Well I agree with you in part. Trolling (not the guidelines in the rules here) but generally is a useless term because as you say it means something different to everyone depending on their POV.
I mean I could say you were trolling me telling me when you said that openly demonstrating that I loved lemons is reason enough to give me red trust. I mean that is what most people may consider a troll. This now would per board rules be a troll. Since red trust is intended to be for scamming or strongly likely to scam.
This is why the rules drill down more and for the sake of this board and say it is more of a case of deliberate and wilful spreading of obviously fake or incorrect information. Again to me this is not as I understood trolling before but I find it to be far more useful for a forum than just a worthless different-for-each-individual term..
Spamming is not trolling to me. Spamming is certainly more defined and usually I would say linked to financial gain more than trolling. Although I guess there is crossover there.
Harassment is a BIG debate in itself and certainly not tied to trolling.
I'll avoid dragging this off topic by just addressing two differences of opinion that we have, and simply stating that because of them, our viewpoints are different. First, I disagree that red trust is intended to be solely for scamming or strongly likely to scam. I am of the opinion that the reason there aren't explicit rules for what you can and can't leave for feedback, is because needs of the users here evolve. For example, plagiarism spam is a fairly new thing, if not for the fact that it directly opposed moderation goals here, it may have been left alone in the same way that account selling is. If plagiarism spam was allowed by the rules, perhaps it would warrant negative feedback. These are decisions that individuals decide to make, and the community can either choose to agree with them or ignore them.
We also have a major difference of opinion regarding what is considered incorrect information, and willful spreading of it. Saying, I intend to buy 10,000 BTC at $10,000 each tomorrow, so buy now! If I have no intention of doing so, is about the extent of what I'd consider intentionally spreading fake information (typically for personal gain). Anything that is processed by the human brain is skewed by previous experiences, personal beliefs, whatever, and needs some sort of special consideration when you say its incorrect or willful lying. I draw these stupid analogies like with the lemons for the sake of trying to bridge as many misunderstandings as possible. Lets say I'm arguing with someone that the sky is blue, and they think its orange. They may have never seen a blue sky before, might be color blind, taught color names incorrectly, or are misunderstanding what I intended the question to mean, perhaps they think I'm talking about the evening sky. People are willing to argue over whether the earth is flat or not, if you get too involved in it, you'll waste way too much time fighting with people who really don't matter in your life.
Related to the topic at hand, these are the reasons that I think all but the most extreme cases of "trolling" don't really matter. If someone's behavior is unreasonably obstructing everyone else, they are politely asked to leave by the moderation staff by means of a ban message. Anyone that falls into any other category should be handled with an ignore button. If a person is on everyone else's ignore list, they probably should, and probably will be asked to leave. Not to make any of this personal, as I don't care about any spats you've had with other members. I perceive the motivation of your topics on the matter as having to do with them, which is why I mention it at all. You or the other parties are not currently obstructing the forum for all other uses, you are just annoying each other. That probably means that neither parties has to be asked to leave for trolling, spreading fake information, or whatever. Just use the ignore function and carry on.
The only reason I respond to topics like this at all, is because you are asking for a change in moderation policy, and I'm arguing that we need as few policies based on uncertain terms as possible. Interpersonal relationships are best not monitored by the forum staff. I'm probably biased here, but I think the rules in place are sufficient, and the tools provided to forum users are almost flexible enough to deal with any situation that doesn't require moderator action. If you are able to even understand my reasoning for the points we disagree on, even if you do disagree, that lends to my point that we'd be asking for new rules based on things that not everyone is in agreement over.
It took me about 6 minutes to write this post, I write fast and any post I spend more than 20 seconds on ends up with multiple paragraphs, check the TLDR if you don't want to read it.
TLDR: We have a difference of opinion on the qualifications for what is required to be "trolling". I disagree with asking for more rules in general for a problem that can be solved with the use of the ignore button and interpersonal skills. We've got a lot of people here, some you won't mesh with. Who cares, use the ignore button. Moderators will get the nuisances.