I don't understand engaging with trolls.

@DrewDad,

What was the subject here again?

I started a thread such as this, with specific reference to a particular troll. I got some flack about it, but if one member had not taken it upon himself to link the thread, the subject would never have known of it. Even then, he didn't stick around, because all he comes here for is the attention he gets, and he wasn't getting it in that thread. I confess to having fed this troll briefly after starting that thread, but not for long--there's just nothing interesting there.

But there is an almost irresistable fascination with watching these sorts of online train wrecks--almost irresistable. Recently, i've taken a resolution not to feed one particular troll, and it's holding up. I've found that when i've really resolved not to read someone's posts, i have no problem with it, but i think your advice to put them on ignore is the best. That avoids the temptation, which can sometimes prove irresistable.

Sadly, this likely won't be the last thread of its kind.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I think I know which particular poster you are referring to.

And I guess he could be defined as a troll, as a result of his multiple threads. I have no idea of whether he is starting any new ones these days, because I became extremely tired of the "new posts" lists being cluttered up with his non-stop postings & put him on "ignore"for that reason. The clutter factor.

So, he may well be one variety of troll. But on the credit side, his "trolling" is limited to his own threads. (God knows why so many here apparently find them so fascinating that they keep responding to him, but they do. Confused

)
But at least his activities are restricted to his own threads. Which are easily ignored.

But the sort of "trolling" which concerns me far more is the variety I've already referred to. Those who take over & deliberately derail previously interesting discussions with sometimes inane repetitive argumentative posts, purely for the purpose (or so it seems) of switching off most previous participants & getting up people's noses.
I sometimes wonder why other posters continue to respond to them with intelligent comments, which are generally ignored, followed by further dubious repetitive posts which go on seemingly forever. Neutral

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Is there anything wrong with arguing or people who like to argue?

No or No.

msolga wrote:

It's the quality of the argument that counts!

hawkeye10 wrote:

I agree, but I know a lot of people who think that all arguing is bad,
usually these being the same people who think that we can criminalize conflict
and thus get rid of it. Humans are both cooperative and combative, arguing is not a character flaw.

"Arguments shed lite,
whereas quarrels shed heat."

"Argument consists of the piecing together of evidentiary fact,
in combination with the ordinary rules of logic and rhetoric. "
authors unknown (to me)

David

0 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

But some people (not naming names) seem to enjoy arguing endlessly.... long after they have anything new to say .... simply for the sake of arguing.

I have known attorneys, after lengthy motion argument,
back n forth at trial, to be exhausted
and say: "that 's all I have to say; just make your ruling."

David

0 Replies

@msolga,

What all of those trolls have in common in an obsession with one, or at most a few, subjects. In the case of the first person referred to, he is himself the subject about which he obsesses, and hence all the threads he starts about himself.

But those who want to make everything, no matter how unrelated it may be, about their hobby horse, their obsession, are actually more pernicious, because they ruin other people's threads. It's only the people here who are troupers, old hands, who can ignore them and get the discussion on track. An example i can think of, which probably can be safely used because it has been so long since he posted here, would be Zippo. Zippo only ever wanted to discuss the unmitigated evil of the United States, or that the Jews are the ultimate source of all evil. He mostly started his own whacked out threads, but if he did show up in any other thread, it was with the intention of turning the thread into a discussion of how all evil emenates from the United States, or from the Jews.

He's actually not that good of an example, though, because he so rarely derailed other peoples' threads, and was so easily ignored when he did. To construct an exemplary troll without naming anyone now active, the example would be someone who stomps into a thread shouting: "How can you whine about the whales when millions of unborn babies are murdered every year ? ! ? ! ?" and then stomps off to another thread to shout: "How can you chatter on about drunk driving when millions of unborn babies are murdered every year ? ! ? ! ?" and then hurrying off to a thread about political candidates to ask how people can waste their time on such a discussion when millions of unborn babies are murdered every year.

