Strict Rule System: Highly Capable Trolls wage a war of system gaming for their own amusement, tearing down the system is enough for them
Loose Rules System: System devours itself as every two-bit troll tries to achieve the above and turns up the volume regardless of community/moderator debate and goal post changing.
We're trying to shoe horn ideologically, diametrically opposed factions with pre-confirmed OOC bias into a debate chamber moderated by individuals who though rightly 'neutral' in their actions are every bit as human and subject to realtime, instant judgement as the rest of us. Expecting an exemplar solution from our current mod team, as much as I put a lot of faith in them, is unfair and a calcified set of rules will serve only to give the more capable trolls some solid targets for their activities in their aim to antagonise under the guise of 'fair play'.
I am not stating that Slave Holders are trolls, though it is an example for trolling (from the pro and against camps). What I am trying to state is the very subjectivity of trolling, and the fact that we need a consensus on 'acceptable behaviour' in the Summit, is going to drive a wedge with factions regardless, due to the fact that a polarising element such as indentured human labour will only be sustainable when those with a minimum of contact with the channel and a high degree of public decorum, thick skin and no prior IC experience with the 'horrors' of such a system enter the channel. The sad truth is, a vast majority of us cannot handle putting on our Sunday best, and a small minority of us are going to exploit this fact to their relish and our anguish.
Should we come up with concrete metrics for 'what is trolling' I guarantee we will be having this discussion again the moment someone with the wit and contacts to back up their position calls the system in question once more. This time with a point by point deconstruction of the concrete rules to build his/her riposte and subsequent actions within said system on.
My suggestion is a 100% transparency system. Anonymous reporting, whilst suitable for delayed time mediums such as Backstage, are not sustainable due to the perception of 'victimisation by mods' in a real time medium. Retrospective, simple, curt responses to grievances should be submitted with the names of complainants, offenders and officiating mods alike to demonstrate the entirety of the moderation process in a simple 5 minute report would do much to dispel the myth and discourage the potential reality of moderator bias. I appreciate people want anonymity in their reporting procedure, and I wish I could say our community is mature enough to do without such a measure, but the sad fact is that by and large, this community is not. Accountability from complainant, through defendant, to judge and jury is, imo, the only way to basically say don't fight the mod, question the entire system, including your actions, that led to this event.
That is my two pence, full disclosure of names and the systems deployed to execute the law of mod, or a constant circle of iterative system forming as the old (solid or subjective) systems become out dated or torn down by the efforts of those who take relish in subverting the system.
Note I say this as a relative outsider now, due to my disinterest in 'tolerating other's cultures' outside of culture specific venues. Personally I feel that the Summit asks too much and is asked to do too many things - it is heaving at the seams with suppressed friction and possesses a gooey center of conformists and peace-makers that I (ICly) have no truck with. OOCly I respect the vaunted goals of the Summit, the efforts of it's moderator team, but feel that it is trying to be all things to all people - an effort doomed to repeat this cycle of recrimination and anger time and time again.