posted
If I've learned anything in seven years here -- and I'll admit that's a big if -- it's that the only productive response to someone who declares that he's trolling for your own good is to shun the person in question. We already know and respect each other, and have already had meaningful conversations on the points most such trolls bring to the table; there's no need to engage in conversation on their terms, even if it's to clearly refute their points -- precisely because they aren't as interested in being right as much as having an audience to whom they can declare their rightness.
In other words, until Kathy gets around to slapping this guy down, give 'im a berth. He brought his own rope to the hanging; you don't need to line up to help him string it up.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nobody has (as of yet to my knowledge) ever admitted to "trolling for our own good" at Hatrack, so I don't see how you could have learned that lesson.
Now, if there is any lesson we should have learned, it is that when WE call someone a troll, WE create problems that need not exist, and WE are most likely wrong. Time and time again, Hatrack has labeled someone a troll and has turned out to be wrong. It's almost like clockwork. And inevitably the result is a lot of fighting until we all realize the person in question is not going away, and we learn to treat him or her with a minimum of respect.
quote: Nobody has (as of yet to my knowledge) ever admitted to "trolling for our own good" at Hatrack, so I don't see how you could have learned that lesson.
Ah. I am more observant than you are. I would say that, in living memory, no fewer than twelve people have made posts in which they insisted that they were arguing for the love of argument, and that we should appreciate their contentious, inflammatory style for one reason or another. I believe only two of them actually used the word "troll" in their announcement, but I submit that we can safely substitute any deliberately inciteful behavior.
Frankly, Tres, I cannot recall a single time in which I called someone a troll without being remarkably, indisputably, and uncannily correct. My batting average in this regard, as measured by any yardstick you like, is rather good.
I know you like being contrary just for the sake of being contrary -- that's the whole point of the Xaposert mask, after all -- but you don't have to bark up every wrong tree that comes along. Pick your trees more carefully.
posted
I find that it's a slightly more polite, less presumptive way of saying, "if you had a brain, you'd realize." j/k
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know the truth - Tom's got a Rod Serling complex:
"Submitted for your consideration: A poster on a popular author's internet forum. Some call him a troublemaker; others call him a troll. But really he's a case study of just how little intelligence it takes to operate a computer, here in the twighlight zone."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nah,I prefer to root out the problem as quickly as possible. We can tap into a lot of resources here to do it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would say that, in living memory, no fewer than twelve people have made posts in which they insisted that they were arguing for the love of argument, and that we should appreciate their contentious, inflammatory style for one reason or another. I believe only two of them actually used the word "troll" in their announcement, but I submit that we can safely substitute any deliberately inciteful behavior.
Tom, saying that you enjoy argument for its own sake has nothing to do with being a troll. If that constitutes trollness, I submit that most people who post on this forum are trolls, whether they admit it or not - except the extremely fluffy.
Being a troll is enjoying making people mad for its own sake - and who has admitted to that? Not the person you are referring to now. That is just something you have put in their mouths, with two possible exceptions that I can think of (one of which was extremely brief).
quote:Frankly, Tres, I cannot recall a single time in which I called someone a troll without being remarkably, indisputably, and uncannily correct. My batting average in this regard, as measured by any yardstick you like, is rather good.
Tom, you've been wrong in at least the past three times you've called someone a troll on this forum, including the person you are calling a troll right now. You might claim you were right, but you certainly can't claim that you were indisputably right, because I'm disputing you right now (and did so at each of those times) - and in none of those cases was I disputing just for the heck of it (that is NOT what Xaposert is all about.... )
To call someone a troll simply because you disagree with their opinions or their style is unfair.
posted
But is it not mulch mulch better just to leaf things alone and stick to what matters? Wood anyone disagree with that? It's knot always easy but it's by far the nicest way, I think.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Tom has been correct many times, and he is probably right about this one too.
I don't think Tom was calling you a troll for always disagreeing with people. He was just saying that you argue just about any point, for little or no reason, quite often.
Even to the point of telling people that they don't really mean what they just said, they mean what you say they mean.
So according to your "logic" we are at fault if someone comes in here and craps all over other people because they don't agree with them, or sometimes even if they do agree... we comment on how "trollish" they have been, therefore making them what we are accusing them of being?
