Malwebolence

[Mulu]

Oh, and on the general meme here of "trolls cost membership" I would have to say that RP Nazis cost membership too. Probably more. And if I can't use the term "RP Nazi" here then we probably shouldn't use the term "troll" either. Both have obviously negative connotations.

Perhaps we could change our terminology from troll to "People who like to tease others" and from RP Nazi to "People who demand exact adherence to their own playstyle" if we want to be hyper PC about it. Because in all honesty posting a lolcat under most circumstances is not trolling, it's just being silly. Trolling is posting bait, namely a purposefully stupid and inflaming post, and waiting for a blowhard to respond, then continuing to push his buttons until he explodes. It's a very specific behavior. The term is used in ALFA in an overgeneralized and sloppy fashion.

Trolling btw is a fishing term, not in reference to the D&D monster. You put your bait in the water and then tow it behind your boat, thereby trolling and waiting for a bite, and that is an appropriate metaphor for only a very specific kind of teasing.

Kalbar was the last true troll here, one who posted flamebait and then jumped on the takers, trolling with impunity through many generations of admin and moderators and was even encouraged by many of them. Wynna herself seemed awfully forgiving of his behavior. If ALFA has a culture of trolling and flamebaiting, every long-term member is to blame.

Being rude includes far more than just the specific act of trolling. Being rude includes behavior that I previously attempted to describe but was moderated for, so I'm at a loss as to how to describe the other forms of rudeness and annoyance here without being reminiscent of specific members as some have come to exemplify specific types of rudeness or annoying behavior. Perhaps, like Kalbar, they will simply be allowed to continue to be rude or annoying in their specific manners with impunity. They certainly have so far.

[Burt]

Kalbar was not a troll. He was an artist.

[fluffmonster]

It was trivially easy to induce moderation of the mild rebuke of "childish" just by whining about it.

Indeed I did respond to something you said was offensive and insulting, as both posts containing said rebuke were indeed partaking in name-calling, by moderating it. I would ask what standards of successful moderation you have if "unresponsive to (apperantly) injured parties" is part of a successful policy. If I'm to be making my own judgments of what's vulgar or what's offensive, I would be signing up for horribly biased moderation, as I'm clearly more likely to be offended by profanity outside of my own common usage and clearly more likely to be offended by attacks against groups I'm a part of.

If you are going to be in a position which requires you to pass judgement on others, then yes you should be expected to use your judgement. Its a pretty fundamental qualification for the job. If your judgement is inadequate to the task, why take the job?

Maybe the moderators should spend some time getting tips from Wynna. She is a skilled and thoughtful moderator who I believe should be taken as an example.

[oldgrayrogue]

So I should, like some, write paragraph after paragraph to tell somebody i think what they posted is wrong, naive, stupid, and any other manner of things, just so we avoid the direct words that are apparently now 'offensive'? Sorry that im not some kind of intellect that feels the need to tell you, in novel form, why your wrong, but if your wrong, your wrong, and somebody is going to tell you that. If someone is acting like a dick, somebody is going to tell you.

One can be direct and concise without being insulting, offensive or profane. Civility and candor are not mutually exclusive. Anyone can do it with minimal effort. Its not rocket science.

[Nalo Jade]

http://www.alandfaraway.org/phpbbforum/ ... hp?t=40283

Those interested in this, we have a proposal...please take a look and weigh in, your thoughts are desired ... both sides.