Controversial Topic

[Kreistor]

Long, rambling, and almost-but-not-quite interesting post about an oddly confusing possible game rule. Clearly provocative in a general manner, such that it will prompt response from someone non-specific, while seeming to be directly attacking particular individuals.

[MarbitChow]

Long, rambling, and almost-but-not-quite interesting post about an oddly confusing possible game rule.

Intentionally antagonistic response, disparaging poster's intelligence and lineage, including point-by-point responses to every element of post.

Clearly provocative in a general manner, such that it will prompt response from someone non-specific, while seeming to be directly attacking particular individuals.

Rambling tangent designed to confuse or muddle original information, and also to establish this author's imagined cleverness and insight.

[Cmdr I. Heartly Noah]

Non sequiter.

[Doktor Jones]

Non sequiter.

Baseless flame about getting off topic.

Random tangent from main topic, leading to sub-discussion of another topic.

[Cmdr I. Heartly Noah]

Over-angry response. Verbose statement of personal rights. Reference to one particular government's laws.

Statement of intent to leave and never return.

[Doktor Jones]

Over-angry response. Verbose statement of personal rights. Reference to one particular government's laws.

Bashing of specified government including accusations of rampant corruption or other faults. Generic sheep insult for following government blindly.

Statement of intent to leave and never return.

Ridicule, followed by proclamation of victory.

[Kreistor]

Demand the thread has been hijacked and must return to original topic, despite no one ever posting about it. Includes claim of ownership of thread.

[Infidel]

abbreviation that adds nothing to the topic but implies the thread will be terminated shortly.

[Cmdr I. Heartly Noah]

Predictable return in direct contradiction of own statements.

[Doktor Jones]

Snide comments about previous poster being a troll, possibly accompanied by insults to previous poster's intelligence and/or social life.

More ranting about the controversial topic. Citations of sources that do not particularly prove any points mentioned, possibly including one or two that actually seem to refute the argument.

[MarbitChow]

Request for return to civility and politeness, in order to establish poster's moral superiority.

List of discussion points being used by both sides, phrased in such a way that poster's side appears more reasonable.

[Skyrar]

Non-informed drive-by posting concerned with size of own testicles, praising said organs and stating that there is no better future than tomorrow.

[jioan]

A short one or two sentence long post that shows little understanding of the subject and reveals that they didn't read the entire topic and only did this in order to raise their post count.

[SteveMB]

Exaggerated straw-man version of opposing argument. Rhetorical questioning of whether anyone could possibly take such notions seriously.

[MarbitChow]

Exaggerated straw-man version of opposing argument. Rhetorical questioning of whether anyone could possibly take such notions seriously.

Vigorous agreement with above post, primarily to bump the topic and to appear relevant and clever.

[MarbitChow]

Immediate post to correct minor grammatical and spelling errors in previous post.

[Doktor Jones]

Immediate post to correct minor grammatical and spelling errors in previous post.

Lengthy diatribe about forum/internet etiquette.

Implication that poster's intellect is subpar for not being aware of and/or adhering to etiquette described above.

[malekith]

...primarily to bump the topic...

Upon noticing the topic after the afore mentioned bump post:
A short to medium length post of about one, one and a half paragraphs trying to portray the authors own views both on the subject and politically.
tries to tie together the two sides of the argument to come to some appeasing and altogether new middle ground and failing quite spectacularly, including references to a few historical examples from real life or famous examples of the game rule in question but failing in analysing them at all well.

Ending remark obviously showing the author's attempt to read the whole topic and prove themselves clever about the topic but being apologetic if they've offended anyone - basically opening them up for an attack from following posters

Mal

[MarbitChow]

Ending remark obviously showing the author's attempt to read the whole topic and prove themselves clever about the topic but being apologetic if they've offended anyone - basically opening them up for an attack from following posters

Immediate and vehement attack on poster.

[Kreistor]

Obvious gloat that people seem to be enjoying the thread topic.