Talk about circular arguments......
If someone is acting like a troll then I have no problem calling them one, or at least letting tham know what I think of them and their attitude. If they are willing to discuss things with outers that is fine...they aren't a troll. But if they come in here and stir up trouble just because they can....to the point of bragging about it even....
They can go punt, for lack of a better word.
At least I don't go around pretending to not have an opinion on it....it sould always be fairly clear where I stand.
I don't WANT everyone to agree with me, I like having spirited conversations with people who have opinions that differ from mine. That doesn't mean I want to listen to an immature bigot who is just trying to start a flame war.
posted
It has been pointed out, quite rightly, that Hatrack can have a positive influence on people, even if they start out as trolls.
We have a fair number of young members here. Some of whom have yet to refine their senses of humor to the point that an adult would "get it." They probably often come off as "trolls." There are also people who come here having experienced other fora and figure that any place on the web on which discussions take place must be nasty and competitive. It usually takes them a few trial balloons before they figure out that we don't, as a matter of course, just jump down people's throats in our discussions.
In sum, today's troll might be tomorrow's valued member.
I'm all for trying to correct their behavior. Either through direct confrontation or through subtler behavior modification techniques (such as ignoring their troll-like posts and rewarding their human-like posts). Whatever. We've seen any number of people figure it out. For those who don't figure it out, the novelty of annoying a bunch of people who don't react as expected wears off soon enough.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think Tom was calling you a troll for always disagreeing with people. He was just saying that you argue just about any point, for little or no reason, quite often.
Oh, I know Tom isn't referring to ME as a troll, but he is calling someone a troll, and doing it unfairly. (Although I did mention he's also incorrect if he thinks I argue things for little or no reason - there's always a good reason.)
quote:If someone is acting like a troll then I have no problem calling them one, or at least letting tham know what I think of them and their attitude.
There is nothing wrong with calling a troll a troll. The problem is that people call nontrolls trolls, like in this case - and that just causes problems. Having the wrong opinion is not acting like a troll. Neither is presenting it in an overly direct fashion. Neither is being a bigot, or not being informed, or not caring about the right issues, or having bad grammar, or wanting to talk about an issue that other people think is too contraversial, and so on. The only thing that is trolling is going around intentionally angering people for the sake of getting them angry - and that has only been done repeatedly by a couple of posters, none of which are recent. It certainly hasn't been admitted by anyone here now.
Kerry supporters could go around doing things like calling all Bush supporters trolls, but would that make it true? No. You can't just call people trolls because you don't like their posts. And you certainly can't call someone a troll for trying to provoke discussion on a given topic. You might as well just go around calling people Hitler.
(Now is the time, Troubadour )
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The only thing that is trolling is going around intentionally angering people for the sake of getting them angry...."
Ah. Again, Tres, you are operating from a definition that is not universally shared. In fact, I think you will find -- yet again -- that your definition here is considerably more narrow and useless than the commonly-accepted one.
In my book, for example, engaging in such definitional arguments knowingly, if for example you happen to know that your definition of "troll" is one that is not likely to be accepted but which is the only one you intend to acknowledge over the course of the discussion, would actually count as trolling.
I believe, based on my track record, that I can say with authority that my definition of "troll" is both functionally more useful and more predictive than yours, as it correlates closely to the people who have either apologized for their behavior on this forum and reformed or were subsequently banned from this forum for that behavior.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, the problem with your definition is that under that definition, trolls aren't bad for the forum.
Are we here to drive out people who disagree with us, or write in a fashion we don't like, or use a method of argument we don't like, or discuss issues we don't want to discuss? If we are, I think we have a much much bigger problem than simply labeling the wrong people trolls.
For instance, by the definition you just gave, I am most certainly a troll, because I often use definitions that I know are unlikely to be accepted by the majority of the members here. I do this because it is wrong to misuse a terminology just because it is popular to do so, and doing so promotes confusion, ignorance, and a failed discussion. Now are you suggesting that not only should you get to call me a troll, but I should also be driven away from the forum because YOU disagree with that particular method of argument? I think that attitude would not only be shameful elitism, but would also qualify as trolling under your definition.
