# In regards to our "No Trolling" rule



## Null (Mar 9, 2014)

I know the forums have lost their rules, and I'm going to correct that in the next patch I'm creating for the boards, but they _do_ still apply.

One of the rules people don't seem to understand is the "No Trolling" rule. Even our very own paintingatree once said...


> IF this was NOT a Trolling Forum, you all would NOT be talking at all about Christian. The more you talk about him, AND bother him in ANY Communications, AND take his words and content without permission or consent, THE MORE YOU BASTARDS ARE SO TROLLING AND CYBER-BULLYING!!!



Good point, paintingatree! Why do we have a rule about not involving ourselves with the people we talk about, if we do actually discuss them in the manner we do? The answer is simple: it's for your own good.

_As far as I am aware_, prodding people into doing stuff by posting videos and sending harmless messages is not illegal, so the rule doesn't exist to cover the staff's ass. No, it exists for very different reason: you're probably going to fuck up. In your valiant effort for  epik ween  , you're going to release your own information and get shit on by other people.

It's also, in my experience, true that the same people who are perpetuating these plans are often vicious try-hards. Lets say we have an instance where an obese, Amazing Atheist look-alike tries to rustle the jimmies of a semi-retarded hick by using the oh-so-inspired method of mimicking videos, a la the impostor in brown. Lets say that this plan gets exposed because they used the same name on their forum account as they did on the videos in question. Lets say that another group of Internet denizens discover these cringe-inducing attempts at trolling and also begins looking into this person.

What we have here is a backfire. Not only have they exposed themselves, but they've embarrassed the community. People will see the forums and think, "Oh, it's the ween factory that produces horrible troll videos." That's not what I want. I have a good collection of people here and I want representations to be positive. I want interactions with outside groups to be positive. There's no reason for this bad blood to spill forth and the only appropriate answer is to cauterize the wound.


So, in short, the No Trolling rule is handled in a case-by-case basis, but anything requiring more effort than a few clicks is well into the danger zone. There are instances where we have people doing little things like posting with Wikia accounts to irritate Moleman9000. That's not so bad, and it can be productive to actually seeing Moleman get riled up. But when we have such exuberant amounts of effort going into something ultimately worthless and unfunny there's no excuse.


----------



## Holdek (Mar 9, 2014)

So basically the rule is in addition to not discussing your trolling plans in advance here, "No weening."


----------



## Null (Mar 9, 2014)

Holdek said:


> So basically the rule is in addition to not discussing your trolling plans in advance here, "No weening."


Basically I want to discourage any sort of "trolling" because 99% of the time it's going to be an over-the-top tryhard attempt that flunks completely. I'll _"turn a blind eye"_ to subtle efforts that are effective, but that is the exception, not the rule.


----------



## A-Stump (Mar 9, 2014)

I've seen a lot of discussion about stuff like that. Trying to get a little kid to do drugs is the most nonsensical thing I've ever seen.


----------



## Stuff and Things (Mar 9, 2014)

A-Stump said:


> I've seen a lot of discussion about stuff like that. Trying to get a little kid to do drugs is the most nonsensical thing I've ever seen.



Autism


----------



## Holdek (Mar 9, 2014)

A-Stump said:


> I've seen a lot of discussion about stuff like that. Trying to get a little kid to do drugs is the most nonsensical thing I've ever seen.


What?


----------



## Joey Jo-Jo Junior (Mar 9, 2014)

Holdek said:


> What?





PvtRichardCranium said:


> "A link to a petition to get Sammy to do drugs"[Removed by request]
> Petitions involving Sammy have no result.
> 
> Let's change that.


----------



## Pikonic (Mar 9, 2014)

Eh, these people got lulzy without my help. I'll respond to them if they come here, but I won't go out of my way to rile them up.

Speaking on rules, I think the lolcow board should have a "Children and the  severely mentally handicapped are not lolcows" I remember not too long ago we had a few lolcow threads locked because we learned the person was actually mentally challenged.


----------



## Null (Mar 9, 2014)

Pikonic said:


> Eh, these people got lulzy without my help. I'll respond to them if they come here, but I won't go out of my way to rile them up.
> 
> Speaking on rules, I think the lolcow board should have a "Children and the  severely mentally handicapped are not lolcows" I remember not too long ago we had a few lolcow threads locked because we learned the person was actually mentally challenged.


Yeah, I'm currently coding an add-on for XenForo that'll allow me to place rules on nodes again as they appeared before. I'll be revisiting these docs as the time comes.


----------



## CWCissey (Mar 10, 2014)

Null said:


> Yeah, I'm currently coding an add-on for XenForo that'll allow me to place rules on nodes again as they appeared before. I'll be revisiting these docs as the time comes.



Will SammyClassicSonicFan be considered an exception to the 'Children are not Lolcows' thing?


----------



## Holdek (Mar 10, 2014)

Pikonic said:


> Eh, these people got lulzy without my help. I'll respond to them if they come here, but I won't go out of my way to rile them up.
> 
> Speaking on rules, I think the lolcow board should have a "Children and the  severely mentally handicapped are not lolcows"...



We don't want to preclude high functioning man-children though.


----------



## Pikonic (Mar 10, 2014)

Holdek said:


> We don't want to preclude high functioning man-children though.


Never


----------



## TL 611 (Mar 10, 2014)

One issue I've had with the whole "no children or real mentally handicapped people" rule is no matter how you look at it, _the majority fit under that category_. Are we not allowed to discuss crazy gale any more? Or Sammy? Or nick bate? Or moleman9000 (I assume he's retarded)?


