Those are great points as well.I agree for the most part. However, specifically with regard to the Post-To-Review count, my opinion is that it should only be considered a secondary qualification. There are valid reasons to have a low review count. Examples include those who have very limited discretionary funds for the hobby or those who have very limited time available for the hobby.
A few more definitions of a troll:
1. High post count (1000+) and low review count (<20).
2. The posts he does make give little or no intel about the hobby other than to provide the intel of his agenda.
3. Tells stories that he cannot back up with facts mainly to get attaboys/fit in with the clique; a) how great a provider's BCD skills are or are not, yet no review of her on his profile. b) throws out baseless accusations as fact, hoping that his speculative theories will rub off on others so they repeat them too.
Too bad this thread cannot be a sticky! Originally Posted by Wile E Coyote
Someone who legitimately attempts to participate on the boards and attempts to give helpful and insightful information pertinent to the Hobby or to other valid discussions on here, but who has only the 'not enough reviews' strike against them doesn't really fall into the 'Troll-Tard' category in my opinion.
I'd be interested to hear y'alls thoughts on this particular issue.