Trolling Thread: For all your trolling needs

[Kudistos Megistos]

There is no need to be putting words in peoples mouths. Maybe it got split at that point because it made the most sense? Disagreeing is not trolling, baiting maybe (but I dont think so in this case). But when an argument starts does it not make sense to split it at where the argument started?

When it is put into a thread called the "trolling thread", it definitely does imply that my post was trolling.

But that's no surprise "Kudistos is trolling" seems to be repeated like a religious mantra by some people when I disagree with them (because of course, there's absolutely no way I might honestly think they were wrong!). At least, they repeat the mantra until they sit down and think about things for a while and realise that I was right.

[sl1982]

Yet perhaps not the first post was trolling. Even you cannot deny that trolling was going on in the thread at some point.

When it is put into a thread called the "trolling thread", it definitely does imply that my post was trolling.

But that's no surprise "Kudistos is trolling" seems to be repeated like a religious mantra by some people when I disagree with them (because of course, there's absolutely no way I might honestly think they were wrong!). At least, they repeat the mantra until they sit down and think about things for a while and realise that I was right.

I will agree that does happen. Yet it also goes the other way. Others get labeled the same just because of their past behaviour.

[Kudistos Megistos]

Yet perhaps not the first post was trolling. Even you cannot deny that trolling was going on in the thread at some point.

Yes, but as I said earlier, the real question is "who was doing the trolling". The answer might not be as obvious as it first seems.

I will agree that does happen. Yet it also goes the other way. Others get labeled the same just because of their past behaviour.

The amount of time that people are mocked for their past behaviour is directly proportional to the stupidity of said past behaviour.

And although it's certainly vindicating to see people agree with me after weeks of "You is trollin'!", it's very frustrating to see that my arguments are immediately dismissed as trolling just because people either can't refute them or just don't like the person making them, and it's very frustrating to see people agree that I was right, but never acknowledge this fact. It would save everyone a lot of time, a lot of butthurt and a lot of U-turns (flip-flopping, for our Novomundane cousins) if people gave my arguments a fair hearing instead of ad homineming everything either due to personal grudges, or to avoid having to come up with an actual counter-argument.

[xLostWingx]

I've noticed instances where logical arguments are posted in response to some of your own, and they are ignored.  If saving time and butthurt were your objective, then perhaps responding to logical arguements presented would do this too.   And I don't like you or dislike you, or think you are right or wrong...I just enjoy pointing out things that haven't been noticed.

[Kudistos Megistos]

I've noticed instances where logical arguments are posted in response to some of your own, and they are ignored.  If saving time and butthurt were your objective, then perhaps responding to logical arguements presented would do this too.   And I don't like you or dislike you, or think you are right or wrong...I just enjoy pointing out things that haven't been noticed.

Give examples.

This seems to be something my opponents often have a lot of trouble doing.

[sl1982]

Perhaps, but life isnt fair. As a person who 'trolled the trolls' you have been labelled as such. Is it right? No, but past behaviour is usually the best predictor of the future.

[xLostWingx]

I'm not your opponent.  I don't need to give examples because I don't need to prove something to you that I know to be true.  I don't care if anyone believes me or not.  If you don't think that you've ignored logical arguements then say so.  Or you could acknowledge that you have.  You know I'm perfectly capable of producing examples...but then they would be subject to your deluded scrutiny.  Where would that get us?  Another 70 posts of wasted time.  Or translated into KM languge = Win

[Kudistos Megistos]

Perhaps, but life isnt fair. As a person who 'trolled the trolls' you have been labelled as such. Is it right? No, but past behaviour is usually the best predictor of the future.

So if I troll trolls, does that mean I troll everyone for the fun of it, regardless of whether I think their argument has merit?

Or are you saying that when I get accused of trolling, you regard the people I'm arguing against as trolls? You've accused me of trolling for arguing against you many times; does that mean that you're a troll?

I must also remind you that during Hermoor's first stay here, before everyone started regarding him as a poor, innocent victim of cyber bullying, you treated him in a way that might be regarded as trolling the troll. So did obesebear.

