Should tPF add and enforce "trolling" rules?

[Akula]

I'm starting to think there ought to be some kind of "no spamming" or "no derailing"rule...
Naturally, sometimes, one sentence replies are appropriate..even one word replies occasionally...but when people consistently, purposely try to derail a conversation or pretend confusion in order to sidetrack a discussion, there should be a procedure to deal with that....
It's a judgment call and up to the moderators..who are appointed by some random procedure according to who is friends with whom.....and THAT'S another issue, but there are too many agitators now that are skirting the rules just to be inflammatory and serve their egos and "needyness".

[truthmatters]

I have not seen that problem at this site.can you give an example

[Kabuki Joe]

No, it's just a means of suppression

...HAH!...coming from a "troll"...


Kabuki Joe

[Kabuki Joe]

Now why would anyone want to ban trolls...

Come on, they're fun! If you know how to play it right you can make their head explode!

...I'm all for giving an opinion BUT there need to be limits...yes, I said limits...truthmatters intensionally disrupts and that needs to be done away with...just like cigar, his whole intension is to disrupt, not give an opinion...if you are wacky but still clear about wacky things, so be it, but to disrupt in the name of free speech should not be allowed...


Kabuki Joe

[Kabuki Joe]

All posters find chronic trolling by known characters very annoying, but only on the opposition side of things. One's own trolls are always somehow endearing characters with that spark of lively mischief that brings one to mind those cute and plucky 'Little Rascal' tykes of the ancient television show.

But there is a difference between trolling to agitate the opposition in general and in launching specific personal attacks against another poster. A healthy political forum stamps down hard on personal attacks whether they are being launched by someone on the Left or the Right. As long as responses are kept to the general rather than to the specific, where negative replies are concerned, there should not be a problem.

...I dissagree...I can't stand some of the extreme muslim haters from my side but it is free speech isn't it?...even if it makes you look bad?...I think there is a big difference in discussing and/or promoting sensitive subjects and posting hate and nonsence...a big difference...


Kabuki Joe

[Peter1469]

...I'm all for giving an opinion BUT there need to be limits...yes, I said limits...truthmatters intensionally disrupts and that needs to be done away with...just like cigar, his whole intension is to disrupt, not give an opinion...if you are wacky but still clear about wacky things, so be it, but to disrupt in the name of free speech should not be allowed...


Kabuki Joe

Truthmatters is completely insane and you should not make fun of her....

[Calypso Jones]

I have not seen that problem at this site.can you give an example

of course you don't dimwit.

[truthmatters]

gee you guys really dont like people to bring you facts huh

[truthmatters]

...I'm all for giving an opinion BUT there need to be limits...yes, I said limits...truthmatters intensionally disrupts and that needs to be done away with...just like cigar, his whole intension is to disrupt, not give an opinion...if you are wacky but still clear about wacky things, so be it, but to disrupt in the name of free speech should not be allowed...







Kabuki Joe

I give facts to back my assertions.

You are free to do the same.

[Calypso Jones]

gee you guys really dont like people to bring you facts huh

fActs are fine. When are you going to post some.