Hatrack River Forum: What is trolling?

This is topic What is trolling? in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=056991

Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :

Here's the wiki definition:

quote:
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]

How am I a troll?

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :

Mind blown.

Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :

quote:
How am I a troll?

You are someone who posts inflammatory messages on this forum with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response.

Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Xavier:

quote:
How am I a troll?
You are someone who posts inflammatory messages on this forum with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response.

That's simple and clear cut when you define "inflammatory messages" to mean "the wrong opinion."

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :

How are you not, under any of your alts?

Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
How are you not, under any of your alts?

I created multiple alts (one after the other) for the simple reason that I was unfairly banned for merely stating my opinion. If Lisa can say monstrous things about the Palestinians then it's curious why I can't share my frank opinion on feminists/homosexuality/etc.

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by contents under pressure:
If Lisa can say monstrous things about the Palestinians then it's curious why I can't share my frank opinion on feminists/homosexuality/etc.

Well crap, that's actually a valid point.

Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :

quote:
Originally posted by contents under pressure:

quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
How are you not, under any of your alts?
I created multiple alts (one after the other) for the simple reason that I was unfairly banned for merely stating my opinion. If Lisa can say monstrous things about the Palestinians then it's curious why I can't share my frank opinion on feminists/homosexuality/etc.

The multiple account thing alone (sock puppeting) makes you a troll

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
Originally posted by contents under pressure:

quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
How are you not, under any of your alts?
I created multiple alts (one after the other) for the simple reason that I was unfairly banned for merely stating my opinion. If Lisa can say monstrous things about the Palestinians then it's curious why I can't share my frank opinion on feminists/homosexuality/etc.

The issue isn't just that your opinions are frank and unpopular. You start thread after thread on topics that are not only controversial, but which are introduced in a way to provoke a strong negative emotional response from people. From all appearances, you do this to start fights not productive discussions. That's why people are convinced you are a troll.

I used to think Lisa was a troll, but after several years I'm pretty confident she's genuine. She doesn't post inflammatory stuff to get a rise out of people. She has a pretty small set of hot button topics and when you stay away from those she can be quite decent. To the best of my memory, you are never part of a civil discussion. When you post it is nearly always to provoke people.

If starting fights isn't your goal, you would be well advised to change your posting style. Take for example your recent thread on incest. I've read a lot of stuff by Jonathan Haidt. That could have become a very interesting productive discussion on morality had the topic been introduced in a less inflammatory fashion, but it had zero chance of being anything but a fight the way you introduced it.

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :

Yes and no. Lisa skates very close to the line and occasionally steps over it. When warned by Pop, she has rescinded, edited, etc., as she was asked to do.

Clive ignores the line altogether, and then ignores what he is told by Pop and gets banned for doing it anyway.

Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:

quote:
Originally posted by contents under pressure:

quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
How are you not, under any of your alts?
I created multiple alts (one after the other) for the simple reason that I was unfairly banned for merely stating my opinion. If Lisa can say monstrous things about the Palestinians then it's curious why I can't share my frank opinion on feminists/homosexuality/etc.
The issue isn't just that your opinions are frank and unpopular. You start thread after thread on topics that are not only controversial, but which are introduced in a way to provoke a strong negative emotional response from people. From all appearances, you do this to start fights not productive discussions. That's why people are convinced you are a troll.

I used to think Lisa was a troll, but after several years I'm pretty confident she's genuine. She doesn't post inflammatory stuff to get a rise out of people. She has a pretty small set of hot button topics and when you stay away from those she can be quite decent. To the best of my memory, you are never part of a civil discussion. When you post it is nearly always to provoke people.

If starting fights isn't your goal, you would be well advised to change your posting style. Take for example your recent thread on incest. I've read a lot of stuff by Jonathan Haidt. That could have become a very interesting productive discussion on morality had the topic been introduced in a less inflammatory fashion, but it had zero chance of being anything but a fight the way you introduced it.

I expressed no opinion on the Jonathan Haidt thread and just wanted to see what people thought of the scenario. I also linked the article that entirely explained the idea behind hypothetical. Why then would people get upset?

