> Thank you for explaining your position.

We're on the internet. Is it my position?

> I don't know if I would have described that as bad faith, more like good-faith-in-disguise

It is good faith from the author's perspective, but bad faith/trolling from the reader's perspective. It, as taken from an expectation of replication of what is found outside, is deceptive. There, of course, can be no such thing as bad faith/trolling if you remove trying to see it as a reflection of outside.

So, as the earlier comments are taken from the reader's perspective, it is what is labelled bad faith. But I too get what you're saying.