Strider said:
Taken from Wikipedia:
"The response of someone accused of trolling can vary widely from hurt indignation to verbal abuse, raising the stakes with inflammatory remarks maligning the motivation of the accuser.
And hence, wrongfully accusing someone of trolling when in fact they were just flaming someone who was creating controversy without adding content to the discussion.
On that note:
The response of someone banned due to trolling can vary widely from hurt indignation to crying "Gestapo", raising the stakes with sulking remarks maligning the reasons of the admin.
Trolling is often described as an online version of the breaching experiment, where social boundaries and rules of etiquette are broken."
Close, but in the netiquette sense, quite wrong. It is the intent to disrupt conversation by drawing away from the topic by means of tangents and other logic fallacies. Flames to ire people is one method of trolling, when there is no purpose nor background to them. The difference between trolling and flaming is a simple one, which it seems many people have a problem understanding, context.
Also taken from Wikipedia:
"An Internet troll, a person who posts messages that create controversy without adding content to the discussion."
As most people beside the martyrs have noticed so far, I have kept to the discussion almost ad nauseum when the other party kept trying to twist it into a number of tangents using fallacies (and succeeded, given that some clueless twit decided to defend him), yet I flamed the hell out of someone whom I consider to be a liability in a uniform.
Amusingly enough, you have since failed to add anything to this discussion other than another addition to a particular database entry.
Another troll banned to The Order.