My mouth has just written a cheque that my ass can't cash

Are you even trying? So you can make a claim with no evidence at all, then say "I know I'm right, so I don't need to prove anything"? How convenient!

You eat babies. I don't need to give examples because I don't need to prove something to you that I know to be true.

And your language has revealed that, contrary to your claims, you do have some sort of grudge against me. In fact, some of your language might be regarded as a personal attack.

[xLostWingx]

My language is the result of your calling me out.  Like I said, me putting up evidence is the first step towards the a pointless waste of time.  As of right now you don't believe me, and thats fine with me.  Ugh...what a defeat.

I can make a claim without evidence if I have no interest in the perception of my claim, yes.

[Kudistos Megistos]

My language is the result of your calling me out.  Like I said, me putting up evidence is the first step towards the a pointless waste of time.  As of right now you don't believe me, and thats fine with me.  Ugh...what a defeat.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you called me out.

Yes, if I look at the order of the posts, you accused me of ignoring logical arguments before I said anything to you. So you called me out.

Ouch, that must be embarrassing!

And I strongly suspect your reluctance to show any evidence is because you either don't have any, or because you're worried that, when out under scrutiny, it might be revealed that those logical arguments I am accused of ignoring either might not have been ignored, or might not have been logical.

[yarLson]

Actually its like he says, evidence isn't needed if you have read the thread, and since KM you've been defending yourself this whole time I assume you have read it and you know whether he is right or wrong so why point it out again and again. Honestly I think he was trying to be nice

[xLostWingx]

Yes, you're delusional.  Uh oh, is that a personal attack?  Nah, oh wait...I need to provide evidence.  Darn.  Guess you win again KM.

Oh I'm embarassed at your interpretation of my calling out out when in fact you referred to me as an opponent, and I was pointing out an observation...so embarassing.  You choose to use words like "accuse".  Well since we can choose which words to use, I'll say it is my opinion that you ignore logical arguements from time to time.  Now the arguement is over, because I'm merely stating an personal opinion.  Do you want to argue whether or not I hold this opinion?

Oh and I know that in situations such as this, your revised rules for winning are that I continue to post and waste my time.  So feel free to say whatever accusatory and off the wall things you want, because I won't be responding again. "Running Away" right?

[sl1982]

So if I troll trolls, does that mean I troll everyone for the fun of it, regardless of whether I think their argument has merit?

Or are you saying that when I get accused of trolling, you regard the people I'm arguing against as trolls? You've accused me of trolling for arguing against you many times; does that mean that you're a troll?

I must also remind you that during Hermoor's first stay here, before everyone started regarding him as a poor, innocent victim of cyber bullying, you treated him in a way that might be regarded as trolling the troll. So did obesebear.

Yeah at the beginning I probably did feed the trolls so to speak, unfortunately the Lulz thread is gone or you would see that I did not participate in it, or even condone what was going on. And lets see examples of where I accused you of trolling me.

And stop taking what I say as absolutes. Do you troll all the time? No. Is everyone you argue with a troll? No. Everytime you argue something are you trolling? No. Do you always troll the trolls? Usually, but not always.

[Kudistos Megistos]

Actually its like he says, evidence isn't needed if you have read the thread, and since KM you've been defending yourself this whole time I assume you have read it and you know whether he is right or wrong so why point it out again and again. Honestly I think he was trying to be nice

Evidence is always needed.

And I have addressed the "logical" arguments that have been made against me in this thread. Indeed, Seifer actually agrees with me now. The point of my disagreement with him was about whether planes were safer than cars. He now agrees that they are. Apparently, his logical arguments were not only addressed, they were refuted. Of course, he won't admit it and is pretending that he was making a different point, but that's because it's so embarrassing to call someone a troll, accuse them of all sorts of horrid things and then realise that they were right.

Yes, you're delusional.  Uh oh, is that a personal attack?

Yes it is.

