70% would mean they should be kept an eye on. 60% should determine being a troll. And only in the questions and answers. Since my moderation percentage hasn't been upped yet after flagging Nic_c

I would say around 50%, anything above that can be improved (for example, when I was lvl 1-10, I had a average 64% for most of the time before I realized I was being a dunce and not giving positive points)

I don't think it's as straightforward as the percentage level of positive ratings. I know of several users of this site who often find themselves defending their faith against unprovoked attacks from bigots. Their percentage level of positive ratings is lower than average, but the number of times they explain their down-rates in comments is high. I would suggest that in these cases the troll is not the down-rater, but the writer of a deliberately provocative question or answer is.

I'd agree with SOMEONE at around 70% would be the red flag line.

I guess for me below 70% takes a looking into but I would also check what kinds of questions they answer and what kind do they ask. Some people are not generous or are quick to take offense without being a full-blown troll. THey may not be attention seeking or trouble-makers which I think trolls tend to be.

The +ratings given percentage isn't accurate for determining if someon is a troll. By definition, a troll would want to be known by the person they are trolling, so they would likely make a comment or ask an offensive question than just downrate. Also, a person can have a low +rg percentage and not necessarily be a troll.

I do not concur with judging a person to be a troll based solely on this number. There are a few mitigating factors that many have forgotten: Some of these people are new members who have not yet learned that by downrating trolls they make the trolls happy. Many new members downrate the trolls for all they can give and this throws their percentages off. Another factor is these percentages do not reflect the members who comment when they downrate. To me, if a person downrates and comments, that means that they are not a troll. I take into account the member, en entiris before I think they are a troll.

I have chased after trolls myself and done a lot of downrating. Still my percentage is 91%. It's hard for me to imagine how someone could get down to 60% or less without having a very heavy finger. Generally speaking, if you downrate someone and leave a comment, then that is not trolling. However, in my experience, I rarely receive a comment when I am downrated. It's usually a mystery. So I don't think that the majority of downraters leave comments. The first thing I think when I see I have been downrated for no apparent reason is "troll". And there are also different definitions of what one might call a troll. Some say it's downrating without leaving comments and others say it is only those who run around asking inflammatory questions naming users, or insulting people. Here's the thing about negative ratings without comments, you're basically communicating to another person "I don't like what you said", or 'I don't like you'. There's no way of knowing what they are thinking. I think of this as being a cowardly thing to do and being very self serving on the downraters behalf. It's almost says, I am thinking of no one but myself. And to me, that would be a troll.

85% or higher or you start having big ears and take to living under a bridge, you know what I mean?

I don't think that a sole look at %+ given is an accurate way to decide that someone is a troll. For example: Bob Baylock he has a terrible +% rating. Something just under 30% or the like. He in my opinion is not a troll. He asks questions and gives very insightful answers. Heck, he even has a sense of humor if you look at enough of his stuff! I do not know Bob very well, but I respect him reguardless of his %+ given. I don't think he is wrong for beeing frugal with his points, after all he is a grown up and can give, take, or ignore points as he wishes. For me, trolling has to do with going around doing a few of the following: ~malicously downrating questions for no reason ~leaving comments to bait people into arguments ~asking offensive questions *Sometimes: asking without tact* ~~Sometimes a question may be borderline offensive depending on who is reading it, and sometimes all that is needed is some carefull wording.~~

You made the troll list didn't you?

I don't think that if someone's percentage is low, that that does not necessarily mean that they are a troll.

Unknown. More variables are needed to accurately determine the outcome of this equation. For example, Normie New Guy Gives 1 of 1 negative rating, he's 0% +. Offenders on the known a-hole list, roll through AB Land 10 nights in a row asking offensive questions and an established user DR's them every time they asked an offensive question, that brings the % + ratings down considerably. (BTW, I gave you +4. One of the trolls didn't care for your question - go figure.)

I don't even know what being a "troll" is....yes I know that I'm clueless.

Over a period of a week: 60 - 74: keep an eye on them 40 - 59: mild troll most likely 30 - 39: moderate troll most likely 10 - 29: severe troll most likely 0 - 9: total troll most likely There are exceptions to this rule.