The rules are changing, we are going to start showing the assholes the door

Any news on all this perchance?

Understand if there isn't...just curious.

I don't think so, we been left to our own devices. In the meantime, well...we all know what's been happening....the nasty trolls are back only to insult the other members...hoping to get attention....so far it's working out well for trolls.

If you check out the ratio of your own posts, you may be surprised at the percentage that are 100% personal criticisms of a member. They’re quite personally insulting.

They’re not directed at me, but it’s just boggling to see you complain about trolls when I think I see you post more ‘personally attacking’ posts than any other member.

Go through your posts and check that ratio. Might be an eye opener.

By and large, there is more civility than there was in the past. That's not to say that people don't get insulted, or insult others. It just means that people have their insulting posts pulled, and may get sent on a little vacation at the discretion of the site administrator. Keep in mind that insult is in the eye of the reader, and I would say is rarely obvious and undeniable. All of which depends on whether or not someone reports the posts. Squeaky wheel and all that . . .

This drives me nuts. I truly don't understand why members engage with these trolls. In a conversation between Mel Brooks and Jerry Seinfeld on Brooks' treatment of Hitler, Brooks said, "You can't match him tirade for tirade. He'll win. You have to find some other way."

pssst... hello Australian maiden

Depends on what you personally call a "personal attack" Lash.
What your definition of that is colors what your perception of what a troll is.

I personally don't have the inclination to examine what any particular posters "ratios" are, but I guess whatever mine are would definately put me on your troll list.

If what you call a personal attack is one or more of the following (not all inclusive):

Calling someone on their bullshit.
Asking a direct question and expecting an answer other than "I don't know, it's just the way I feel (or similar)", or ignoring the question.
Pointing out to others that they are cherry picking, twisting, making stuff up about what you just said.
Pointing out something using logic, and expressing concern that someone, for whatever reason, is unable to look at that, and inviting them to make themselves uncomfortable for a moment by doing so.
Not watering down what you have to say to the point that your thoughts are totally unrecognizable to you, for fear or pressure not to hurt someone elses feelings in the slightest way.
Assuming the person being addressed has at some point in life learned that things others say may make them uncomforatble, and that's a good thing.
Assuming the other person is not going to get their panties in a twist, or not have an emotional breakdown, when any or all of the above.

Etc.

Troll is not synonymous with "you're trying to make me think or explain myself, aren't you?"

A personal attack is out of the blue calling someone things like "nasty hag", "loser", threatening them, and so on.

A troll is not, using a recent thread as an example, suggesting to a person who has clear issues/problems that, well, they have issues/problems.

A troll (in my book) is one who is being purposefully obtuse, dense, repetitive, with the goal of inciting others to anger.

If someone becomes angry/upset as a byproduct of someone expressing themselves in a manner that is too blunt for their tastes, because they are tired of pussyfooting around, that is not trolling.

To be honest, sometimes it takes me awhile to catch on someone is a troll. For whatever that's worth. Once I do, I just distance myself, sit back and enjoy the show

I consider personal attacks to be 100% name-calling, character-criticizing, accusation-hurling. All about the person, not their argument.

So, if someone, let's say me, asks let's say you, a direct question, and you say "I don't know why I feel that way, I just do" or similar, and I let you know what I feel is the "why" plus the reason why I believe that is, do you feel that's character criticizing?
I don't, I think that's trying to draw someone out to speak more fully to what they said, since what they said was inadequate.

If you do feel that's character criticizing, explain why.

I feel that's one adult copping out, and the other asking the first to examining themselves more closely, and to explain what they previously said beyond "I don't know why, I just do".

or....

If someone comes on the forum, saying they drink a lot, can't find someone to date, are "nice to everyone" unless that person disagrees with them, and can't figure out what's wrong, is it accussation hurling when people say it sounds like they have a drinking problem, and that calling people nasty names when they don't agree with them?

Is "name calling" saying to someone it sounds like they have mental health issues, and seem to have a drinking problem, after that said person has been all over the place for many posts, fabricating what others have said, speaking threateningly/ etc.

I don't recall may regulars here calling people names.

