Trolling warning?

[Giant Speck]

Early this morning, I received a warning for this post.

The warning was apparently for "trolling" and I was notified by the moderator that my post was "designed to further inflame".

I'm a bit confused as to how the post was considered trolling, as the post was nothing more than an observation of Canonical's practices, albeit a negative one. Is criticizing Canonical considered trolling?

Additionally, I had already contributed positively to the thread and it was the only interaction I've had with the person whom I quoted. Whom am I presumed to have been trolling and where are the posts that suggest I was further inflaming?

I ask mainly because I haven't received an infraction in over two years and this just seemed kind of random.

[coffeecat]

Your other posts in this thread were certainly unexceptional which made the post that was jailed stand out all the more. Commenting on a regression is not problematic, but the post in question comes across as sarcastic. Did you really intend to mean that Canonical is deliberately inhibiting function in gnome classic in order to "force" people to use Unity? That's an extraordinary assertion, hardly just an "observation of Canonical's practices."

A discussion about the many possible causes of a regression would be useful, but suggesting that there is some hidden agenda behind the regression is simply FUD unless you have good evidence for this.

Let's put this in context. Experience shows that comments such as yours have the real potential to stir up dissension and sour a thread. Hence the the use of the word trolling. Last year, the staff were forced to formulate a three strikes and you're out policy for trolling because the level of trolling - not just about Unity - had begun to sour the whole forum. The policy has been effective. Normally, a strike 1 would be one infraction point. You were given only a warning, which is used to remind members of the forum rules, and this seems fair in the circumstances.

[Giant Speck]

Thank you for your reply.

I can completely understand the rationale behind the moderation style you elaborated on in your post. I was merely confused by the language of the warning, as it made it sound as though this was a recurring problem the moderation staff had with me specifically.

If anything, I would just like to say that I did not intend to incite an unnecessary heated discussion and had no intention to troll anyone; I was simply venting some built-up frustration on the subject.

I will tread more lightly next time.