----------



## A-№1 (Mar 10, 2014)

I don't think the rule is: "children and mentally handicapped people can't be lolcows," because clearly some are. I think it's that there has to be something more to them than just being young or just being stupid that makes them lolcow material, and generally that has to be something they have some control over.  In other words, a ten year old child posting pictures that a ten year old child would draw is not a lolcow.  They are just being ten years old.  But a ten year old child who writes an incredibly bad Mary Sue epic and gets her doting parents to try to vanity publish an entire media empire out of it, viciously attacking all critics on the way, is not being a typical ten year old, and is worthy of attention here.


----------



## Null (Mar 10, 2014)

Yeah, it's not a strict rule, but like, trying to ridicule someone who obviously has downs or something is just really creepy and sad. We had one woman that was like, 30-something and shipping herself with Disney princes. She had an IQ of like 60 and was just underdeveloped. It didn't feel justifiable.


----------



## A-Stump (Mar 10, 2014)

I thought you were talking about Disneyfan01 at first and was worried, because that's one of my favorite threads


----------



## LM 697 (Mar 10, 2014)

A-№1 said:


> I don't think the rule is: "children and mentally handicapped people can't be lolcows," because clearly some are. I think it's that there has to be something more to them than just being young or just being stupid that makes them lolcow material, and generally that has to be something they have some control over.  In other words, a ten year old child posting pictures that a ten year old child would draw is not a lolcow.  They are just being ten years old.  But a ten year old child who writes an incredibly bad Mary Sue epic and gets her doting parents to try to vanity publish an entire media empire out of it, viciously attacking all critics on the way, is not being a typical ten year old, and is worthy of attention here.



They're also ten years old. Let the kid grow up a bit, then you can go ahead and torment them for being an autistic loser.


----------



## Carlson (Mar 11, 2014)

If I'm interpreting it correctly, the "severely handicapped" rule basically means not to mock people who are so badly disabled that they legitimately don't have any chance to view the world in a normal way. Chris was warped mainly by years of poor parenting mixed with autism (not even very bad autism), but he's not _actually_ retarded or mentally ill as far as we can tell, at least not enough to be considered truly disabled and unable to properly process reality. He could learn and improve, and mostly chooses not to. Someone who's literally more mentally retarded than Forrest Gump who writes a porn fic isn't really being a lolcow.


----------



## A-№1 (Mar 11, 2014)

CompyRex said:


> They're also ten years old.


But their parents aren't. The specific example I was referring to isn't so much a lolcow as a lolfamily.



> Let the kid grow up a bit, then you can go ahead and torment them for being an autistic loser.


Who said anything about tormenting them?  No trolling plans.  But that brings up another part of what makes a lolcow: they don't need to be trolled.  Leave them alone to their own devices and they create torments for themselves.  If you have to harrass someone to be amused by them, then they're not a lolcow, and you are Doing It Wrong.



Carlson said:


> If I'm interpreting it correctly, the "severely handicapped" rule basically means not to mock people who are so badly disabled that they legitimately don't have any chance to view the world in a normal way.


That's part of the requirement that their problems be something they have control over. Chris _could_ get his shit together; he just doesn't.  A woman with a 60 IQ really can't.


----------



## Holdek (Mar 11, 2014)

Nobody's ever accused me of being a champion of good taste but this is one of those rules where if you can't understand it it's probably meant for you.


----------



## Bgheff (Mar 11, 2014)

"children and mentally handicapped people can't be lolcows"  I agree with this.  Now, keep in mind aspergers isn't real, so people to claim to have it are prime lolcow material.  As for the trolling part, I thing most people here should not attempt to troll.  Most of the attempts are rather embarrassing to see.  I know personally I would never troll anyone, and I think that's the line we should all strive for.


----------



## CatParty (Mar 11, 2014)

aspegers is a prerequisite for mockery


----------



## LM 697 (Mar 11, 2014)

People with aspergers or autism shouldn't be trolled.

They should be found, beaten, and murdered.


----------



## Silver (Mar 11, 2014)

Bgheff said:


> Now, keep in mind aspergers isn't real, so people to claim to have it are prime lolcow material.



Well, it's not a thing anymore. But diagnoses made before the DSM-5 was a thing tend to stick in people's minds - I say I have Asperger's because that's what I was diagnosed with and so it's the term I've used ever since, even if saying I have autism spectrum disorder is now correct by the DSM-5.


----------



## Dollars2010 (Mar 11, 2014)

[insert name here] is a cool guy and a great friend, and they need your support and guidance. Don't abandon them.


----------



## Holdek (Mar 11, 2014)

CatParty said:


> aspegers is a prerequisite for mockery



Slanderous mockeries.


----------



## Holdek (Mar 11, 2014)

CompyRex said:


> People with aspergers or autism shouldn't be trolled.
> 
> They should be found, beaten, and murdered.


Reported 

to Federal Bureau of Investigation.


----------



## BiggerJ (Apr 27, 2014)

Altissimo said:


> Well, it's not a thing anymore. But diagnoses made before the DSM-5 was a thing tend to stick in people's minds - I say I have Asperger's because that's what I was diagnosed with and so it's the term I've used ever since, even if saying I have autism spectrum disorder is now correct by the DSM-5.


Yes, this. Just because someone still uses the term 'Asberger's' doesn't mean they're using it as an excuse for shitty behavior.


----------



## Holdek (Apr 28, 2014)

BiggerJ said:


> Yes, this. Just because someone still uses the term 'Asberger's' doesn't mean they're using it as an excuse for shitty behavior.


Ya for that they use the term "High Functioning Autistic."


----------

