(I'm looking for discussion over this, of course. Not trying to step on toes. As with a code-based PR, and as something that touches the Code of Conduct for the first time in a long time, this needs consideration.)

I'd be careful about this. "Trolling" has a connotation of intentionality while some of those behaviors mentioned in the PR can come up unintentionally. I'm just checking out bevy from the outside right now and if I were trying to become a member of the community, I don't know what has already been "hashed" therefore there is a pretty significant chance I'll end up "rehashing" by accident. It would be unfortunate and inappropriate to ban someone from the community for something they did accidentally but they just so happened to step on the wrong person's toes about a topic they didn't know had already been put to rest.

Maybe instead of "What is trolling?" these could go under a section "Other behaviors to be aware of" or something.

I'd be careful about this. "Trolling" has a connotation of intentionality while some of those behaviors mentioned in the PR can come up unintentionally. I'm just checking out bevy from the outside right now and if I were trying to become a member of the community, I don't know what has already been "hashed" therefore there is a pretty significant chance I'll end up "rehashing" by accident. It would be unfortunate and inappropriate to ban someone from the community for something they did accidentally but they just so happened to step on the wrong person's toes about a topic they didn't know had already been put to rest.

Maybe instead of "What is trolling?" these could go under a section "Other behaviors to be aware of" or something.

Welcome to bevy!

An out of context ban without attempt at explanation or de-escalation is unlikely given existing moderation history. Patterns of behaviour are the key here, not curiosity or simply "being new." "Rehashing" specifically maybe belongs in the baiting section, mind.

Intentionality cannot easily be proven, but patterns of behaviour can be identified and should be considered as a way to identify a "troll." This is where I'm coming from out of informal discussions with community members and leadership, at least.

Having such a large digression in the middle of the policy is a cognitive detour; this material really should be out-of-line (that is, a hyperlink to a separate document). Unfortunately, there's no really good reference site for this - the wikipedia article focuses more on the history of trolling rather than it does on an operational definition. There are plenty of sites that answer the question "what is trolling" but they are mostly news sites or personal blogs, and I wouldn't trust those links to be stable.

Perhaps we could just say "an attempt to provoke a negative emotional reaction, or otherwise intentionally disrupt the conversation"