Posted by LargeTuna (Member # 10512) on :

I think a main problem with that argument is I don't see any Feminists or Homosexuals suicide bombing themselves and trying to mass kill people. (I hope I'm not proven wrong)

However I'm not sure which comments you're reffering to specifically, because I'm sure there are nice kind Palestinians that have nothing to do with bad stuff that do not deserve hate. But there are some monsterous ones that probably do.

Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :

Y'all fools is postin' in a troll thread....

Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LargeTuna:
I think a main problem with that argument is I don't see any Feminists or Homosexuals suicide bombing themselves and trying to mass kill people. (I hope I'm not proven wrong)

They consider themselves to be freedom fighters like Native Americans who scalped whites in the settler era did. Where those Native Americans bad and evil? Were their actions indefensible and would you approve of a white person who kept smearing them and justifying their dispossession?

Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LargeTuna:
However I'm not sure which comments you're reffering to specifically, because I'm sure there are nice kind Palestinians that have nothing to do with bad stuff that do not deserve hate. But there are some monsterous ones that probably do. [/QB]

Oh ok. So it would be okay for me to speak of Jews as "the jews" the same way Lisa speaks of "the arabs"?

Posted by LargeTuna (Member # 10512) on :

If someone is deliberately killing innocent people, not just people in the way, but targeting families I will consider them evil in most cases regardless of their cause.

That's just my opinion in a hypthetical sense and I'd rather not argue with you since so far this thread isn't so bad. Cool?

Edit: I don't feel good about anyone grouping people like that regardless of the term. However Arab as far as I know isn't a religion (it could be?). It's not the same as grouping Muslims, Jews or Catholics in a negative fashoin. It's still not something I agree with, but it's still different. to answer your question I'm sure there are other people that have crossed the line and I don't think it's ok to grou "the arabs" but you tend to push it twice as far over.

[ April 20, 2010, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: LargeTuna ]

Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :

I am posting in this high quality thread.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
Originally posted by contents under pressure:

quote:
Originally posted by LargeTuna:
However I'm not sure which comments you're reffering to specifically, because I'm sure there are nice kind Palestinians that have nothing to do with bad stuff that do not deserve hate. But there are some monsterous ones that probably do.
Oh ok. So it would be okay for me to speak of Jews as "the jews" the same way Lisa speaks of "the arabs"? [/QB]

No it wouldn't. And its not OK for Lisa to speak of "the arabs" the way she does either.

Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LargeTuna:
[QB] If someone is deliberately killing innocent people, not just people in the way, but targeting families I will consider them evil in most cases regardless of their cause.

So Native Americans who attacked white settlers (who were dispossessing them) were evil? Good to know.

Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:

quote:
Originally posted by contents under pressure:

quote:
Originally posted by LargeTuna:
However I'm not sure which comments you're reffering to specifically, because I'm sure there are nice kind Palestinians that have nothing to do with bad stuff that do not deserve hate. But there are some monsterous ones that probably do.
Oh ok. So it would be okay for me to speak of Jews as "the jews" the same way Lisa speaks of "the arabs"?
No it wouldn't. And its not OK for Lisa to speak of "the arabs" the way she does either. [/QB]

The Jews always do this, the Jews always do that...it's fair play on hatrack as far as precedents are concerned...

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
Originally posted by contents under pressure:
I expressed no opinion on the Jonathan Haidt thread and just wanted to see what people thought of the scenario. I also linked the article that entirely explained the idea behind hypothetical. Why then would people get upset?

