Nippelspanner

When a person here acts like a 5 year old continuously and then dares to tell his opponent "stop acting like a child", and when a person dismisses every argument the other side brings up because he has no argument to deliver and instead creates some cheap diversion like the collective attack of the source in general instead of what was said, yes, that is trolling of the lowest form, in my opinion. You disagree? Fine. No need to agree, I have my opinion, you have yours. Just please don't tell me what I have to see as trolling and what not.

Then open your eyes. Sorry, but it's so blatant, so obvious, I don't know what else to tell you. You can easily spot it by the hypocritical acts of some people here, like condoning the use of "unknown sources" (for example) one day when it suits their point of view, and criticizing the same the next day, when it is against their own views.
But again, have it your way - I don't need you to approve.

Yes, exactly. That's the point. There is none, but maybe there should be one if discussions on this board are, often, no longer of any value because some people often refrain to the dirtiest debate tactics only because they run out of arguments. It is questionable if there has to be a written rule for that at all. Doesn't that fall among the usual Nettiquette of "being respectuful" and against trolling etc? To me it does, but maybe our views differ here, again.
Think of political talk shows. Two sides argue, one guy is the "referee" that steps in when it gets nasty - and I don't talk solely about insults here, mostly I'm referring to what we just witnessed a few pages back, when a person while participating in a debate isn't doing anything useful and is behaving dismissive/deconstructive.
No easy job and there's sure potential for bad judgement. But that's just how it is - and still worth it in my opinion.

Should be, could be - why would I care?
Yes, Neal's page, his rules, but that doesn't mean I can't criticize it/talk about it (granted, not necessarily if it is OT, sure)?

Again, you have your POV, I have mine.
Just because we had worse trolls/incidents doesn't mean that this sort of behavior doesn't fall under trolling.

Honestly, I do not think they always have to be "specific".
That sure makes it easier for the staff, but as I said above, think of it like a political talk show. No infractions or bans there either - never asked for that. I asked for moderation, not "punishment".

I do not care what goes on "behind the scenes", nor do I care for this approach, but your example just proves what a bad call it is, especially because the "public never knows" - that's the whole problem.
And no, the person I am referring to was dead serious about it, at least it was absolutely in line with the usual drivel of the person in question, and it wasn't the first time either things like that were said here (by multiple people over the years).

Again: I do not need you to approve of my observations and/or opinions, I am here long enough and I do know the active members well enough by now. In the end, I can only judge people by what they say, and if someone seriously suggests to use nuclear weapons wherever just because he's a right-wing nut that is unable to think further than a yard and a half, sorry, I will judge him accordingly.
It's called self-responsibility.
People surely judge me by my output as well, hence, I only say what I mean. And if in doubt, there's a nice collection of smileys available.

I get the feeling that you misunderstood a part of my post.
The point isn't swearing or not, it is the fact that swearing is (was?) still the number one thing here that must never ever happen, while other things like trolling or the call for mass-murder is largely ignored, as this thread proves.
I mean, how "dangerous" is an f-bomb in comparison to the above? That's my point.
I'm fine with the no-swearing rule in general, or while I find it silly if enforced like crazy, I can accept it.
What happens here on Subsim reminds me of something that happened during the Vietnam war: You may drop lots of Napalm on civilian villages and burn women and children, but beware not to write "F... you Charlie!" onto the bomb before take off - that's really rude and not very Christian!
Do you see my point? No need to agree, just curious if I fail so badly to bring my point across, which of course is a huge possibility considering English isn't my native language and I get lost in translation at times, without noticing.
Oh and yes, I noticed you're not throwing around infractions like crazy anymore as soon as a questionable term arises. I did indeed.

Yes, got that. And that's the problem in my opinion.

Oh you'd be surprised how nice and civil I can be, when the usual trolls do not get the better of me and my often weak self-control.
If a debate is fruitful and civil in the first place, with people participating that use solid argumentation without the usual "muh derm librul traitorz!!" kind of drive-by posting, then I see no reason to be snarky/aggressive or deconstructive myself - while I do not mean to condone such behavior in the first place, don't get me wrong.
Oh and by the way, the same as you rowed back on infractions for the slightest bad word, I rowed back on being too direct, at times. At least I'm trying, I promise.

Yeah, I wouldn't think it's a bad call altogether, honestly.
While GT is - in theory - a nice section with lots of potentially great debates, or topics in general (not always about debating, isn't it?), I see no big point at the moment when I take a look at the debates happening here, or the meaningless spam-attacks by some members. Sure, the quality or necessity of any post is always subjective and up for interpretation/opinion, but that's how I see it with GT at the moment. 95% of the topics could be purged if it were me.
However, considering the threads that should be valuable, while they aren't (like this one), I believe they are useless due to a handful of people participating in them using debate tactics with the sole purpose of being deconstructive, to destroy the political enemy, ignoring any argument - not even addressing it (that for example, is a form of trolling).
This can only happen because there's no moderation in that regard. Yes, I know, different opinions here - but it is my honest opinion about it, based on months, actually years, of participating and/or observing what's going on here.

You really misunderstand me, I think.
I am not asking for some magic rule that can be enforced like a hammer as soon as a person says something "wrong".
I am asking for moderation, for moderators to chime in at point X and remind person Y that he/she should start to deliver some arguments and be so kind to actually address the arguments of the opponent, instead of being a dismissive Richard that insults the other side of "being childish", while acting like a 5 year old himself. God, please, Steve, tell me you see what I mean here? I swear I'm close of tearing up.

Oh please, calling a friggin Nazi that denies the holocaust and got banned anyways "Fartenbohn" is such a big deal Steve, really.
Meanwhile, let's enjoy how others continues to troll those that try to have a debate by being dismissive, inflammatory and insulting.
Perfect example. The term proportionality comes to mind.

Not quite, but close.
I'm not looking for reasons to criticize the moderation, I just happen to stumble over them and that gets frustrating as I really, really liked Subsim once. Not much at all anymore, honestly - but that sure is my problem and not the point. And it sure isn't my sole purpose for posting, it's just all that I can post at the moment because this is, for me, a huge problem and I simply see no reason to invest the time and energy into participating in detail, like vienna for example, only to see my posts to be dismissed without any counter-argument. Hell, we have people here that have been "caught" not even reading links/sources others provide, yet they participate and say "it's all lies, fake news! muh!". No thanks, I won't waste my time as long as this practice is tolerated here.

And yes, technically I am very guilty of derailing the thread by bringing this up. However, if that is such a big deal considering the value (subjective) of most debates here lately, is another question - but technically you're spot on, sure. I do not see, or agree, that this makes me "just as guilty", though. I didn't complain about people derailing - a very minor problem tbh -, I complain about trolling, about sinister motives and questionable moral-viewpoints.
I'd like to believe that there is a rather big difference?

Yes, the topic is US politics. But is it really off-topic to point out when the topic suffers by the actions of certain people? While it is technically OT/derailing, the intention is a very different one.
I see your point, and hope you see mine.
Again, no need to agree, I'm not asking for that.

Thanks for the honest exchange.