I suspect that under your definition, most people here are trolls to one person or another on the forum. We have a serious problem if everyone is going around calling eachother trolls whenever they dislike what the other posts are saying.
So, either my definition is right and these people are not trolls, or your definition is right and we shouldn't be driving them away - either way your suggestion that we ostracize "trolls" is not correct.
posted
"Are we here to drive out people who disagree with us, or write in a fashion we don't like, or use a method of argument we don't like, or discuss issues we don't want to discuss?"
Ah. This definition of "trolling," by contrast, is one that I would posit is unnecessarily broad.
It, too, is not the definition of "trolling" I use. If I did use it, I would certainly understand why you might find it unacceptable. Luckily, I do not.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems, Xap, that Tom is more referring to someone who presumes a different definition of the term being used to ascribe knowingly false motive or meaning to someone else's comments, rather than confronting directly the definition of the term in question (as you often do). That about right, Tom?
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But you DO apparently still use some definition that includes plenty of people who aren't bad for the forum - a point you have not answered. You were referring to a perfectly decent member as a troll in your first post, for instance, and just now you've mentioned a characteristic of trolls that seemingly places me in that category as well.
posted
"But you DO apparently still use some definition that includes plenty of people who aren't bad for the forum - a point you have not answered."
You think so? Hm. I would say that as far as identifying people who have proven bad for the forum, I'm batting pretty close to 100%. I understand why you might not want to list names here, but feel free to drop me an E-mail listing people you think I've unfairly maligned over the last few years. I may be suffering from selective memory -- or, as I think is more likely, we may disagree on what sort of behavior is bad for the forum.
If the latter, however, I should point out that the supreme arbiters of that decision are the mods -- and I'm very comfortable applying that standard. If you are uncomfortable with the fact that my definition of trolling includes some behaviors in which you engage, I regret that you interpret this as a flaw in my definition.
posted
Of course you think what you think is right. Everyone does - I'd be willing to bet almost everyone here thinks they are batting close to 100% when it comes to identifying trolls. For instance, many people thought David Bowles was a troll when he first showed up, and he was not. Many people think Thor is, and he is not. I suspect a number of people think you are, or would if they were working by your definition.
Is your idea of a productive forum one where we all have are own personal set of behaviors that we consider "trolling," and then go around shunning and labeling anyone who does those behaviors a troll? I have seen forums like that, and I bet you have too - they are very unfriendly places. If anyone says anything that offends anyone else they are a troll to that person, and discussion immediately ends, replaced by fighting and name-calling. Most people are driven away, except for whatever loud and aggressive group comes to dominate the definition of what is acceptable or unacceptable there. Any real debate is impossible.
You say it is the mods who should determine what behavior is unacceptable, but then you have a whole thread here devoted to the advice that we members should shun people who act unacceptably, based on your definition (which you then put into the alleged troll's mouth by suggesting that he "declares that he's trolling for your own good", when all he has declared is something that you happen to consider bad for the forum, but he considers good for it.) That is not the blueprint for a forum where the mods are the arbiters of acceptable and unacceptable. If you think it is important that we members shun people, then it is we who are judging, not the moderators.
quote:If you are uncomfortable with the fact that my definition of trolling includes some behaviors in which you engage, I regret that you interpret this as a flaw in my definition.
Well, am I a troll or not? And more importantly, do you think Hatrack should shun me and get me to leave?
If not, then if you definition says I am a troll, either the definition is wrong, or we trolls aren't all bad for the forum. So, what is it?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: On the Internet, troll is a slang term used to describe:
1. A person who makes posts (on newsgroups or other forums) that are solely intended to incite controversy or conflict, or cause annoyance or offense. 2. A post that is intended to incite controversy or cause offense. (Many posts may inadvertently cause strife as collateral damage, but they are not trolls.)
To some, the term has negative connotations and is often applied as an insult, while simultaneously being claimed as a badge of honour by troll organizations or individuals. Sincere but controversial or naive posters are often labeled as trolls, but the term is generally considered to be correctly applied only to those looking to provoke outrage or discord.
A troll's reactions to being identified as a troll can vary widely depending on the forum in which the exchange takes place. Any person unjustly accused of being a troll may be hurt and express indignation. A troll will sometimes react with verbal abuse, raising the stakes with inflammatory remarks maligning the motivation of the accuser.