B.S. Unless you suffer from some form some type of autistism spectrum disorder, you knew exactly how people would react to the scenario. If you read the rest of the blog you linked, it even told you exactly how people would react.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
Originally posted by contents under pressure:

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:

quote:
Originally posted by contents under pressure:

quote:
Originally posted by LargeTuna:
However I'm not sure which comments you're reffering to specifically, because I'm sure there are nice kind Palestinians that have nothing to do with bad stuff that do not deserve hate. But there are some monsterous ones that probably do.
Oh ok. So it would be okay for me to speak of Jews as "the jews" the same way Lisa speaks of "the arabs"?
No it wouldn't. And its not OK for Lisa to speak of "the arabs" the way she does either.
The Jews always do this, the Jews always do that...it's fair play on hatrack as far as precedents are concerned... [/QB]

Which is one of the reasons most of the long time members have left the site. Its not OK. Few if any of us think its OK. Its a violation of the user agreement. Lisa has been repeatedly sanctioned for it and virtually all of us don't like it. A lot of people have publicly expressed that she should be banned from the site. She hasn't been and I and others have given you some reasons why that might be. But it absolutely is not because its OK to bash Arabs at hatrack and not Jews.

Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:

quote:
Originally posted by contents under pressure:
I expressed no opinion on the Jonathan Haidt thread and just wanted to see what people thought of the scenario. I also linked the article that entirely explained the idea behind hypothetical. Why then would people get upset?
B.S. Unless you suffer from some form some type of autistism spectrum disorder, you knew exactly how people would react to the scenario. If you read the rest of the blog you linked, it even told you exactly how people would react.

Of course I read it...that's why I linked it. If I merely wanted to get a reaction I would have just posted the scenario by itself without any explanation. But I linked the explanation, and people still threw a hissy fit. Why?

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

People have told you why repeatedly and you have essentially ignored ys. It appears that you are more interested in arguing that you are being treated unfairly than getting an answer. That's what makes you a troll and this thread yet another trolling expedition.

If that's unfair and you really do want an answer. Stop arguing and start listening to what people are saying.

Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :

Place your bets for how long the thread'll last.

Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
People have told you why repeatedly and you have essentially ignored ys. It appears that you are more interested in arguing that you are being treated unfairly than getting an answer. That's what makes you a troll and this thread yet another trolling expedition.

I'm a troll because I take issue with bad answers to my question. Okay.

Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aeolusdallas:

quote:
Originally posted by contents under pressure:

quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
How are you not, under any of your alts?
I created multiple alts (one after the other) for the simple reason that I was unfairly banned for merely stating my opinion. If Lisa can say monstrous things about the Palestinians then it's curious why I can't share my frank opinion on feminists/homosexuality/etc.
The multiple account thing alone (sock puppeting) makes you a troll

Only under this name did I not reveal outright who I was. I did with all the other names.

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :

You still haven't revealled which regular poster you actually are, but it isn't that hard a guess.

Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LargeTuna:
If someone is deliberately killing innocent people, not just people in the way, but targeting families I will consider them evil in most cases regardless of their cause.

Do they believe that those people are innocent. Innocence is subjective.

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :

C.U.P., you'd be better served to make your points about KoM. He misbehaved worse than Lisa, for just as long. However, I have to say, although you are clearly trolling, your point about Lisa is valid.

Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :

I'm going to state my own unpopular opinion that I've been keeping to myself for a while:

I think many hatrackers are too quick to accuse people of trolling.

There have been many times that I've started reading threads that might have lead to interesting discussions if they hadn't devolved almost immediately into accusations of trolling.

Clive skirts close to the line at times and I can't stand him, but I honestly don't think he's a troll.

The reason is that I think a troll's primary purpose is to derail discussions. Going with the definition above, if you try to limit the definition of a troll to simply inflammatory posts designed to evoke an emotional response, you do end up persecuting people who have controversial opinions. That's not what makes someone a troll. It's hard to even figure out what a real troll's actual opinions are, because they have nothing to do with his posts.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
The reason is that I think a troll's primary purpose is to derail discussions.

I think your definition of a troll is too narrow. A troll's primary purpose is to disrupt a community. Derailing discussions is one way to do that but it isn't the only way.

quote:
Going with the definition above, if you try to limit the definition of a troll to simply inflammatory posts designed to evoke an emotional response, you do end up persecuting people who have controversial opinions. That's not what makes someone a troll. It's hard to even figure out what a real troll's actual opinions are, because they have nothing to do with his posts.

That's just it. I don't think we have any idea about the real opinions of Clive/Cindy/Content/Somalian et al. My interactions suggests he/she posts outrageous opinions just to provoke people. He/she isn't even just playing devil's advocate. He/she is trying to start fights, that's it.

Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:

quote:
The reason is that I think a troll's primary purpose is to derail discussions.
I think your definition of a troll is too narrow. A troll's primary purpose is to disrupt a community. Derailing discussions is one way to do that but it isn't the only way.

The trouble is that it can be very difficult to know a poster's intent. Too often, a community is disrupted because of its own reactions to a poster, rather than by the poster him/herself.

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :

so why on earth wasn't clive re-banned? a multiple alt-troll's latest incarnation, obviously trolling, and his threads got locked and deleted but he was allowed to keep posting? Was someone expecting him to obey any guidelines like 'do not post any more threads?'

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

I imagine it's because PJ can't simply keep banning the guy over and over.

Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :

quote:
Originally posted by contents under pressure:

quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
How are you not, under any of your alts?
I created multiple alts (one after the other) for the simple reason that I was unfairly banned for merely stating my opinion. If Lisa can say monstrous things about the Palestinians then it's curious why I can't share my frank opinion on feminists/homosexuality/etc.

So, what other forums do you frequent? You seem awfully familiar, and I don't just mean I think you're Clive Candy (because I know you are). You greatly remind me of a certain poster from a much larger board.

Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Misha McBride:

quote:
Originally posted by contents under pressure:

quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
How are you not, under any of your alts?
I created multiple alts (one after the other) for the simple reason that I was unfairly banned for merely stating my opinion. If Lisa can say monstrous things about the Palestinians then it's curious why I can't share my frank opinion on feminists/homosexuality/etc.
So, what other forums do you frequent? You seem awfully familiar, and I don't just mean I think you're Clive Candy (because I know you are). You greatly remind me of a certain poster from a much larger board.

What board?

Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :

If you're not Hardcore Sax/do it to julia from the SA forums you're his long lost identical twin.

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I imagine it's because PJ can't simply keep banning the guy over and over.

Why not? It takes me less than 20 seconds to ban someone, and then their next account, assuming it gets approved at all, takes a week to get out of hellban/approval.

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :

I've been called a troll here. I prefer analogies and comparisons to make a point. Using analogies and comparisons apparently makes me a "troll" at times.

To me, a troll is someone who only wants to incite and disrupt. Stating that law A is ignored while law B is strictly enforced, isn't trolling away from the discussion about B. Demanding intellectual consistency and honesty makes me a "troll", all the time.

Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :

c.u.p.,if I were you I'd just stop posting in Lisa's threads from now on. In fact, I'd stop mentioning her in any of your posts. Baby steps can go a long way.

Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :

mal, you have an incredibly misunderstanding of why people call you a troll.

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
mal, you have an incredibly misunderstanding of why people call you a troll.

enlighten me

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I imagine it's because PJ can't simply keep banning the guy over and over.
Why not? It takes me less than 20 seconds to ban someone, and then their next account, assuming it gets approved at all, takes a week to get out of hellban/approval.

This does not match my understanding of the forum mechanisms. Registering an alt takes about five seconds; clearly it's automatic. Consequently, if someone uses a proxy server to obfuscate their IP, how does it take a week to get a new account? A seriously determined poster cannot be banned permanently, certainly not by the amount of time that PJ can devote to this forum.

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I imagine it's because PJ can't simply keep banning the guy over and over.
Why not? It takes me less than 20 seconds to ban someone, and then their next account, assuming it gets approved at all, takes a week to get out of hellban/approval.

You are assuming it is something he can do directly.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by contents under pressure:

quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
How are you not, under any of your alts?
I created multiple alts (one after the other) for the simple reason that I was unfairly banned for merely stating my opinion. If Lisa can say monstrous things about the Palestinians then it's curious why I can't share my frank opinion on feminists/homosexuality/etc.

You were banned? Well, I'm glad to know that something was done about you. Less happy to know that you intentionally violated the ban. I would hope that PJ would give you a lifetime ban for it, but I doubt we'll be so lucky.

