Standards

That last one was mine. :)

That's an appealing idea at first glance, but it harbours some latent complications. Among other things, such a list would be a basis for trolls to carry on arguing about whether they actually broke the rules, or how to interpret the rules, etc.

You're kind of asking to give the trolls a bellow to fan their own flames with.

Ivan, I actually think it would be a good idea to have some kind of guidance on standards. The standards aren't laws to enforce against trolls (so you never need to deal with their appeals), but policy description for new visitors.

I'm pointing this out because I can just see trolls or non-rational commies say "TPD just deletes posts they dont like." And this might prevent people with different points of view to come.

I think we want as many different points of views here as possible, as long as they are based on rational discussion. That's how we all learn (and educate), right?

Obviously it's Richard's call. But I'm thinking of a very common mistake made in various debate situations (or evidentiary hearings, etc), in which someone sets himself to be gainsaid by the opponent because he said too much.

Another problem is that if you present a list of rules, there will inevitably arise some situations which you didn't anticipate. A list of rules would rather confine Richard to a very narrow scope of discretion, when - especially due to the chaotic and irrational nature of trolling - some trolls will find ways to be disruptive even while technically following the "rules."

Anyone who has considerable experience in legal disputes will have a better sense of how this works. Precisely written rules are a way of limiting power and limiting discretion, and while that is a good thing to do to governments, it's not a necessary or wise thing for Richard to do to himself.

And again, the very nature of trolling - which involves chaos and intellectual deviousness - would tend to find very devious ways to exploit any "formal" rules.

It's very obvious when someone is trolling. They know it and we all know it. Luckily, these trolls are very infrequent - in the history of this forum, there have only been one or two. The problem is, the same one or two keep coming back again and again. That might make it seem like we have a big problem with trolls - but we don't. If trolling were a major issue and it was causing confusion and problems maybe I'd take the time to formalize the definitions of a troll. But all of us know that you really have to strive to get your comment deleted here. If it weren't for our friend in Birmingham, Alabama who assaults the site on a daily basis, the topic would never come up, as you wouldn't see any deleted posts.

As long as the number of trolls remains negligible, I'd rather continue the current policy of deleting when necessary and not make them feel important by creating rules for them.

Fair enough.

I agree. My point for the rules was to curb arguments not based in reality or reason, however.

A formal set of rules would ruin the character of this site. Given the varied nature of the posters here it would be impossible to set a standard that would fit all. I just can't see trying to stuff all of us into neat little pigeonholes of behavior. While Richard and I may disagree on things - I would trust his judgement.