I'll say it is my opinion that you ignore logical arguements from time to time.  Now the arguement is over, because I'm merely stating an personal opinion.  Do you want to argue whether or not I hold this opinion?

Oh, it's your "opinion"? So you admit that there's no factual basis to your claims and it's just a subjective, emotional response? I hope you won't mind if I state my opinion:

Opinions are worthless.

Give me some facts next time, or at least some logic. You see, your claim was not about a subjective matter, such as whether Mozart was better than Beethoven, but about an objective one. If you say that I ignore logical arguments, that is a statement about a factual, objective matter. It is either right or wrong. Any "opinion" about such a matter is of no interest to me. We need facts and logic before such a claim can be taken seriously, and it looks like you can't provide them. Oh dear! How embarrassing!

Yeah at the beginning I probably did feed the trolls so to speak

As a person who 'trolled the trolls' I shall label you as such

And lets see examples of where I accused you of trolling me.

Let me just have a look through the past posts. It could take a while. I'll edit this post when I find some, unless there's a new post that it would be more appropriate to put them in. I definitely know there have been times when we have disagreed about some matter regarding moderation, and you have accused me of trolling.

EDIT:

Oh snap, the search function isn't working. Nor is the function for searching user posts. Does anyone know why the server load is so high? Maybe someone is trying to DDoS us.

Proof, in case anyone accuses me of lying:

And stop taking what I say as absolutes. Do you troll all the time? No. Is everyone you argue with a troll? No. Everytime you argue something are you trolling? No. Do you always troll the trolls? Usually, but not always.

Your actions do not match your words.

[yarLson]

Okay, in a perfectly logical world, being personally attacked does not give you the right to do it right back. I agree with you that opinions are worthless, but the FACT is your just accusing people who accuse you. Truthfully it's no way to argue, and I think this thread should be closed down already. I dunno if you notice or not but your jumping around from person to person so much that your not really giving out too much evidence yourself. Saying something is one thing, but proving it is quite another. I don't think anyone here is really proving anything. In fact, I wish someone would just delete all this already.

[sl1982]

The thread stays open, Kudistos has the right to respond. Post any evidence you have in this thread Kudi-san.

Kudi, you may label me whatever you wish, but the fact of the matter is i stopped doing it, you didnt.

[Jari]

No, but past behaviour is usually the best predictor of the future.

[Armorvil]

Summary of the thread :

"You're a troll !"
"No, I'm not !"
"You're wrong !"
"No, I'm right !"

Brillant. Some people like to waste their time, and I wish I had that much on my hands. Contrary to popular belief, in these kinds of arguments, the winner is always the one who stops replying first. Not the arrogant one who wants to have the "last word".

[Kudistos Megistos]

Summary of the thread :

"You're a troll !"
"No, I'm not !"
"You're wrong !"
"No, I'm right !"

You're a troll.

The thread stays open, Kudistos has the right to respond. Post any evidence you have in this thread Kudi-san.

So, I've found that even when the search function is working, it doesn't work. It certainly doesn't display consistent results. Nevertheless, there is at least one definite example of you accusing me of trolling you when I simply disagreed. See the thread called completely unlrelated. Arguing for the sake of it is trolling, is it not? I mean, it implies that the purpose of the arguing is trouble causing, so that's classified as trolling. You also seem to accuse me of trolling you in the "The New Rules" thread (google cache is needed to see this one; the thread was deleted). Unfortunately, google doesn't seem to have a record of the whole thread, but there's one incident in which you might be interpreted as saying that I'm trolling. It's something that could be interpreted several ways, but you accuse me of just bitching about the rules and imply that I would have done so even if the rules had been different. That can be interpreted as an accusation of trolling, no?

I'll have a look for some more things when the search function is working better. I do recall quite a few times when you have dismissed any of my disagreements with the moderating system as being arguing "just for the sake of it". That is to say, trolling.

And hey, before anyone complains that I have not provided sufficient evidence, at least I've provided some evidence for my claims. That's more than anyone has done for their claims against me.

past behaviour is usually the best predictor of the future.