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :

quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
... Consequently, if someone uses a proxy server to obfuscate their IP, how does it take a week to get a new account? A seriously determined poster cannot be banned permanently, certainly not by the amount of time that PJ can devote to this forum.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by contents under pressure:
Only under this name did I not reveal outright who I was. I did with all the other names.

You didn't with Cindy.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by contents under pressure:

quote:
Originally posted by LargeTuna:
I think a main problem with that argument is I don't see any Feminists or Homosexuals suicide bombing themselves and trying to mass kill people. (I hope I'm not proven wrong)
They consider themselves to be freedom fighters like Native Americans who scalped whites in the settler era did. Where those Native Americans bad and evil? Were their actions indefensible and would you approve of a white person who kept smearing them and justifying their dispossession?

Idiot. The native Americans learned scalping from the Europeans, first of all. Second of all, it's the Jews who are the natives.

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :

Banned? I take it as a compliment I haven't been banned. If I were, I wouldn't create a different account and pretend to be someone else. That is definitely "trolling".

Posted by Hedwig (Member # 2315) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
Idiot. The native Americans learned scalping from the Europeans, first of all.

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:

quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
... Consequently, if someone uses a proxy server to obfuscate their IP, how does it take a week to get a new account? A seriously determined poster cannot be banned permanently, certainly not by the amount of time that PJ can devote to this forum.
+1

I don't know how you block anyone's IP. The ISP has the global address and the user has a DHCP connection that changes when they power cycle their modem. Everyone is 192.168.x.x in their house. You could block the global address but you would end up blocking a section of a city. It may be possible to block based upon layer two MAC addresses (not sure) but they would get in with a different machine.

Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :

Having run forum software myself, I know that it's easy to block a single IP. You just block that user's public IP address. 192.168.x.x is an internal, non-routable IP address, so you don't, and won't, be able to use it.

Now, home users' IP addresses do change, frequently, so there's no guarantee that the user couldn't gain access later on. Heck, if the user is smart enough to begin with, an IP block won't do much to deter them.

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

Although everyone is 192.168.whatever in their house, that's internal. They also have an external IP which is unique. If this were not so, it would be impossible to rout packets to them. However, it may change over time depending on what sort of ISP they have. So generally, yes, an IP ban is not entirely reliable. Most forum moderation relies on the banned one being less persistent than the moderator, and ultimately perhaps on complaints to the ISP.

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :

You are correct. The WAN side of their modem is a global IP. That global IP is Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol. That IP can change if they power cycle their modem. A static address costs a lot more than the residential customer requires. Businesses that rely on applications pay more to assure their address doesn't change. Every house has a global address but it can and does change. It'll change to a different address in the same subnet. Today it's 72.252.249.20 and tomorrow it's 72.252.249.33. If you block 72.252.249.x you blocked 252 addresses. Everyone in my neighborhood has the same globally routable first three octets. Businesses pay a lot more to make sure theirs doesn't change.

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
This does not match my understanding of the forum mechanisms.

It's not this forum's mechanisms. I'm saying that this is what I can do, and I'm openly wondering why it can't be the same here. Especially since it seems (and you note) that the forum is essentially trollbait that PJ can't defend as long as clive can have as many new accounts as he wants to continue his spergrush. Odds are actually pretty high that an IP ban would have stopped him, and that this has not even been tried.

quote:
A seriously determined poster cannot be banned permanently, certainly not by the amount of time that PJ can devote to this forum.

So then, for the time being, hatrack has no answer to a sufficiently determined troll, rulebreaker* or insane person.

*we pretty much already knew this though

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

quote:
You are correct.

Yes, I know; why are you wasting valuable bandwidth stating the obvious?

Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :

But, you normally don't block an entire octet as a forum administrator. You block a specific address.

And, like KOM and I pointed out, a residential address may or may not change. I've kept the same public IP address for more than a year, before. Other times, it's changed twice within a month. DSL users can see a different address every time they cycle their modems, but cable users frequently don't.

It all depends.

(And I can get a static address for $3 a month from my ISP.)

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tstorm:
But, you normally don't block an entire octet as a forum administrator. You block a specific address.

