't very well evoke the boards definition of trolling.

[cabalism13]

Take a break.

You should take a permanent one.

Truth or Dare ?
Which one's gonna be? ☝️😂

[Thekool1s]

Perhaps he is only interested in those that produce bitcoin code? and objects to merit given to other members. You need not create an account to read and accrue knowledge.

For a person only interested in "Truth", you do like to speculate a lot 

Until you demonstrate his points are undeniably incorrect you can't very well evoke the boards definition of trolling.

Since you haven't demonstrated that my premise is invalid I don't have to 'demonstrate his points' are incorrect... I have exposed their intentions according to my premise, I don't have to break down each point as it is subjective...

[madnessteat]

In my opinion, such behavior should be regarded as trolling. I see in this message an attempt to hurt LoyceV's feelings by mentioning the dead Zepher and provoking a reaction. The troll knew it was a trolling, so he wrote from an alternative account.

In my opinion, the rules about trolling should be tightened.

[truth or dare]

Perhaps he is only interested in those that produce bitcoin code? and objects to merit given to other members. You need not create an account to read and accrue knowledge.

For a person only interested in "Truth", you do like to speculate a lot 

Until you demonstrate his points are undeniably incorrect you can't very well evoke the boards definition of trolling.

Since you haven't demonstrated that my premise is invalid I don't have to 'demonstrate his points' are incorrect... I have exposed their intentions according to my premise, I don't have to break down each point as it is subjective...

That's very funny. Thanks very much.

Actually, I don't want to upset you,  but the validity of your premise is fully dependant on clearly demonstrating his points are incorrect and that his motives are as you speculate. You're a very useful member. I would advise you start your own self congratulatory thread as soon as possible.

To navigate to the truth one must push right through the lies, diversions, unintentional misunderstandings, the blathering of fools and anything else that buckles and reveals itself as conjecture or improbable speculation.

Demonstrate his points are false
Demonstrate a very high probability he was aware his statements were false

You have a strong case for trolling.

You can not then try red tagging him to shut him up.

Debunk clearly people's points and arguments, if you fail then squeal false claims of trolling , mental illness or run to red tags like the rest of the moronic drooling fools in meta.

[Lauda]

The rule would work if it was actually being enforced. If you scrap it, then the chaos will be even worse than it is today.

3. No trolling.

So I reported it as "100% trolling". It was marked as bad. Granted I could have added more info as to why I think it's trolling (attack on the OP, attack on a deceased forum member, false statements - 100% inflammatory content).

Is it trolling? If not - why? If yes - do posts like that have a chance of being removed (with a better report comment perhaps) or should we not bother?

This is why I do not report such posts. This rule is barely enforced at all, and some super-liberal super-progressive moderator will mark it bad within 3 seconds.

[NeuroticFish]

subtle, because if the perpetrator does not go about it subtly, then the target will not be amply provoked

If that's the case then we should definitely scrap the rule - sounds unenforceable.

Imho even the far-from-subtle "trolling" is not much enforced, if by that we mean the posts deleted or more.
Imho at least the far-from-subtle "trolling" posts could be handled better. But I know it's not easy, since, yep, freedom of speech. I guess that all depends from report to report and from mod to mod.
And there's always the ultimate tool - ignore user - although it's a dangerous tool, since it could allow the forum become a cesspool without us noticing it.

This being said, my vote is to keep the rule, whether it's well enforced or not.
(Maybe we can discuss towards improving the way this is handled better.)

[truth or dare]

The rule would work if it was actually being enforced. If you scrap it, then the chaos will be even worse than it is today.

3. No trolling.

So I reported it as "100% trolling". It was marked as bad. Granted I could have added more info as to why I think it's trolling (attack on the OP, attack on a deceased forum member, false statements - 100% inflammatory content).

Is it trolling? If not - why? If yes - do posts like that have a chance of being removed (with a better report comment perhaps) or should we not bother?

This is why I do not report such posts. This rule is barely enforced at all, and some super-liberal super-progressive moderator will mark it bad within 3 seconds.

But those super liberal super progressive ideologies are why you are not banned for previous scamming, extortion, shady escrow and trust abuse. Not that even should those ideologies change should your dangerous behaviors be conflated with people telling the truth lol

This is clearly not defined as trolling so pointless to keep pretending not to notice legitimate and truthful statements that you all wish remain hidden can't be shoehorned into the trolling compartment. I know that is inconvenient.

Not trolling, stop crying scammer about people daring to present inconvenient truths.

[~DefaultTrust]

And if they express their opinion with there Main Accounts a lot of Users will see there real Face and acting.

You idealize "a lot of Users". In a situation when merit and trust are controlled by gangs, a lot of Users are afraid to express their opinion.

[Lafu]

And why they afraid, because sometimes they take it to personal.
I just would say that if there is something they would like to write and they need an alt Account for it it would be better to write nothing.
Would be safe the time and effort to create a new Account and mostly with that Account just trolling happens.
Anyway everybody can do what he thinks, but behaving is something others.