So, why do you allow a person who has been banned god knows how many times to have an account? If this person has threatened to kill people and spammed the boards with porn, don't you think he should be prevented from having an account? After all, past behaviour is usually the best predictor of the future.

[sl1982]

Heh. I think you and I have a different definition of trolling. Arguing just for the sake of it is just that. Some people like to be contrary as it can provide deeper insight to the topic at hand. Arguing for the purpose of getting a rise out of someone else is trolling.

[DLPB_]

You are all doing what I used to do.  Playing them at their own game.  The more you argue the more they are winning.  Leave the thread and let them talk to themselves.  They are clearly a pair of trolls and so there is no use trying to reason.  Kud for example, seems to have his own definition of everything.  be it troll or baiting...  he has his own definition of "good".  He has a warped justification for everything he is doing, and so does Jari. 

[Kudistos Megistos]

Heh. I think you and I have a different definition of trolling. Arguing just for the sake of it is just that. Some people like to be contrary as it can provide deeper insight to the topic at hand. Arguing for the purpose of getting a rise out of someone else is trolling.

Oh really? If you had accused me of "playing Devil's advocate", that might have got your meaning across better. As it is, your language suggested that I was just seeking to cause trouble. In any case, you were accusing me of arguing because I wanted to argue, not because I believed what I was saying. That's the central issue here. When you say that, you automatically give yourself a licence to ignore me, since I'm just arguing because I want an argument. You can use this technique to avoid ever having to engage with anything I say.

Furthermore, you said that and then took a dismissive tone, which adds more weight to the "it means trolling" interpretation of what you said than the "it means playing Devil's advocate".

You are all doing what I used to do.  Playing them at their own game.  The more you argue the more they are winning.  Leave the thread and let them talk to themselves.  They are clearly a pair of trolls and so there is no use trying to reason.  Kud for example, seems to have his own definition of everything.  be it troll or baiting...  he has his own definition of "good".  He has a warped justification for everything he is doing, and so does Jari. 

It's not like you don't have your own definition of certain words. After all, your definition of words like "trolling" and "baiting" seems to be "disagreeing with me" or "pointing out my mistakes". You also seem to have a strange definition of truth, one that does not resemble anyone else's definition of it.

BTW, you've just addressed me, haven't you? Isn't that "playing me at my own game"?

[sl1982]

I am more genuinely curious then anything. If he thinks he does not troll then I would like to understand why he thinks that. If he thinks he is always debating the topic at hand then perhaps that is all he is doing. Things like rules should never be concrete, intent should always play a factor in things.

[sl1982]

Heh. I think you and I have a different definition of trolling. Arguing just for the sake of it is just that. Some people like to be contrary as it can provide deeper insight to the topic at hand. Arguing for the purpose of getting a rise out of someone else is trolling.

Oh really? If you had accused me of "playing Devil's advocate", that might have got your meaning across better. As it is, your language suggested that I was just seeking to cause trouble. In any case, you were accusing me of arguing because I wanted to argue, not because I believed what I was saying. That's the central issue here. When you say that, you automatically give yourself a licence to ignore me, since I'm just arguing because I want an argument. You can use this technique to avoid ever having to engage with anything I say.

Furthermore, you said that and then took a dismissive tone, which adds more weight to the "it means trolling" interpretation of what you said than the "it means playing Devil's advocate".

Look, I am not a man of fancy words. If you interpreted what I said as something else well I apologize. As for the dismissive tone well that would most likely be because I did dismiss your opinion.
Not because I thought you were trolling, but because I did not agree with said opinion. (I cant remember the rules thread and couldnt find it on google)

[Kudistos Megistos]

As for the dismissive tone well that would most likely be because I did dismiss your opinion.

Yes, you did. Without giving any reason why.

And it seems that other people in that thread agreed with me, including obesebear.

(I cant remember the rules thread and couldnt find it on google)

It was the one that was in the "projects" forum (then called "game tweaking"). Obesebear deleted it. For some reason, most of the debating about the rules that were made a year ago happened in that thread.