The rules are changing, we are going to start showing the assholes the door

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I guess my definition of a troll is someone who comes here to get a rise out of people. If that is all they do, then they are, in my never humble opinion, definitely a troll. We have people here who do nothing else. They don't post in music threads, they don't engage in conversations about non-controversial topics--they just try to pick fights or to ridicule. I don't know that I would call anyone in this thread a troll, with one glaring exception.

I agree that those first two sentences definitely mark a troll. The Urbandictionary definition, now 16 years old with 18,000 upvotes, still rules (I guess it was posted here before):

Quote:

troll One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

But I'm less sure about your next couple of sentences. Trolling is a verb as much as troll is a noun. To pick from another couple of Urban dictionary definitions: "the deliberate act of making .. unsolicited and/or controversial comments on .. internet forums with the intent to provoke an emotional knee jerk reaction .. to engage in a fight or argument," or "deliberately, cleverly, and secretly pissing people off, usually via the internet, using dialogue".

So I think "trolling" can be thought of as an act, exercised contextually, as well as an integral identity.

For example, take a user who often posts substantive or sincere enough stuff, but occasionally can't resist the temptation of trolling some newbie or nutty poster in order to mock or provoke them.

Or vice versa, take a user who occasionally does post a nice music video (blues or something), or engage in some genuinely substantive discussion for a bit, but most of the time just seems to be here to troll people.

Then it's up to sites or mods to decide whether the volume or severity is reason enough to pull a post or two or suspend the user altogether.

3 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

You incorrectly assumed “can’t”and created a narrative around it.

ok, fair enough, can't explain why is actually "won't explain why"

But you can't/won't actually say that. Also, why won't you? If it's such a private, or impossible to describe thing, or me and/or others aren't priviliged to know, why are you saying it online where anyone would feel free to ask you about it?

Every time you post, you raise more questions. Is it that you just want to post stuff and only want to expect particular reactions? Sorry, you put it out there, others have the option to respond how they want, and ask questions about it.

You just don't like being questioned.

0 Replies

@nimh,

Hi nimh

1 Reply

@nimh,

nimh wrote:

Then it's up to sites or mods to decide whether the volume or severity is reason enough to pull a post or two or suspend the user altogether.

At which time we're right back to Max's first definition, eh? To wit:

Max wrote:

1) A subjective label put on someone who expresses ideas you find offensive. In this case, a troll is in the eyes of the beholder.

The fact that some offense was "taken" does not mean that there was any offense "given."

0 Replies

Talkin for my own damn self, I generally respond to people "in kind." If someone is hell bent on playin me for a chump, then they're gunna get played by me. They wanna up and get all kinda smartass? OK, then, bring it, mofo.

0 Replies

@nimh,

nimh wrote:

Then it's up to sites or mods to decide whether the volume or severity is reason enough to pull a post or two or suspend the user altogether.

I agree completely. This site is essentially private property, so I never lend any credence to the free speech whiners. Apart from having more latitude than any other site of this type that I've visited, no one is obliged to grant any "rights" to anyone posting here.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

nimh wrote:
Then it's up to sites or mods to decide whether the volume or severity is reason enough to pull a post or two or suspend the user altogether.

I agree completely. This site is essentially private property, so I never lend any credence to the free speech whiners. Apart from having more latitude than any other site of this type that I've visited, no one is obliged to grant any "rights" to anyone posting here.

Yeah, they can be as arbitrary and capricious as they want, and they are. They have their favorites, that's for sure, as evidenced by your continuous presence here.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I don't know that I would call anyone in this thread a troll, with one glaring exception.

You mean yourself, that it?

0 Replies

Why is a "deliberately provocative post" a bad thing?

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Why is a "deliberately provocative post" a bad thing?

It aint. Only cheese-eatin Casper Milquetoast's try to be as bland, trivial, mundane, and uninteresting as possible, eh, Max? Anybody that is less cautious than them is a "troll," needless to say. To quote good old Fred again:

Nietzsche wrote:

"In heaven all the interesting people are missing."

And Honest Abe:

Lincoln wrote:

It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Why is a "deliberately provocative post" a bad thing?

Why do you pick out just that sentence fragment? The whole sentence is the complete definition, not the fragment you pulled out.

Have you ever seen the HBO show Newsroom? There is an episode where they do a pretty good job with trolling. Maybe check it out if you have time. It’s a great show.

3 Replies

@maporsche,

All words have meaning.

Point: Max

0 Replies

@maporsche,

The Newsroom bored me. It takes itself too seriously. If you point out the episode, I might be interested enough to check it out.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Ok, I will expand my questioning of the definition in quiestion.

I don't think being deliberately provocative is a bad thing.

I don't think deliberately causing an argument is a bad thing.

And I dont think that deliberately causing disruption is always a bad thing.

Disruption is often needed... Martin Luther King and Alice Paul were deliberately disruptive. Colin Kaepernick was deliberately disruptive. I do provide a caveat...I don't always approve of disruption. It should be relevant.

4 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

It should be relevant.

I would agree, if you mean "relevant to the conversation". The point of trolling is to generally prevent a conversation that the troll finds odious or objectionable. So the troll would try and create an emotional runcus instead.

2 Replies

Quote:

The rules are changing, we are going to start showing the assholes the door

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Ok, I will expand my questioning of the definition in quiestion.

I don't think being deliberately provocative is a bad thing.

I don't think deliberately causing an argument is a bad thing.

And I dont think that deliberately causing disruption is always a bad thing.

Disruption is often needed... Martin Luther King and Alice Paul were deliberately disruptive. Colin Kaepernick was deliberately disruptive. I do provide a caveat...I don't always approve of disruption. It should be relevant.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I don't think being deliberately provocative is a bad thing.

I don't think deliberately causing an argument is a bad thing.

And I dont think that deliberately causing disruption is always a bad thing.

None of these 3 things is always bad Max.

If you’re (universal you’re) being deliberately provocative with ideas that are relevant to the thread or a conversation then it’s not trolling.

If you’re using the term argument in its logical sense, as in more like a discussion than a verbal fist-fight then that’s not a bad thing either (if relevant).

If you’re causing a disruption with your relevant ideas then it’s also not bad.

If you’re not doing these three things together, then you’re probably not trolling (congratulations)!!

Where I could probably agree with you is that calling someone a troll is probably over used. Although, as ninh pointed out, all of us can exhibit trolling behavior (the verb usage) sometimes even though we are not all trolls (the noun).

Whether or not a person views another as a troll (noun) likely depends on their view of the balance of troll-like behavior and non-troll-like behavior. This is entirely subjective of course as each person has their own tolerance.

I do think using the definition provided, that troll-like behavior is pretty easy to identify.

Is it relevant?
Is it intended to start a fight/insult?
Is it intended to derail a thread to something irrelevant?

Camlok is a good example. You could be posting a topic about how good spring flowers smell and he’d insert something about how you’re an evil American who doesn’t deserve to smell flowers because our government caused 9/11 and the citizens are complacent in the coverup and murdering of 100,000 Iraqis. Then sometimes (if his trolling was successful) there’s br pages of conversation about 9/11 on a spring-flowers thread.

I’m sure you can see the problem.

The rules are changing, we are going to start showing the assholes the door

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know