And, like KOM and I pointed out, a residential address may or may not change. I've kept the same public IP address for more than a year, before. Other times, it's changed twice within a month. DSL users can see a different address every time they cycle their modems, but cable users frequently don't.

It all depends.

(And I can get a static address for $3 a month from my ISP.)

I'm not sure if you have your own router or not. I think he has a preferred machine. Laptops are expensive. In your router you can deny certain MAC addresses. Take it to layer two.

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :

You can also just get proxy servers, and/or get a 3G data card. Either of those is pretty effective at skirting IP bans.

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :

An anonymizer such as Tor should do the trick too.

Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :

If the abuser is smart enough, you can't get around him. I'm TDY in Jamaica and one of the officers asked me to encrypt the wireless services. I told him that my encryption would result in the other nation users losing their internet access to talk to their wives and WEP is an easy hack for someone who knows what he's doing. Not to mention the fact that we have a third world nation ISP. The insecure wireless routers I employed aren't any more a risk than the ISP those routers are relying on. I could crack a "secure" wireless network in five minutes and you'll never stop a technically proficient troll. He can clone his MAC.

Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:
Originally posted by contents under pressure:
Only under this name did I not reveal outright who I was. I did with all the other names.
You didn't with Cindy.

Yes, I did. Cindy Carter. I mean hello.

Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
Idiot. The native Americans learned scalping from the Europeans, first of all.

Wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalping#North_America

quote:

Second of all, it's the Jews who are the natives.

Yes. Thousands of years ago.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by contents under pressure:

quote:

Second of all, it's the Jews who are the natives.
Yes. Thousands of years ago.

Not. There've been Jews living there all along, and there've been both Jews and Arabs living there ever since the bloody Arab conquest. And while there was a large influx of Jews starting at the end of the 19th century, there was also a large influx of Arabs in the same time period.

Spout your asinine propaganda elsewhere, Somalian.

Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:
Originally posted by contents under pressure:

quote:

Second of all, it's the Jews who are the natives.
Yes. Thousands of years ago.
Not. There've been Jews living there all along, and there've been both Jews and Arabs living there ever since the bloody Arab conquest. And while there was a large influx of Jews starting at the end of the 19th century, there was also a large influx of Arabs in the same time period.

Spout your asinine propaganda elsewhere, Somalian.

And the Jews conquered it from someone else. They used to be bloodthirsty too till they lost their numerical advantage.

Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
Spout your asinine propaganda elsewhere, Somalian.

This is kind of like the USSR telling another country not to be totalitarian.

Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :

Jews who are not fans of ethnic cleansing:

http://mondoweiss.net/

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by contents under pressure:

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:
Originally posted by contents under pressure:

quote:

Second of all, it's the Jews who are the natives.
Yes. Thousands of years ago.
Not. There've been Jews living there all along, and there've been both Jews and Arabs living there ever since the bloody Arab conquest. And while there was a large influx of Jews starting at the end of the 19th century, there was also a large influx of Arabs in the same time period.

Spout your asinine propaganda elsewhere, Somalian.
And the Jews conquered it from someone else. They used to be bloodthirsty too till they lost their numerical advantage.

Do you believe that we conquered the land? The only source for that is the same one that says God gave the land to us. If you don't accept the source, you can't reasonably accept the historicity of us conquering the land.

The Arabs didn't have a problem with the Jews living in the Land of Israel so long as we were dhimmis. Subserviant to the Muslim overlords. But when we started coming back in large numbers, we weren't willing to be serfs in our own land any more, and that was intolerable to them. That's the real issue, Somalian. Islam only recognizes dar el-Islam and dar el-Harb. Places that have been conquered by Islam, and places that have not yet been conquered by Islam. They have no room in their theology for a place that was conquered by Islam and then lost. If there was no State of Israel, they'd be banging on Spain's doors right now.

It is an integral part of Islamic theology that the goal is for the entire world to fall under the sway of Islam, by whatever means necessary. And we're standing in the way.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by contents under pressure:
Jews who are not fans of ethnic cleansing:

http://mondoweiss.net/

Crap. You already posted that, and it's a site run by sick, self-hating Jews.

Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :

Some Hatrack History on the definition of Troll.

A couple of years ago Hatrack had a great reputation for discourse. This meant people from many viewpoints came together here to talk and listen to each other.

The emphasis is listen to others, and consider what they have to say. We learned why people on the other side of the debate have the ideas the do. We learned not to argue at each other but talk to each other.

Mal, Clive, and Lisa and KOM on certain topics, do not do this. They just want others to agree with them, and get quite upset when people don't. Their points of view are so obvious to themselves that any disagreement can only be due to evil conspiracies or demented stupidity of others, and they treat those others as evil or stupid in return.

While that is not officially trolling in the wider Internet, it is as close as we want to come here.

While bringing up controversial topics is not trolling, nor is holding controversial views, yelling and arguing instead of listening and discussion is as close as Hatrack wanted to come to it.

Oh, and please, don't blame the overworked PJ for not banning people fast enough. You can't blame the overworked police for the bank robbery. All you do is get the cops upset.

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

quote:
I'm TDY in Jamaica and one of the officers asked me to encrypt the wireless services.

Mal, do I understand you correctly? That you have military users on unencrypted wireless in Jamaica?

Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:
Originally posted by contents under pressure:

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:
Originally posted by contents under pressure:
[qb]
quote:

Second of all, it's the Jews who are the natives.
Yes. Thousands of years ago.
Not. There've been Jews living there all along, and there've been both Jews and Arabs living there ever since the bloody Arab conquest. And while there was a large influx of Jews starting at the end of the 19th century, there was also a large influx of Arabs in the same time period.

Spout your asinine propaganda elsewhere, Somalian.
And the Jews conquered it from someone else. They used to be bloodthirsty too till they lost their numerical advantage.
Do you believe that we conquered the land? The only source for that is the same one that says God gave the land to us. If you don't accept the source, you can't reasonably accept the historicity of us conquering the land.

I accept the source as being partially truthful in regards to the history of your people. It is not surprising that it contains an uncritical reproduction of the lies you told yourselves to justify stealing land from others.

quote:
The Arabs didn't have a problem with the Jews living in the Land of Israel so long as we were dhimmis. Subserviant to the Muslim overlords. But when we started coming back in large numbers, we weren't willing to be serfs in our own land any more, and that was intolerable to them.

Well it was their land and you were their guest. It isn't an entirely unheard of thing to be respectful of the cultural demands of the people that are graciously letting you stay as a guest.

quote:
That's the real issue, Somalian. Islam only recognizes dar el-Islam and dar el-Harb. Places that have been conquered by Islam, and places that have not yet been conquered by Islam. They have no room in their theology for a place that was conquered by Islam and then lost. If there was no State of Israel, they'd be banging on Spain's doors right now.

So then why do Christian Palestinians also want your people to pack up and leave?

quote:
It is an integral part of Islamic theology that the goal is for the entire world to fall under the sway of Islam, by whatever means necessary. And we're standing in the way.

More like provoking them by oppressing and subjugating their brethren.

Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:
Originally posted by contents under pressure:
Jews who are not fans of ethnic cleansing:

http://mondoweiss.net/
Crap. You already posted that, and it's a site run by sick, self-hating Jews.

Someone probably called Oscar Schindler a self-hating German too.

Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :

quote:
What is trolling?

Trolling is a term that should rarely, if ever, be applied - for the simple reason that it implies something about the intent of the person making a post, and because it is usually very difficult to accurately divine a person's intent over an online forum if they don't specifically say it. People often get called trolls simply for saying controversial stuff that a lot of people disagree with, or for saying stuff in a controversial in-your-face fashion. In the past, most people who were assigned the label turned out not to be trolls, and many are still on this forum, some for many many years. A few people actually were intentionally making trouble. But in almost all cases, the name calling was not productive: People who actually are trolls want to cause trouble so they have no problem being called names, whereas people who aren't trolls but get called trolls end up becoming upset.

For non-trolls, in some cases the problem lies with how they post, and the solution is to change the way they post. In other cases, the problem lies with the other people on the forum not being open to their opinions, in which case the solution is for the others in the forum to change. In some, probably most, cases it is both.

