This is a really complex issue, because the policy has to toe the line between censorship and a welcoming environment. Something to start with, there are (in my mind) two main types of trolling:
- Negative trolling
- Witty trolling
Negative trolling is obviously a bad thing and it's what we generally think of with this concept, but trolling from the perspective of wit is something that can actually add value to communication. Some examples of this might be meme responses, sarcasm, etc. How do you preserve that while still dealing with the people that are intentionally baiting bad discussions?
My personal opinion is that negative trolling is bad for forum discussion regardless of how "funny" that troll might be. Not only is the troll producing content specifically designed to annoy people, not only does trolling perpetuate relatively negative conversations that get nowhere, but it eventually makes people start doubting each other. The idea of "not sure if troll" is not conducive to positive dialogue, and it makes it a lot harder for both players and Rioters to interact.
The really difficult part of dealing with the concept of trolling is finding the line I mentioned earlier. At what point does commenting become trolling, and at what point does trolling become damaging? How do you regulate it without the system feeling unfair or not being aggressive enough? What if someone is intentionally right at the edge but never crossing, or subtle enough that they just seem misguided?
Here are some example situations, how would you want them to be handled?
- User makes a thread about getting banned and responds to comments somewhat aggressively
- User makes a thread about a controversial issue (abortion, politics, etc.) that pulls in lots of argument
- User makes multiple threads on a variety of controversial topics that look like bait
- User consistently discusses one particular issue from a heavily misguided perspective