What is Trolling Exactly?


Yeah and I think he is from Canada so is trolling himself.
Which makes him an idiot .



Ok, Tempo Gain, I am just trying to establish a base-line, hence the questions

You’ve been quite specific in your answers and I thank you for that

So, now that that base-line has been established, many users would be interested to know how your test of “sincerity of attention” would be practically applied

Which was the original question:

As a test case, if someone posted, for example, an inflammatory rant that disparaged one section of the Forumosan community as losers, without any provocation, or any supporting evidence for their assertion - and then called someone who opposed that view ‘stupid’, would that pass muster according to your understanding of the Fourmosa rules?


I’m quite good at trolling imprecisely.


That seems like a direct contradiction and I have to confess it’s clear as mud to me, but if it makes sense to you then that’s ok - at least you should have no trouble answering the question I posed (three times - politely)

Sure, my concern is to get an answer, from the horse’s mouth, to the hypothetical question I posed, so I, and other users, can reference that as guidance when we post:

As a test case, if someone posted, for example, an inflammatory rant that disparaged one section of the Forumosan community as losers, without any provocation, or any supporting evidence for their assertion - and then called someone who opposed that view ‘stupid’, would that pass muster according to your understanding of the Fourmosa rules?


There’s not enough information for me to judge if I would call such a post “trolling”, much less decide if the member was trolling in a larger sense. I might though. I don’t think hypothetical situations like this are really useful. I’d direct you back to the policy I posted–that’s our guide.


I’d try to follow the Forumosan rules, rather that mods understandings of them.


My shock as a kid is that I found out that safe spaces (real safe spaces) may not be safe.

I was a ham radio kid with an army electronics instructor dad. We were members of the local Ham Radio club and my dad was serving as an instructor.
The venue of the classes was the local civil defense area. On the wall of the office was a list of handy things to do incase of a nuclear attack or accident at the local power plant. The last item on the list was
"Bend Over and Kiss Your Ass Goodbye".
In drivers Ed in school they showed us some pretty gory movies. That did a lot to scare me straight and keep me from watching horror movies. But what was worse, in the driving simulator we had, they put us in some really NO WIN situations.
That was close to the line for me but I guess it was justified in teaching us the realities of life. Anyway it made an impact. I really wonder what the kids are being taught in the states nowadays.


Haha, I thought you might say that!

When I posted (quite politely) the actual direct quote of the example I was referring to, you immediately censored the post and wrote:

You then summarily locked the thread and shut the discussion down

When I reposted the same example here, again politely, in “general commentary” terms so as not to identify the original poster, you wrote:

[quote=“tempogain, post:90, topic:161837”]
There’s not enough information for me to judge… I don’t think hypothetical situations like this are really useful.[/quote]


So if the question is asked using an actual example you refuse to answer and say it should be phrased in non-specific terms (then lock the thread)

And when the question is phrased in non-specific terms you refuse to answer and say the question should be phrased in specific terms (which you’ve banned)

Finally you refer users to your explanation of the rules which you claim are:

100% specific

While at the same time being :

“impossible to directly determine” and therefore 100% non-specific

Ok, that’s pretty slippery - I guess you really, really don’t want to answer the question - that’s a pity - coz I am posting this in good faith so users can have a better understanding of the guidelines and how they apply in practical situations

Whatever, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn’t really matter, I suppose, and at least some issues have been raised that we can reflect upon


I’m not sure exactly but I think everything is much softer for kids now as parents are likely to complain otherwise. There’s lots of helicopter parents out there.

I remember “Mechanized Death” from driver’s ed too. :nauseated_face:


No that’s simply not true. Inviting people to post general commentary is in no way a commitment by me to respond to whatever hypothetical situation you might dream up. If you feel like you got your gotcha moment, that’s fine though.

Indeed I did say “Your post was very unfair to the person you selectively quoted and unhelpful…” which is precisely correct. You quoted a poster’s critical comments, but neglected to include the part that made it clear he was talking about people at his job, not any site members. What that has to do with what we’re talking about here I have no idea (which explains why it was totally unhelpful.) I do think you may want to reconsider what slippery means though. I’ll leave it there as it’s obvious we’re talking past each other. Have at it if you like.