I'd have to say that those obsessive idiots are the worst, because they drag their obsessive-compulsive disorder into other discussions and **** all over the thread.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I agree with the merit of your expressed position.
However, I remember (while innocently engaging on a thread),
being asked a question on the topic of my obsession,
or having a cutting remark uttered in reference thereto.
This happened more than once.

I coud have indignantly said:
"I refuse to reply to your question because it is fully or partially off topic"
but I ofen had a little fun answering it, intending presently to return to the actual topic.

I got stomped on for doing that (not the questioner).
U will say that I deserved it.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

No, i'd only say that if you were airing your obsession when it was not germane to the discussion, then the criticism was merited. I don't recall that i've ever called for anyone to be "stomped on."

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Well, if a poster questions me directly about it,
then that kinda makes it germane to the discussion, but still off topic.

The stomping was sua sponte.
I never really minded; I can counter-stomp.

David

0 Replies

That's an inappropriate use of sua sponte.

You seem either to have failed to understand my position, or to be willfully avoiding its implications. If someone is discussing climate change, and you bring up gun control, that's trolling with your obsession. It wouldn't matter if someone else thought to twit you with a reference to gun control, it still wouldn't be germane, and in fact, they'd be trolling, in which case your best response would be to ignore them. If you did respond, then you'd be abetting the derailment of the thread.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

That's an inappropriate use of sua sponte.

The stomping was not the result of conspiracy.
It was spontaneous.

Setanta wrote:

You seem either to have failed to understand my position, or to be willfully avoiding its implications.
If someone is discussing climate change, and you bring up gun control, that's trolling with your obsession.

That 's obvious.

Setanta wrote:

It wouldn't matter if someone else thought to twit you with a reference to gun control,
it still wouldn't be germane,

It WOUD be germane to the discussion (because of the question;
indeed, the questioner might have been the author of the thread),
but not to the designated topic.

Setanta wrote:

and in fact, they'd be trolling, in which case your best response would be to ignore them.
If you did respond, then you'd be abetting the derailment of the thread.

I 'll concede that point.
Historically, I expected the digressions to be slight & brief.
Thay did not always work out that way.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Sua sponte could best be translated from Latin as "because he says so" and referring to a person in a position of authority. In bastard law Latin it means a ruling from the bench which was unsolicited. You occupy no position of rhetorical authority either with regard to this thread specifically nor this site in general.

It still wouldn't matter even in a case in which the author of a thread brought up gun control, it still would not be german if the subject of the thread were not gun control. The author of this thread calls for people to ignore trolls. If the subject of a thread is not gun control, it does not matter who brings it up, if you precipitate or simply join in such a discussion, you are trolling the thread, or participating in the trolling of the thread.

I'm no enemy of digressions in threads. I do it many threads, including my own threads. Many people here will immediately respond to a silly subject or an obsessive screed by immediately digressing. However, the point here is that when the digression is a product of any particular member's obsessive-complusive fixation on a particular topic, that is trolling which is best ignored.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Sua sponte could best be translated from Latin as "because he says so" and referring to a person in a position of authority. In bastard law Latin it means a ruling from the bench which was unsolicited. You occupy no position of rhetorical authority either with regard to this thread specifically nor this site in general.

NOR was I the stomper; I was the stompee!

Setanta wrote:

It still wouldn't matter even in a case in which the author of a thread brought up gun control,
it still would not be german if the subject of the thread were not gun control.

I take the vu that the author of a thread can amend it in his posts,
expanding its breadth. If he chooses to do that, I can live with it
and I can willingly reply to his questions that r not strictly within the title of his topic.
This forum is not one of rigid authoritarianism.
We can take an ez going, relaxed attitude.

Setanta wrote:

The author of this thread calls for people to ignore trolls.

Then we shud probably comply with that request
within the confines of this particular thread.

Setanta wrote:

If the subject of a thread is not gun control, it does not matter who brings it up,
if you precipitate or simply join in such a discussion, you are trolling the thread,
or participating in the trolling of the thread.

