By that I mean it's not being done, and you've proposed no change to cause it to happen.
But it is being done (even if i am the only one doing it -- it is being done). And the fact that i have proposed nothing to change it is my point: i see this whole issue as a solution looking for a problem.

... but enough of them aren't that trolls continue to get big responses.
And i fully believe that they will continue to get big responses even if you label the post as potentially trollish. But that's just my opinion.

You're asking people to navigate (without providing a nearby link) to another page to take an action on the current one.
If our audience was one of typical non-programming computer users who barely know how to read a manual and fix basic problems on their computers, then i would agree with this. But our audience is not. The core audience is experienced Perl programmers. Thanks to tabbed browsing, this is much easier than you say it is not. Most of the less-experienced users you speak of are here to ask questions, not answer them. It's the experienced users who will be answering the questions, giving feedback, etc. It is they who will be potentionally replying to trollish posts.

I don't know what you're referring to. There's no labeling option in consideration.
But there is. When you consider a node you have the option to give the reason why. That text appears on the content for the reaped node. See? You already have a way to label a post as trollish and as an added benefit, everyone else with consideration power (that is, those who are not the "less-experienced") can cast their vote as to whether or not they agree that it is trollish.

Again ... take a look at who is doing the responding. We are mature, experienced Perl programmers. If we take the bait and feed a troll, we know what the consequences will be. The consideration process was put into place years ago to handle this problem, and i fully believe that it is handling the problem as best as anything can. If a human cannot always determine 100% of the time that a post is truly a trollish post, how can a program do the same? Some people just can't get enough of that negative attention, and no system is going to stop the occasional trollish node from being posted.

L-LL-L--L-LL-L--L-LL-L--
-R--R-RR-R--R-RR-R--R-RR
B--B--B--B--B--B--B--B--
H---H---H---H---H---H---
(the triplet paradiddle with high-hat)

The core audience is experienced Perl programmers.

They're people, and people are not prone to jump through hoops. If your procedure is the recommended one, it should be documented and convenient, not a departure from the normal flow of browsing and form interaction. I didn't say it was difficult, but it is cumbersome, compared to normal web interactions.

i see this whole issue as a solution looking for a problem

The two threads dominating the Worst Nodes of the Week demonstrate that trolls can have a field day in the Monastery. And I believe that a little reassurance that "it's been taken care of" is all that a fair number of monks would need to quell their drive to address the trolls.

You already have a way to label a post as trollish

I have a way to suggest that a node be reaped. That is not the same as having an indicator for my own benefit to indicate that a post has been widely viewed as meritless. Reaping is not labeling, nor is it advisory. It is enforcement for the whole forum.

If a human cannot always determine 100% of the time that a post is truly a trollish post, how can a program do the same?

I didn't suggest any such thing. If I thought that could be done, I would have proposed instant reapage.

---

Caution: Contents may have been coded under pressure.

Dear Roy Johnson:

As usual, a very well thought post (++). Just a quick comment...

We could provide a link to Worst Nodes on every post that has made the list, but that would be a badge, which I'm trying to avoid.

But the rep, in itself, is a kind of badge. Although you see it after your vote is cast, it may very well influence your criteria for voting nodes for the same monk that come later.

It would also be kind of harsh to the people whose posts are at -1 or -2.

I agree, although these either won't end up in worst nodes (at least, for a long time).

I think you misunderstood a couple of things. By "badge", I didn't mean something like a scarlet letter that will color people's opinions, but rather something like a merit badge — a trophy of success and achievement. A very low rep is a badge of that sort, and by discouraging extreme downvoting, it will be less likely for trolls to achieve.

[posts with reps of -1 or -2] won't end up in worst nodes

Actually, they frequently do make the "of The Day" list. As I'm writing this, only the top 2 (of 10) worst nodes of the day are more negative than -2. I don't know how long such posts typically sit there.

---

Caution: Contents may have been coded under pressure.