Thanks jdporter. Just so I'm clear, IIUC you're saying the policy (irrespective of the Policy) is that a reply in a ten-year old thread by an anonymonk like:
The personal attacks on the OP are remarkably stupid, vile, and hypocritical. Who are any of you s**tstains to call him or her a jerk? Most of the people who commented are useless scum, but Brian D Foy is actually a person of note, yet writes stuff like "jerks like you" and "the new braindead megaphones" -- ah, so *some* newcomers are to be coddled but others are to be viciously attacked. This is all virtue signalling by the emotionally immature. Compare to the sensible, useful comment from ikegami. He provides some useful cautions for potential users of this module, as does the OP.where the poster is crudely expressing his righteous indignation about something that was actually said, is trolling, and thus can and should be considered, whilst a reply by a high-ranking monk like:
so emotional, clever trolling!may *not* be considered for troll-feeding.
But at least the latter, which surely is the only example of "trolling" from among the pair, *may* be considered for trolling itself. And, may it also separately be considered because it is a node with no parent *and* adds no value?
(Side note about that last part. As related by footpad, one of the guiding principles is that we don't want to "change history," which I presume is why reaping is not automatically performed cascadingly. But reaping anything obviously changes history, so, um, yeah. Shouldn't that prime directive be changed to "we don't want to have nodes with no value?" That's what actually happens anyway, plus a soupçon of favouritism ...
Anyway I'm glad I may continue to consider posts like the latter above, on the grounds that it is trolling, in isolation from the post it may or may not have been replying to.