I feel just being able to label a user a troll would limit this behavior

Ah yes- the Antarctica politics forum, please.


Finally the penguins and whales will have a voice!


There are self-admitted troll(s) on this board.

Please, the drop-down box is already too damn long each time I post.

And based on the twists and turns of recent threads geographical labels seem to be especially arguable!


1 Like

Flag them if you like, it’s not allowed.

1 Like

One of the issues that causes this derailing and disrupts the flow of conversation are call-outs/calling out other users --but not by name. To this point, I think @eCanada is right. Posts addressing “certain people nudge nudge wink wink” and “I know this one guy” etc are just passive aggressive microattacks; that’s bound to cause flare ups if someone follows you around the site. Maybe if you could just say it out loud, it would be less frequent.

Also @tempogain if/when a user is getting on your case frequently and across different forums, you can only flag it so many times before it becomes a nuisance to the moderators, no? I could flag 4-5 posts a day with this, no one wants that.

I saw this in the NBA forum on reddit, and thought it reads well as a guideline: REMINDER: *his thread is only for serious and thought-provoking analysis. We ask users to report low effort comments that do not bring insightful discussion


This is the first time you’ve made me laugh.


Well, it’s either a rule violation or it’s not. If it is, there shouldn’t be a need for repeated messages, I agree. One rule we’ll be rolling out shortly is not to mention that you’ve ignored certain people, that should help a bit. We do have a rule about stalking, but on the other hand conversations are open and the basic concept is that anyone can post.

1 Like

Is Forumosa’s stated goal for every thread to consist of “serious and thought-provoking analysis”? By this standard, upwards of 95% of the content here wouldn’t make the cut.


That would be a good example of when this is applicable: Case in point.

  • his thread is only for serious and thought-provoking analysis. We ask users to report low effort comments that do not bring insightful discussion
1 Like

No :slight_smile:

1 Like

in the IP threads, I think that’s fair goal. Obviously not the entire site or every thread.

Great! This should help a lot I think.

1 Like

Thought so. :grin:

For what it’s worth, I don’t really think Forumosa has a problem. You can ignore and mute people you don’t like, or simply pay no mind to people and discussions that you don’t want to engage with. I think the moderating here overall is pretty fair compared to other places, and I say that as someone who got suspended for 15 days.


It’s one reason why I generally ignore your posts. I lapsed today.

You’re criticising the posting style of other posters. Incredible.


I can only read about 2/3 of the posts in here. Must be my fault.

1 Like

This is a good example of what will be forbidden by rule very soon.


In reality, what will happen is that people will claim posts they don’t agree with, or posts written by people they don’t like, are “low effort” and “do not bring insightful discussion”.

This isn’t an echo chamber. People have different POVs. Rather than having the mods decide what “insightful discussion” is, I think it’s better for people to vote with their time. If somebody is posting something that you don’t think is worth engaging with, don’t engage with it. If nobody engages with it…

You mean pretend to ignore them, and then troll me in a post about limiting trolling behavior?

Exactly. This is the source of the problem.

1 Like