Then again, I don't think it's name calling to, for instance, say someone is a fool, when they are saying foolish, non-logical, misleading, advoident, or nonrelevant to the conversation things.

Sounds like you would like to have an entire huge amount of words stricken from the dcitionary, and our ability to speak them, because using them would make the speaker a troll.

Or, is that hurling an accussation?

Actually there are a number of liberals here who use that tactic exclusively.

That sealioning silliness wasn’t worth your time or mine.

I had to look up sealioning, and that's not what I'm doing.

I don't keep up with all these made up terms.

I'm not asking even once of you for evidence. I'm asking for a back and forth dialogue.

I'm not asking repeated questions...well, except that you can't seem to put together an answer.

I'm not faking civility, or trying to discredit you or anyone. I'm not good at faking anything, and don't even try.

Is there some sort of internet phrase for people who use an internet phrase so as not to explain what they said to someone?

This is where the written word is severely lacking Lash.
If you and I were sitting across from each other over coffee, you would have no problem having a discourse with me. That's because you would be able to see and hear that I'm asking a question, and just waiting for the courtesy of a reply beyond "I don't know, it's just how I feel" If you did give me that answer while sitting across from me, I'd reply "Oh come on, stop being silly", and you wouldn't think I was name calling, just trying to open you up beyond terse short replies.

I'd even buy you the coffee.

I'm wordy Lash. I've always been wordy.
It would be character (what did you call it) criticizing of you to assume this isn't just the way I am.

So, for you to use a term I never heard before, that by it's definition is calling me a name, criticizing my character of being a wordy person, and accusing me of being that, is your very own definition of a troll.

But, I don't think you're a troll at all. Just not able to see that I'm just being curious me.

I ask questions. Bluntly. I'm curious and really want to know the whys of stuff.

I think if I were in your classroom, you would think I was outstanding in my quest for answers, use of logic, and tenacity in my thirst for knowing "why".

If you were in front of the class and said something, and I threw up my hand and said "That doesn't make sense. I question why you would say such a thing. Why do you think that? I have an opinion why you do, and here it is (fill in the blank). So you think that may be the reason you say what you do? If not, why?" Would you say "I don't know. I just do"

Well, I'd be sitting there wondering why you want me to swallow something out of whole cloth.
I'd be frustrated, and without a doubt, ask you again. If you then told me I was basically being a pain in the ass for wanting to know why you said what you did, I would think maybe you shouldn't be teaching the class if you won't answer questions.. But I would keep asking questions.

Here, you say something, someone asks you why you say it, you don't know. And the asker is supposed to be the one who is, I don't know, something negative?

Anyway....by your definition, Set is a troll (first name that came to mind that fits what you call a troll), so is anyone who says "You're wrong, and here's why"

You're very frustrating to a curious mind Lash, at least this curious mind. You see insult where there is none, apparantly because of direct communication, and lack of passive agressiveness and agendas.

Can you see how frustrating it could be Lash, to be attempting to get an answer with total forthrightness and no ulterior motives, and be called names? You honestly are not good at reading me as an idividual at all, if you're basing it on my writing.

I'm wordy, direct and to the point. Not a troll though. I'm not trying to incite anger or "sealion" you (where the hell did they can that one?) I ask a lot of questions, and am always dismayed when the person has an answer, but just won't share it.

That's just fine. We shouldn't be too quick to consider or label anyone a troll. But those who play this game tend to show their intentions quite quickly. I put them on ignore as soon as such patterns of behavior reveal themselves. I find zero value in reading these people and (how is this not clear?) only negative value in "arguing" with them.

Perhaps it is online culture or A2K culture. Or perhaps some romantic notion that rational argumentation will change these peoples' minds. The evidence contradicting that hopeful notion is so overwhelming that I truly cannot fathom why people try again and again and again, endlessly.

No. There are liberals who engage in vicious name-calling here on a2k.

These accusations are not being directed at either you or Setanta. Or at least, I'm not directing them that way. I guess I shouldn't presume to speak for Lash. But I would be very surprised if she meant either one of you when she denounced the name-callers.