Is that really the only thing that speaks against the rule? That's not even a good argument. Calling a user an idiot can be an effective way to make them snap out of the idiocy they are engaging in (I'd put it at a ~25% success rate which makes it worth giving it a shot), but the same has absolutely no merit when calling someone a troll, unless you are a moderator.

Actual arguments against the rule:

- It is a trap, because it can lead to moderation for stating the obvious. People have been moderated for this in the past, despite moderators clearly identifying the target as an actual troll. Pointing out what others (including the mods) can see is not a crime.

- Calling someone a troll has a higher chance to get the mod team to take a serious look at a thread or situation that spans several threads. The mere action to call someone something triggers reports, but said reports would not be harmful to the user who used the word troll when the mod team applied proper judgment. Of course, if there's no actual trolling to be found, then the user who used the word troll is subject to the rule against flaming (which should include slander).

This argument is basically the correct version of the one I quoted, because if nothing else, the mod team has to say something about what has been happening in a thread.

- Rules against stating the obvious do not result in people being nicer to each other. Like with every word that gets forbidden to use, people will simply come up with ways to say the same thing without using the words they are not supposed to use. The result is less clarity in forum speech which in turn makes it harder for the mod team to recognize patterns and/or prove that there is a pattern.

This argument can easily be extended to generalisations like "Sony fans do always this or that" which the mod team could reduce by directly asking such users to name individuals, and if necessary (because not common knowledge), ask for links to specific posts or threads. What generalisations do is rise the tension, because there's no clarity in who exactly is addressed, but people who belong to the addressed group tend to assume that they were meant. There should be more accountability for what people post; the "do not call out individuals" rule does more harm than good. Not just for the community, but also the mod team. I am not interested in seeing people go on a witch hunt against Nintendo fans as a whole because in the past angrypoolman and his alts trolled the PS4 hard because of remasters and other things. Let people openly say that such a person sucks, that will make them feel better and then they won't go for generalisations.

- Not an argument, but the one thing above all others: For calling someone a troll to properly work, it must be done in a thread where trolling is present and the moderators deem it as such. It's not supposed to happen solely on the basis of a user's past and his moderation history, there must be evidence in the current thread. It's also not something that should be used lightly, but rather be reserved for the really annoying cases of repeat offenders. Said repeat offenders have been the cause for users to talk about "always the same troll(s)" and what has led to moderations for stating the obvious. It is usually an outcry to the mod team for why something so obvious went unpunished for so long.

...

There are many facets to this topic and it gets more complicated the deeper you dig, but I would already be satisfied if it isn't a trap anymore and the mod team applied common sense instead of making it a zero tolerance rule.

@bold. I never said that. Did you need me to say "what good is it to further derail a thread". Perhaps a language barrier here.

Of course if someone is trolling he is derailing. To then call them out just derails even further. It is the worst type of derailment, those which I like to call trainwrecks.

I support the progressive ban system.
I don't support certain moderators ignoring it and giving people they like free passes and not progressing the ban length, while ignoring the progressive ban system and giving longer bans than the progressive ban system advocates at their discretion.

Can a moderator please clarify if the progressive ban system is a real thing, or just a guideline and completely arbitrary?

Cheers :)

EDIT - Speak of the devil ^ :p

Yeah, especially since posts in the thread are much more even than the poll would suggest

For the most part I like the progressive system, it kind of makes sense as a way to reinforce what not to do with longer ban periods each time, and it also rewards periods without moderation. It can appear unfair at times when 2 users doing a similar thing at a similar time can get very different ban lengths so in cases where it's just a minor thing between 2 users I think a short ban outside of the usual progressive system could also work. But for more isolated incidents or more blatant rule breaches the progressive system works really well in my view.