Honestly this question feels like it's a can of worms, so I'll answer thusly. If one's post is moderated for trolling, does the poster take personal responsibility? Or blame the mods for being biased and uneven in their moderation?
If you post something that is moderated, do you take responsibility for the post or do you blame the moderation on the fact that the moderators can't see nuances and are biased?
I don't think there is a sentiment of not being bothered, but one is clearly in control of their world. Do you "road rage" if someone inadvertently cuts you off? I personally think it's immature to be trolled by reactions, yet some people do it. So if it's considered trolling by this site suspend their ass for a few days.
I'm still not following this logic.
Personally I don't think deliberately attempting to elicit a response from a member is a good thing, and I understand why the rule is in place.
Yes, I've been moderated for "trolling." Sometimes it was what I consider a legitimate question but the person to whom it was addressed apparently took it as trolling, or a moderator read it that way. Sometimes it really was reacting in anger, and even though it wasn't right I've made peace with the folks with whom it happened. I've had asking for a citation for something called "Trolling" after seeing blatant BS posted and being told by (useless) contact us that it was "perceived by a moderator" as trolling. I don't see how a legitimate question asked within the rules can be, which does bring in thoughts of selectivity in moderation and bias. And yes I have addressed that through contact us only to receive responses that at times were frankly nasty. I really need to compile these and sent them to
@arn because I consider that function of the site hopelessly broken with the person currently answering it.
No, I don't yell and cuss if someone cuts me off in traffic, although I'll give them a solid honk if I nearly hit them to make them aware that I was there.
To answer more broadly, I've had one poster-one particular poster-not like something I posted and come at me with guns blazing insulting quite a few things about me including my choice of cars, my dislike of a different brand, and the fact that they consider my enjoyment of working on them a sign that I own something I can't afford and that it's a piece of junk. Whether that's trolling or a personal attack, I don't know, but it was deemed non-actionable by the moderators and a subsequent appeal by(again useless) Contact Us. That poster, BTW, was and is not a stranger to making similar comments against me or other users that were again deemed non-actionable.
So, if a post personally bothers me, that is my perogative, particularly when it is a low-blow blatant insult. You seem top be conflating "being bothered" with acting on that by responding. I have reported many posts where that was the case, and was told to pound sand.
I'm really not sure what you're saying here, but it seems a lot of twisting of logic to say it's MY problem if someone insults me and I am bothered by it. Again, you seem to not be separating feeling insulted from acting on that, and they are two separate things.
That too is a problem, because if a post is directed at me(and yes by name) and it does nothing but insult me, it's a reasonable conclusion that I would be upset by it and would consider it an attempt to elicit a response from me(whether that's successful or not). You will likely say the moderators can't police people's thoughts, but they do regularly when they moderate something as trolling and say that they can recognize the "intent" of the poster and "how people are likely to react." To me you can't have it both ways.
