Okay folks.

We've had a few trolls in RGT recently and while some are fun to play with for a bit, some are very tedious indeed. I made the following post earlier today

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=215

It was basically to highlight the fact that someone wasn't here for any level of discussion but just to troll rgt, as they have done on other forums.


Now, the mods have a pretty light touch in here compared to some of the other forums and I'm sure it's something we mostly appreciate. Therefore, that leaves it up to the regular forum users to self police to a certain extent. So that leaves the question as to what we do when it becomes obvious that someones only reason for being here is to troll the forum. I can appreciate sometimes it can initially be a little difficult identifying trolls from some of our more....ecentric visitors but there usually becomes a point where it becomes obvious.

Suggestions folks?

I think not responding is the best solution (other than stricter mods or a upvote/downvote system) but it needs all the regs to do it or it won't work at all. Trolls don't care if they are arguing with one person or twenty, as long as they are getting attention.

I'll go with the flow, but tbh the declining signal:noise ratio is pretty much driving me out of here and over to r/debatereligion.

Don't feed the trolls. But then again this is a religion forum so to some it might be trolling but some people actually believe this god stuff so I wouldn't call them trolls

The declining quality isnt the trolls fault, they have always been here more or less and sometime much, much more, its the reality there are less people posting quality. Killing the trolls wont fix that imo.

Use the ignore button or dont read posts by them? Thats my suggestion but people dont like that one.

That's the absurdity of this forum. Atheists who attack religion relentessly are seen as normal and religious people or even those with respect for religion are denounced as "trolls". Not only are these atheists anti-religion but they are also intolerant of any view other than their own. They are like fundamentalist cultists.

Thats pretty delusional or deliberately obtuse. Ill go with the second one since ive pointed this out before.

There are plenty of theists (and atheists who challenge other atheists views of religion) who post and have posted here who are not called trolls.

You quoted a wiki article to show that theory=guess, but if you had quoted any additional words it would have been clear that the sentence was saying the opposite. To make this error requires either an incredible lack of intellectual ability or just straight-up trolling (saying things to anger others without any attempt to actually engage in an intellectual discussion). I don't think you're that stupid so you are just a troll, no matter what point it is you think you're making. You're absurd.

Also, no RGT reg has called me a troll that I can recall, so there clearly isn't this strong anti-religion bias you speak of.

Trolls make the board fun IMO. I think we all think so on some level, otherwise we would be ignoring them.

I mean think about it, if no one responded to another cwoc post ever again, how much longer do you think he'd be around?

Lol. Whut u talkin bout Willis
WP sir

I think there's a difference between a troll and posters who sometimes appear with 'unconventional views'. One can be fun to engage with while the other can just be downright tedious and kill decent discussion

What is your explanation for the awful quote mine on 'theory'? I'd really like to hear a justification.

I'm tired of posts whining about "The atheists on this forum...", when there is only a single issue atheists are certainly in agreement on.

Post better threads.

Better opening posts = better threads. It's all good and well the RGT regs talking about the lack of quality and despite being here only a short time I can understand that but there's less really good opening posts. Zumby on methodology and evolution and OP or whover invited him to state the ontological argument, these threads generate the best discussion.

Trolls come in various shapes and sizes and ignoring all helps.

That single issue they agree upon is "religion stinks, say it loud, say it proud" and this undermines the forum as it's a religion forum. Aggressive atheists act like bonkers fundamentalists. They take their lead from populist bonkers fundamentalists like Sam Harris. It's pathetic. I know why they do it. It's because they want to justify hedonism and debauchery as "good".

PS My quote was a harmless bit of levity. I am from the UK and we don't use your rigid definitions. We don't feel the need to define everything needlessly and dubiously.

That makes you a troll by your own admission. You have not contributed anything to any discussion I can remember despite several invitations to do so.

I don't post for replies I post to correct errors from others. I corrected one such error on a thread recently and there has been no reply. That's fine by me and the original poster may have learnt something.

If people want to talk about how to deal with trolls in this thread, that is fine, but this is not the place to discuss whether you think specific posters are or are not trolls.

Can we discuss whether that rule is appropriate? Because it seems that the combination of light modding (which is potentially fine) and not being able to self-police by pointing out trolls (which also is potentially fine) makes RGT completely vulnerable to long-term trolling by specific posters.

That's why my very annoying long-term stalker Husker started the thread in the first place. He makes this clear from his OP which is itself a continuation of wumming on another thread. If you want to be consistent with what you say you should close this thread.

I think the problem is coming up with some kind of workable definition of troll behavior. And if we can achieve a workable, agreed upon definition, how is that definition to be applied and what are the consequences.

In one sense, you can say its like porn, I know trolling when I see it. It's very open to interpretation and can lead to people walking a fine line. That is a lot of trolls will get the benefit of the doubt.

On the other hand, having definite standards allows everyone to have a clear idea what is and is not "trollish." The problem here would be some posters can be wrongfully accused of being a troll.

I guess, for now I would lean towards the former - I suppose what would tip the scales for me is knowing what the consequences of having the tag of troll attached to a poster. Would they be banned? Is it just an infraction? Would they just be mocked and ridiculed?

If a poster comes in here, artfully mocks the RGT crowd and we all get chuckle - technically it maybe trolling but, I don't think there is one reg in here who doesn't have the capability to laugh at themselves. Would that artful troll get some kind of pass? I suppose it would up to mods to make the decision on artfulness?

What kind of consequence are we assigning to this behavior?

You just cant get anything right.

Trolling is behaviour which undermines the purpose of the forum. The purpose of this forum is "Discussion of God, religion, faith, theology, and spirituality." Persistent undermining of religion, faith, theology and spirituality is trolling. I would say that aggressive and persistent anti-theism comes under any sensible definition of trolling.

Interesting. I think that is at least a beginning of some workable definition. Undermining the discussion of RGT - it could be at least some foundation.

However, I strongly disagree with the next statement, in fact I am bit bothered when people say, if you are an atheist why are you here. I don't think they are undermining the debate of RGT - the counterpoint is needed. IMO, it is preferable not have some echo chamber. Nothing but similar views and everyone confirming everyone else.

There is an absolute need to have the other side of the debate if there is a discussion about RGT. In fact, eliminating the counterpoint, would seem to undermine the discussion of RGT.

At least that is how I understand what you are saying.

In fact, if there are some bright line rules developed, I would propose the following:

"All are welcome to discuss their views on RGT - theists, atheist and nontheists."

Or something along those lines.

So... you're calling yourself out?

I'm all for the "play until you get bored, then ignore" position.

No I'm calling out the posters who are vociferously anti-theist. I may be an atheist but I respect religion, theology and spirituality. Otherwise it would be pointless to post on here.

Didn't you call American Christians frighting or horrifying or something. Respect, yeah...