-5

This site will of course attract many questions outside its scope, so a lot of "please read the tour" comments are left to help folks understand the scope and limitations agreed upon to keep it open as a place for manageable Q and A.

Even so, while I appreciate the Christian spirit evinced in being patient with a lot of simply bad questions, what justification is there to put up with trolls?

This, for example, is obvious troll bait since this site states clearly that each denomination is expected to have its own take on most questions that arrive. It is an invitation to "denomination wars" and IMO is the kind of troll that needs to be sent packing without further consideration. And we have another one
This one isn't even original.

8
  • 6
    I actually don't really think that question is trollish. Especially compared with what we got in the first year of this site... Apr 5 '16 at 4:23
  • 5
    Nope, that one's not a troll question.
    – curiousdannii Mod
    Apr 5 '16 at 4:58
  • @El'endiaStarman OK, as I don't have the history I accept that my perception is only through a part of the lens. Apr 5 '16 at 19:33
  • The link is broken?
    – Andrew
    Apr 5 '16 at 23:19
  • Apparently the question was withdrawn, it is mentioned in chat. Apr 5 '16 at 23:41
  • @Nathaniel Thanks. Oct 19 '16 at 11:34
  • 1
    Oh, look, we have another one Mar 29 '19 at 14:47
  • You may be onto something here Korvin!
    – Ken Graham Mod
    Jun 15 at 2:33
7

We've had more than our fair share of trolls and probably put up with some of them far longer than we should have. That being said the post you linked to doesn't seem trollish at all. A bit lazy maybe, not focused enough to be a good question maybe, but it's not a troll question. Being curious and asking about what viewpoints are out there on a topic isn't trolling. We explicitly allow overview questions asking what the spectrum of views are on a topic.

The issue with that question is they don't seem to have done much homework or put effort into framing the question which will make it very hard to answer well. Overview questions that open the scope to a broad range of theological traditions need to be narrowly focused on a specific issue to compensate and keep the overall scope in the reach of quality answers.

12
  • 1
    OK, overview questions meta has been reviewed again ... not sure my trolldar is bad, but it may need retuning for this site's norms. Apr 5 '16 at 19:34
  • As they say in the NFL, upon further review, my question stands. There is nothing wrong with my trolldar. Nov 3 '16 at 1:59
  • Further confirmation Dec 21 '16 at 13:37
  • My trolldar is alive and well. May 10 '17 at 21:01
  • @KorvinStarmast; I wish the links were working, because I am having trouble getting your point. The last link you posted is working, but I do not think your trolldar is quite calibrated yet. Besides, from what I understand, per @curiousdannii, some questions are acceptably intended to put other views on the defensive. Is this incorrect? I am confused. Aug 1 '17 at 8:34
  • 1
    @Abstractioniseverything. The first link is dead for you because the question got deleted by roomba, hence you need 10k+ reputation to view it. The second one is alive and well. And yes, questions that put views on the defensive are allowed here provided they do it with some grace. In other words questions aren't a place to host turgid polemic, but just questioning a view is fine as long as the answers are expected to represent and support the position rather than host debate over it.
    – Caleb
    Aug 1 '17 at 8:47
  • I see, and that does make sense. In fact the more I look back at my own first questions, the more I realize that I was employing the same strategy, though I prefer to just speak plainly. So, would the last link by @Korvin be considered an example of the former or the latter according to your presented criteria? I am just honestly curious. Aug 1 '17 at 9:00
  • 2
    @Abstraction Honestly I don't think either question fit anywhere on that scale. The only reason the first question was so bad is it showed no research effort at all and then tacked on a question scope of RCC without thinking about why it would matter or actually caring about who answered. It was a ploy to make an otherwise poor question fit the letter of our site guidelines without actually trying to ask a good question. The other one doesn't even sound like challenging a view so much as being inquisitive.
    – Caleb
    Aug 1 '17 at 10:05
  • 1
    It's the inquisitive seekers that I feel compelled to answer(so long as they seem sincere). Even though I already know that there question will most likely be vanquished from the site. Even if the Q is rescued by edits, or comments; the curve is difficult for new members. The queue seems short to me. Aug 2 '17 at 6:30
  • 1
    @Abstractioniseverything. Hmm, your comment about the steep learning curve for new users, which I agree with you on, finally got some action from SO/SE powers that be in the last year or so. Whether it is fit for purpose is yet to be determined. Jan 8 '20 at 23:07
  • “...finally got some action from SO/SE...” This is interesting. What exactly, has evolved here regarding SO/SE interest? Feb 29 '20 at 4:09
  • 1
    @Abstractioniseverything. The PTB have over the past few months, once they had fired Monica, tried to change the tone of a tone deaf family of sites. The results are mixed. May 25 '20 at 22:54

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .