But then you get users calling people trolls for legitimate posts, like when a certain user called me and seece a troll for saying that the WiiU wouldn't reach 10 million by the end of this year. That user may or may not be attached to my sig.

very good thread.  I dont know if we should allow the calling people names like trolls none the less. Should just report them and move on.  Think-man is right about what he said a few posts up. "But then you get users calling people trolls for legitimate posts, like when a certain user called me and seece a troll for saying that the WiiU wouldn't reach 10 million by the end of this year. That user may or may not be attached to my sig."

however this part especially i agree with

I like you guys, but sometimes I wonder if you realize what your job on these forums actually is. You are not here to enforce rules in the most pedantic way, you are here to create an environment where good discussion can take place. That means weeding out the trash, not setting things up in a fashion where the bad apples feel like the protected users and the good members feel like the ones who cannot say what the state of things is and get overwhelmed by an avalanche of stupidity and fanboyism. You are also not the police who is held to the law. You don't need to nail down a user with any sort of evidence to have the right to ban them for good; all you need is the common sense to figure that a user is awful and doesn't benefit the community in any way to get rid of them without explaining yourself any further; because if a user is that bad, the community won't object anyway; rather we will thank you that that user didn't amass over 1,000 posts before you finally gave them the boot.

If you go into a thread and reply that's that stupid or you stupid with no real reply. That in my opinion is trolling.

If this is the worst you've seen, you haven't seen enough.  I've seen plenty of sites where mods ban for personal reasons or for the sake of a preferred user.

It was a specific PM, direct reply to the moderation message. 11th of February 2013 from my view (I'm Australian, so it might be 10th for you).

But anyway, my point was that my ban was for using the word "fanboy", even though it wasn't meant as an attack (the purpose was to say "you know Sony", with that fact being used to then say "Sony contradicts your argument"), while the other person's use of the word, which was ignored entirely, was a broad attack on multiple people. Yet I also said I didn't want him banned, because even his wasn't meant as a full-fledged personal attack, but as a rhetorical device. I explicitly just asked for recognition of the facts in the case, in the hopes that it might spark some discussion amongst moderators. Which I suppose is the same sort of thing as the reason why Rol made this thread.

There seems to be an automatic rule being applied that any use of the words "troll" and "fanboy" in direct reference to another person leads to a warning or ban (even if the use is either blatantly accurate or entirely non-insulting), while broad but indirect uses, and statements that effectively call people them without using the words themselves get a free pass.

In short, I think there needs to be a little less "letter of the law" and a little more "spirit of the law". When it says "Do not personally insult other users. This includes calling them fanboys or trolls.", the key term is "personally insult", not the words "fanboy" and "troll". I would assume that the rule was established to say "keep the discussion civil". That doesn't seem to be how it's being applied, though, as people seem to get away with rather blatant attacks, just as long as they keep away from certain words, or at least keep from using them in direct reference to a specific member.

Insane, I actually agree with OP for once.
And eventho it might take a bit more time for the moderators, I feel we're low on mods anyway, good excuse to find more.

Personally, I almost agree. However, even feeding the troll in any way is bad, and thus there's very few instances where the word 'troll' is actually needed, for example if people are feeding the troll and a person tells the others to 'stop feeding the troll'. Trolls should be reported and otherwise ignored, and anyone feeding the troll in any way is just contributing to the effect of trolling.

Again, there's very few instances where calling a troll a troll is needed in any way.

actuallly I remember that and I didn't even want to report you at all, but had to out of fairness for reporting the others.

I've always liked you carl.

Keep in mind that Jaywood made a thread to call me childish, and in his own thread said someone's opinion was worthless and wasn't modded.

I'm glad Rol made this thread, because he's finally acknowledging that there's a problem with consistency at times. Rol is to MLK as I am to MalcolmX

If anything it means: Troll is anything someone else doesnt agree with. Sometimes it is obvious, other times when trying to crack a joke gets taken seriously and the other crys to a mod.

It wasn't wild. That implies what I was doing was out of the norm, yet the norm was reporting sprees.