Trolling rule

[Excited Penguin]

I think you need to remove it. It censors fee speech besides being wholly irrational and ultimately a way of silencing voices one disagrees with. Even if one could know for sure that someone is only pretending to hold some opinions in order to provoke and prompt discussion. . .  That is not a bad thing. That is a valuable thing. And even if it wasn't , you will never be able to know for sure if it's "trolling"  or not. 

What is trolling anyway ? It's subjective to define it. We all "troll"  to one degree or another sometimes. It's a spectrum , really. Why ban only some cases and not others ? 

I think it's too ambiguous. Thank you for hearing me out. I look forward to hearing others' opinions on this.

[Longhorn]

Last time I checked the definition of trolling was clearly and unambiguously laid out in the specific rule.

[Tiberius]

Our trolling rule used to be highly subjective, to the point where we could never really apply it. Which is why we redefined "trolling" and came up with some decent criteria for what constitutes trolling:

• Making provocative posts.
  
• Making posts that are unrelated / irrelevant to the thread or conversation subject.
  
• Disrupting normal discussion.
  

Repeatedly doing any of the above is trolling, in our view. Yes, all people "troll" to one degree or another, but the point is, the rule applies to people who do it repeatedly. Making a few provocative posts isn't trolling; making provocative posts regularly is.

[Excited Penguin]

This is going to be a fun discussion, it looks like.

Fun fun fun...

[FatAndFaithless]

Everything always is with you, EP.

[Excited Penguin]

Our trolling rule used to be highly subjective, to the point where we could never really apply it. Which is why we redefined "trolling" and came up with some decent criteria for what constitutes trolling:

• Making provocative posts.
  
• Making posts that are unrelated / irrelevant to the thread or conversation subject.
  
• Disrupting normal discussion.
  

Repeatedly doing any of the above is trolling, in our view. Yes, all people "troll" to one degree or another, but the point is, the rule applies to people who do it repeatedly. Making a few provocative posts isn't trolling; making provocative posts regularly is.

What is wrong with being provocative , Tib ? 

How do you define provocative ? 

How do you define disrupting discussion? 

How do you define irrelevancy or unrelatedness to subject?

[Excited Penguin]

I'm not being obtuse. I just hope you see my point here

[FatAndFaithless]

You say that like they haven't already considered those questions in depth before making the rule in the first place.

[Tiberius]

What is wrong with being provocative , Tib ? 

The fact that purposefully annoying people / making people angry isn't productive to discussions.

How do you define provocative ? 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3Aprovocative

How do you define disrupting discussion? 

An action that causes the flow of discussion to be disrupted in some way.

How do you define irrelevancy or unrelatedness to subject?

Bananas.

[Edwardo Piet]

This is a discussion forum; not a disruption forum. That's why people like Edward John get banned.

You may think it's entirely subjective, EP, but then you're self-described solipsist, so you would think that.