To MY way of thinking: it MATTERS who brings it up.
I see no reason that the author cannot re-define his thread.
What harm is there ?
On the other hand, if strangers show up and high jack the thread,
there r problems with that.

Setanta wrote:

I'm no enemy of digressions in threads. I do it many threads, including my own threads. Many people here will immediately respond to a silly subject or an obsessive screed by immediately digressing. However, the point here is that when the digression is a product of any particular member's obsessive-complusive fixation on a particular topic, that is trolling which is best ignored.

I don 't choose to challenge that.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Are you just being obtuse? Sua sponte implies an authority which you do not possess with regard to this thread or this site. Your stomper/stompee bullshit is not relevant to that issue.

You are skirting the edges of creating a digression which is not germane to the topic here. I have said i am not necessarily an enemy of digressions--however, i consider this an important topic, and not one which i am willing to trash providing you a platform to air your opinion on the excellence of your understanding.

That being the case, you'll waste your time replying to me, because i don't intend to feed your silly ego here. I am done with your nonsense.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Yeah, I guess I was being obtuse, replying to u.

David

0 Replies

msolga wrote:

But the sort of "trolling" which concerns me far more is the variety I've already referred to. Those who take over & deliberately derail previously interesting discussions with sometimes inane repetitive argumentative posts, purely for the purpose (or so it seems) of switching off most previous participants & getting up people's noses.
I sometimes wonder why other posters continue to respond to them with intelligent comments, which are generally ignored, followed by further dubious repetitive posts which go on seemingly forever.

I suppose its the nature, specially of the most argumentative ones, to try to reason with the unreasonable. Its hard to understand that the "unreasonable" is simply that: unreasonable. Its hard to understand that the mind of others works differently from our own mind, and what is logical to us may be nosensical to them, and vice-versa.

Is it fine for the maker of a thread to latter de-rail it himself? It really depends of the community's standing and etiquete on the matter, id say. It certainly doesnt sound very polite to call for a discussion about subject X, and then change the subject in the middle of the discussion. It depends of whenever threads are saw as for the interests of their maker only, or something for the interest of the whole community that is started by a single person.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad in Chai's "Girl in Italy" Thread.

2 Replies

@JTT,

If pointing out that someone's being an asshole is being a troll... then I guess I'm guilty every time I talk to you.

1 Reply

@manored,

msolga wrote:

But the sort of "trolling" which concerns me far more is the variety I've already referred to. Those who take over & deliberately derail previously interesting discussions with sometimes inane repetitive argumentative posts, purely for the purpose (or so it seems) of switching off most previous participants & getting up people's noses.
I sometimes wonder why other posters continue to respond to them with intelligent comments, which are generally ignored, followed by further dubious repetitive posts which go on seemingly forever.

manored wrote:

I suppose its the nature, specially of the most argumentative ones, to try to reason with the unreasonable. Its hard to understand that the "unreasonable" is simply that: unreasonable. Its hard to understand that the mind of others works differently from our own mind, and what is logical to us may be nosensical to them, and vice-versa.

Is it fine for the maker of a thread to latter de-rail it himself? It really depends of the community's standing and etiquete on the matter, id say. It certainly doesnt sound very polite to call for a discussion about subject X, and then change the subject in the middle of the discussion. It depends of whenever threads are saw as for the interests of their maker only, or something for the interest of the whole community that is started by a single person.

Well, if u put 2 mechanical engineers next to each other,
looking at the same information, as one of them explains extant problems
and argues their optimal remedies, the other shoud understand the logic thereof; yes ??

David

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

If pointing out that someone's being an asshole is being a troll...
then I guess I'm guilty every time I talk to you.

In your opinion,
that is logically sufficient specificity
to solve the problem ??

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

JTT referred to a thread in which I thought Wandle was being offensive, and I told Wandle that.

Others thought that I was being too harsh on Wandle. (JTT being one of them.)

Basically, JTT is picking at old scabs. (And being an asshole, as usual)

0 Replies

I don't understand engaging with trolls.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know