Canadian Politics Today

I don't 'got you'.  I am not trying to fight with you.  You said this:

"Any precise and prevailing definition on MLW trolling should be in the board rules for reference. "

I thought there was indeed a definition, so I went over there and found one.  And then I posted it.  And you came back with the retort above.

We are now on the first steps of an arc that I now remember.  It goes like this:

1. You say something.
2. I explain it.
3. You don't acknowledge the explanation, and come up with some more snark.
4. Go to 1.

I now remember many such conversations, that I just had to eventually not respond to because they went nowhere.  Nobody owes you an explanation.  And if you're never going to be satisfied anyway, why should I try to give you one ?  And why would you keep the conversation going unless you're just doing a meta-troll ?  There's no end to it.

ahhh, there it is --- classic MLW moderation on display! I respond to you and... I'm a meta-troll. Clearly you felt so emboldened coming back with that fluff-piece that exists within the MLW rules. As I said, it was oft referred to and was/is a piece of nothingness in the face of MLW's failed moderation. The, as you say, "arc" I remember is your explanations had no foundation when balanced against the way ChasMan metered out his MLW moderation drama. But ya, ya... your words also strike a recall with me - the "nobody owes you an explanation" was often pulled from the MLWmoderationQuiver and delivered to questioning members! 

don't respond... or I'll label you a "meta-troll"!

Firstly, there is this concept called "boil the ocean".  It refers to tasks that are too arduous to warrant their undertaking.  One can't come up with an exhaustive lists of behaviours that would be considered trolling.  Any list you could come up with, that listed specific examples, would be very long and would always be incomplete.  And even then, the subjective decision of a moderator would still be required.

You didn't like the decisions of the moderators, that is clear.  But sometimes you have to accept that moderators just don't agree with you.

"don't agree... with... me"? With me? How dismissive you are of the dozens of other MLW members who kept the profile of failed MLW moderation going across the many, many threads that showcased just how unexplained and inconsistent MLW's forced ChasMan moderation drama was.

Yes.  This response is typical.  I respond to you, and the bar moves.  You say "there's no written rule", and I produce it, and you just come back with more.  This is how it is with you.

no - I purposely qualified my statement as, "precise and prevailing"... would you like me to quote it for you? As I've repeated now several times, that "definition" was often referred to in moderationDramaThreads as one needing attention given it's LACK of preciseness in the face of it NOT being representative of the prevailing shyte-house MLW moderation. But ya, your response is typical - you think you've responded... and you haven't actually done so in relation to what actually transpired; in this case, what I actually said. And, apparently, because I had the audacity to respond to your non-response, you label me a meta-troll and state I've moved the bar. Clearly, you're a purrrfect match-made for MLW moderation.

Some changes happened.  I don't expect that you would understand that, or observe it, or that the result would satisfy you anyway.

really - must be since my time, hey! Care to relate said changes... inquiring unsatisfied minds need to know just how, as you stated, "the site continues"!

You can reflect on what that means for you - you don't have the board anymore at all... so...

my choice, right? And, again... if you dare to respond to me, I'll call you a, as you just did to me, meta-troll!