Is Trolling and bad behaviour monitor and controlled on this forum?

There is a case to be made that insisting on alternative facts is trolling.

The person who believes fairy tales to be literally true and posts them as real and true will eventually encounter respondents who point out the falsehoods being posted for what they are. The responses will be rational and will point out documented facts that are contrary to and reveal the myths for the falsehoods they are. At some point, despite being given every reasonable opportunity to see the false posts for what they are, the myth-believer is shown to be willfully ignorant. Continued posting of the same falsehoods as real-world truths has a predictable outcome. Those posts serve only to disrupt an otherwise productive discussion. Posting falsehoods to be intentionally disruptive is trolling.

As to the question of whether or not such behavior should be actionable, that gets to the heart of the kind of forum community being built, here. It's been made clear that DPRevived will not be a place where it's common practice for members to be banned. That doesn't mean admins have to be without options to respond to members whose participation often has a negative influence.

For example, I've suggested that a flag tool be added allowing an admin or facilitator to flag a post in a thread as being a factually accurate response to the question raised by the OP. It's basically the DPRevived seal of approval. If this were put into effect, admins and facilitators would have a tool they could use to call attention to a particularly useful and accurate response. If admins have the authority to unflag a post, that allows for corrective action should a post of questionable value be flagged.

It's a practice that would address the issue of the member who repeatedly posts alternative facts in response to basic questions. It addresses this issue by allowing a correct answer to be flagged as such. It also would encourage and reward members for posting accurate useful responses to questions. It wouldn't be used in every thread nor would every useful response be flagged. Even if the flag tool were only used in threads where one or more members insist on promulgating known false beliefs, it would serve a productive purpose. And it would do so in a civil manner. Nobody's being called out for posting myths and falsehoods. It's just calling attention to an accurate and useful response.

Correction is not the only available option. There's also the path of rewarding and encouraging good behavior. Give admins and facilitators a flag tool that can be used to shine a spotlight on a response that is both accurate and useful. Sometimes the best response to a post that promulgates falsehoods is to let it die in the shadows. If you want to create a shadow, add a light. Use the flag tool as a light that calls attention to good behavior while putting bad behavior in the shadows. It doesn't have to be used on every thread or even on every useful response. Even if the flag tool is used sparingly - only in threads where one or more members are promoting false beliefs as truthful accurate representations, it serves a purpose...to call attention of accurate, useful responses.

Bill wrote: It also would encourage and reward members for posting accurate useful responses to questions.

My girlfriend used to flip burgers for “Rotten Ronnie's” back in the day, and was rewarded on more than one occasion.
Every month McDonald's gives the title of “Employee of the month” to the person who has impressed the heart of the managers. As a reward for this great achievement, they present a gift box to the employee. It is a cool gift box and holds enough to make one happy. lol

By DPR standards good Andy should be banned by now 😂

Perhaps a the ability to assign a bright red message "Identified troll - Do not feed or encourage" to an individual's posts would be useful. As always, there will be boundary situations, but I think there's one poster in the Mako thread for whom the message is clearly appropriate.
Sherm

That's a tough one to prove. The "who intentionally" part. Someone a little on the sensitive side thinks everyone is out to get them, so everything is "intentional". Paranoid about it even. Someone who doesn't like the dialogue, à la Andy for one, will throw out the troll word to distract.

And it's a bit of a stretch to assume "derogatory or insulting language" is "hostility" and then by extension "hostility" is "trolling"

It's usually pretty obvious though. Brand new user goes into Nikon forum, makes first and only post that says "Nikon sucks, Canon great" then disappears while 500 posts of anger follow. Troll admires his handywork from afar. This make be the extreme, but most obvious trolling follows this pattern somewhat.

I always assumed back in the days when "trolling" became a term on Usenet that it was an analogy to someone with a fishing line and a lure behind a boat, as if someone was disingenuously trying to elicit responses as an end in itself, for entertainment, and not doing what a troll under a bridge might be doing, which is less specific and more about just being socially ugly in a forum, which seems to be its current usage with many people.

I've seen lots of those. Someone would come into the Nikon DSLR Fx forum and say DSLRs are dead. (which may or may not be true) I'd look at their profile, they hadn't posted in 6 years, and this was their first post in this forum. I'd write a reply asking how come after 6 years without posts that this was important enough for you to make this your first post in the Nikon DSLR Fx forum? I'd get a warning from the mod, my post pulled.

So blatantly obvious, but as has been beaten to death here, mods chose their own interpretation of what the issue was. I've went astray from your point :), but an opportunity to stick it in there. :)

But that is different, models vs. reality. We still base those models on what we believe are facts.

While a scientific model is theoretical, the objective observed data are "facts" explained and predicted by the model.

It's a fact that, on a given date at a given time, the shadows cast by vertical poles at different latitudes will have different lengths. The model that explained this observable fact in Eratosthenes' time was that the Earth is spherical in shape. Today, we have the technology to observe Earth from a great enough distance to directly document this physical quality of our home planet. Twenty-three hundred years ago, Eratosthenes didn't have that option. But he could coordinate a team of observers to measure the lengths of the shadows cast by vertical poles on the same date at the same time. The data gathered (facts collected) were best explained by a spherical Earth model. That model could also be used to predict the lengths of the shadows cast by a vertical pole at a given latitude on some future date & time.

If the reasons for assigning it are limited, then I'd be surprised if I didn't know. At least I would be able to contact the relevant admin people, which in DPR was limited (for sandbox) or absent entirely (for bans). Beyond that, it's a warning for people to respond to the troller (?) at their own risk.