Trolling is often described as an online version of the breaching experiment, where social boundaries and rules of etiquette are broken. Self-proclaimed trolls often style themselves as Devil's Advocates or gadflies or culture jammers, challenging the dominant discourse and assumptions of the forum they are trolling in an attempt to subvert and introduce different ways of thinking. Detractors who value etiquette claim that true Devil's Advocates generally identify themselves as such for the sake of etiquette, whereas trolls often consider etiquette to be something worth trolling in order to fight groupthink.
Trolls are sometimes caricatured as socially inept. This is often due to fundamental attribution error, as it is impossible to know the real traits of an individual solely from their online discourse. Indeed, since intentional trolls are alleged to knowingly flout social boundaries, it is difficult to typecast them as socially inept since they have arguably proven adept at their goal.
The act of posting a message in a newsgroup that is obviously exaggerating something on a particular topic, hoping to trick a newbie into posting a follow-up article that points out the mistake.
1. v.,n. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase “trolling for newbies” which in turn comes from mainstream “trolling”, a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT.
2. n. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, “Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll.” Compare kook.
3. n. [Berkeley] Computer lab monitor. A popular campus job for CS students. Duties include helping newbies and ensuring that lab policies are followed. Probably so-called because it involves lurking in dark cavelike corners.
Some people claim that the troll (sense 1) is properly a narrower category than flame bait, that a troll is categorized by containing some assertion that is wrong but not overtly controversial. See also Troll-O-Meter.
The use of ‘troll’ in any of these senses is a live metaphor that readily produces elaborations and combining forms. For example, one not infrequently sees the warning “Do not feed the troll” as part of a followup to troll postings.
posted
I've been gone for a while and someone starts trolling? Bah! Leave that up to the professionals. Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I've said, Tres, you're welcome to E-mail me a list of people you think I've unfairly impugned. I'm willing to stand by my assessments.
If you want to discuss whether it's worthwhile to identify anyone as a troll, that's another discussion. Personally, I think it's a useful discrimination.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point is not to attack you specifically for mistakes you may or may not have made in calling people trolls. My point is for the forum, so I'm not going to go into private discussions over it.
And it is not wise to redefine concepts to make them more "useful". That just amounts to using them wrongly.
The reason troll has such a negative connotation is because we take it to be someone intentionally harming the forum and someone we want to get rid of. All these other people are simply people that annoy us, but by redefining troll to include them, we are implying they are far worse than they are. It's an insult to them, no different than calling them bad people, and it wrongly implies that we should be wanting them to leave.
posted
"The reason troll has such a negative connotation is because we take it to be someone intentionally harming the forum and someone we want to get rid of."
Ah. No. See, your problem is that you're using the wrong definition.
If you were to substitute "intentionally behaving in a way that will harm the forum" for "intentionally harming the forum," you would be closer but still not quite there. Central to the practice of trolling is a completely self-centered worldview: that by throwing the forum into disarray, or poking it for amusement, or stirring up trouble to make it more interesting, that they are making the forum "better" for one very specific value of "better." The troll seeks to "improve" the forum against the wishes of its inhabitants, insofar as gaining a lot of personal attention by pissing people off constitutes improvement by their standards. I would also suggest that calling someone a troll is not quite the equivalent of calling someone a bad person; it does imply that the person is one we would prefer to see either reform or leave, but I'd hardly suggest that everyone who doesn't post to Hatrack standards is in fact a poor human being.
Tom- If you'd like to modify this to say "shun the specific trollish action", I can almost buy your definition. You're not suggesting that though. You seem to be suggesting shunning the person.
That's just nasty in my book. It's especially offensive coming from someone as well respected as you are on this forum.
I bet if you look back in your bag, you could find a few tools that are more effective and less destructive to use to fix the problem.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've noticed that people already shun the truth here on more than one occasion, So hey let's just put the trolls with truth ok.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I would say that, in living memory, no fewer than twelve people have made posts in which they insisted that they were arguing for the love of argument, and that we should appreciate their contentious, inflammatory style for one reason or another. I believe only two of them actually used the word "troll" in their announcement, but I submit that we can safely substitute any deliberately inciteful behavior.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
j/k
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
