in reply to Re^2: reap, troll-feeding of reaped troll
in thread reap, troll-feeding of reaped troll

I'll say it again: Trolling, at least if it's egregious enough, is reason for reaping. Troll-feeding is not.

I should also remind that the onus for proper moderation is on the one who makes the consideration and on those who vote on it. If three five monks together agree that a node should be reaped, then it may* get reaped. But what we should never see is a reason for reaping like "troll-feeding", because that's not a valid reason. If you think the node is trolling, then consider/reap it for that.

What I'm concerned about, in this discussion, is how the term "troll-feeding" is being used. Your example,

so emotional, clever trolling!
is not what I would call troll feeding anyway. At least, you can't tell, by itself. It depends on whether it is in reply to a trolling post. I personally would probably vote 'reap' on such a node, because it is, as you pointed out, a zero-value node.

I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.
  • Comment on Re^3: reap, troll-feeding of reaped troll

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: reap, troll-feeding of reaped troll
by Anonymous Monk on Aug 06, 2019 at 02:20 UTC

    I'll say it again: Trolling, at least if it's egregious enough, is reason for reaping. Troll-feeding is not.

    What is egregious enough? What yesterday was "troll-feeding" is "trolling" today

[reply]
      “Some say that Socrates was a troll”

      Has some interesting ideas.

      I prefer only to reap if it includes rude insults or its damaging the community. Mostly both.

      But too much reaping is also damaging the community!

      Cheers Rolf
      (addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
      Wikisyntax for the Monastery FootballPerl is like chess, only without the dice

      update

      removed footnote

[reply]

        I prefer only to reap if it includes rude insults or its damaging the community. Mostly both.

        What are "rude" insults?

        What is damaging the community?

        Since when are those valid reasons ?

        But too much reaping is also damaging the community!

        I dont even know what to say to that contradiction

[reply]
Re^4: reap, troll-feeding of reaped troll
by LanX (Saint) on Aug 05, 2019 at 21:29 UTC
    I am tired of this thread already, but once it gets productive I feel obliged to answer.

    > because it is, as you pointed out, a zero-value node.

    As I already said in the OP it wasn't entirely clear for me if this was trolling or genuine anger, otherwise I would have considered it already for calling people "scum". Hence clever and emotional!

    My intention was to at least "flag" it as inappropriate to warn others to engage in longer discussions. (Aka Troll feeding)

    No zero value at that point.

    Anyway I don't really care much about this particular node, it was even safe from reaping, but the fashion of considering "troll-feeding" is worrying me and I know how group behaviour can gradually change if such things are not addressed.

    I expected trouble, maybe not to this extent, but did it anyway.

    It's also troubling me if people try to stop discussions because they don't like the subject or the participants.

    This wouldn't be my community anymore!

    Cheers Rolf
    (addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
    Wikisyntax for the Monastery FootballPerl is like chess, only without the dice

[reply]
      I am tired of this thread already

      You should definitely complain to the OP.

[reply]
        Why? 🤔

        (Am I feeding a troll now?)

        Cheers Rolf
        (addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
        Wikisyntax for the Monastery FootballPerl is like chess, only without the dice

        Update

        Or are you ?!?

[reply]
    A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.

In Section Perl Monks Discussion