Toe Save says that it’s ok to have trolls and flamers because it is good for clicks. Is that the protocol? I don’t really care, because I come here to look for where can I find Greek yoghurt, olives and zucchini (joking) and enjoy the chat. Also job positionings. I think people have different uses for here. Some like to argue and put the other man down. Some just want help.


Argument is not primarily about putting the other man down - it’s about ideas

Sometimes ideas conflict - that’s how they are formed - even within our own heads

It’s fantastic that Forumosa can be something for a diverse range of people and that their interests can and do cross over

Within that cyber-space, I get it that argument is not everyone’s cup of tea, but is it bad?


Sorry, semantic intervention here.

I would warrant that argument, per se, is bad.
Argument is what used to go on in the IP thread (maybe still does, I don’t go there, but I do know that many of the bald-headed peg-legged pig fuckers who used to hang out there don’t anymore).
Imagine a neighborhood park where, every single morning, the same 5 or 6 old men show up and spend all day simply yelling their opinions at each other. At the end of the day, they pack it in. The next morning they’re back, doing the exact same thing. Nothing is accomplished, nobody’s ideas or experiences are expanded, there’s nothing constructive going on.

Informed discourse, OTOH, now that’s a viable activity. The equal exchange of ideas, fully supported by reputable sources, AND in which there is a continuous global respect for each participant’s right to an opinion (and in which, conversely, participants EARN that consideration by exercising requisite manners and civilized behavior/civilised behaviour among each other).


I don’t really disagree with you, and rarely bother with the IP threads coz they are too American-centric, but if 5 or 6 old men are meeting in a park every day to argue with each other - so what?

Besides, do you think it’s realistic that everyone behaves in a manner that fits neatly into your concept of civilised behaviour, whatever that may be?

For example, does calling people “bald-headed peg-legged pig fuckers” conform to your idea of civilised behaviour? (I guess you’re probably being ironic, but …)

As for the semantics, I am referring to ‘argument’ as an art-form, if you like - a battle of ideas - though I realise that there are lesser squabbling-type meanings


Whatevs, but it doesn’t accomplish anything, and it’s not much fun to be around.

Who said anything about “realistic” or otherwise? You asked if “argument” was necessarily “bad”. I hardly think that I’m in the minority in considering it “civilised”, during discourse, to respect the right of others to hold an opinion, even if it’s divergent from one’s own.

First of all, maybe I’m being literal. Second, I din’t refer to any individuals. Anyone who doesn’t consider themselves a “bald-headed peg-legged pig fucker” is free to exclude themself from the appellation, Third, I’m not engaging in discourse with any of them, so whatever I call or don’t call them is irrelevant to my point.

Well, OK, I guess you’re free to call a baseball a “myzplitleene”, but you were submitting a question, so some commonality of terminology is kind of a baseline.

Definitions for “argue” appear to be

To give reasons for or against something : reason argue for a new policy

To contend or disagree in words : dispute They’re always arguing about money.


Sounds like Taiwan’s “parliament”. Except they physically “fight”…if they consider attempting to throw a chair, fighting.


…and/or water balloons


I think it’s a waste of time arguing with someone who wants to win the argument for the sake of winning the argument. Or going back and forth with a troll whose motivation is to upset people and get a laugh out of it.

A discussion I want to engage in is one during which I can learn something, weigh the options, see the advantages and disadvantages of a matter, find a solution to a problem, etc.

Hate it when it’s all black and white and you have to throw insults at each other, so pointless.


To be fair to them they have no choice. If they don’t then they aren’t passionate enough.


Given that you’re asking posters to “to respect the right of others to hold an opinion, even if it’s divergent from one’s own”, the obvious question is why are you using that kind of unprovoked, aggressive “pig-fucker” language at all?

Has anyone abused you on this thread, or in any way offended you?