In your case, contents under pressure, the trouble is that you start most threads with an opinion you know other people will disagree with, and do so in a way that provokes emotion. "Here's my opinion; Most people think its wrong but I know its right; I dare you to disagree with it!" Among other things, you also make generalizations about the other side of the agument, like how "liberals say this" which often are both not true and not a charitable understanding of the argument the other side is trying to make. It's possible you can't make people be charitable towards your own opinions, but you can definitely be more careful about the way you present them and more aware of the reactions they may provoke.

Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :

*gives Lisa a pistol*

*gives Clive a pistol*

Now stand back to back. On my count walk ten paces, turn and shoot.

One.

Two.

Three.

...

(Hopefully they'll just both wipe each other out and be done with it.)

Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :

quote:
Mal, Clive, and Lisa and KOM on certain topics, do not do this. They just want others to agree with them, and get quite upset when people don't. Their points of view are so obvious to themselves that any disagreement can only be due to evil conspiracies or demented stupidity of others, and they treat those others as evil or stupid in return.

What's more is they've been asked many times to avoid those topics and don't seem capable of it. We really need the threat of some sort of permanent ban behind the request. Post in one more thread on the topic and you're gone...

Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :

What's the dirt on KOM?

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
... This meant people from many viewpoints came together here to talk and listen to each other.

To be fair, while this has been said, most examples that have actually come up of past threads tend toward the homogeneous. I think TomD has posted the analogy of white flight, which I think describes the phenomenon well.

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

quote:
Originally posted by contents under pressure:
What's the dirt on KOM?

I am the resident troll on religion, and may I add, I'm a lot better at skirting the very edge of what the mod will allow than you are. Getting banned after a few months of posting, tch.

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by contents under pressure:
What's the dirt on KOM?

Three days of bus rides without showering?

Hobbes [Smile]

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :

quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:

quote:
Originally posted by contents under pressure:
What's the dirt on KOM?
I am the resident troll on religion, and may I add, I'm a lot better at skirting the very edge of what the mod will allow than you are. Getting banned after a few months of posting, tch.

At least you are interesting.

Tresopax,

quote:
Trolling is a term that should rarely, if ever, be applied - for the simple reason that it implies something about the intent of the person making a post, and because it is usually very difficult to accurately divine a person's intent over an online forum if they don't specifically say it. People often get called trolls simply for saying controversial stuff that a lot of people disagree with, or for saying stuff in a controversial in-your-face fashion. In the past, most people who were assigned the label turned out not to be trolls, and many are still on this forum, some for many many years. A few people actually were intentionally making trouble. But in almost all cases, the name calling was not productive: People who actually are trolls want to cause trouble so they have no problem being called names, whereas people who aren't trolls but get called trolls end up becoming upset.

"Orcs"? "Ogres"? "Goblins"?

Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hobbes:

quote:
Originally posted by contents under pressure:
What's the dirt on KOM?
Three days of bus rides without showering?

Hobbes

*Buh-dum chick*

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tresopax:

quote:
What is trolling?
Trolling is a term that should rarely, if ever, be applied - for the simple reason that it implies something about the intent of the person making a post, and because it is usually very difficult to accurately divine a person's intent over an online forum if they don't specifically say it. People often get called trolls simply for saying controversial stuff that a lot of people disagree with, or for saying stuff in a controversial in-your-face fashion.

Tresopax gets it. In a lot of places, the definition of troll gets watered down to 'poster that vocal people on forum consistently dislike.'

This is not to say that clive isn't a troll (he is) but the term has been thrown around uselessly here and elsewhere.

Malanthrop isn't a troll, for instance. Or at least I wouldn't call him a purposeful troll. He's more a slag, an individual who is mentally and behaviorally incompatible with reasoned dialogue, combined with a tendency to interject and derail, thus eroding the forum's environment and capacity towards reasoned dialogue. Neither him nor clive understand why they are considered either.

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

An interesting distinction. Do you have a classification ready to hand for the likes of Lisa and me?

Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :

Ideologue

Atheist

What's funny is I remember the term "Slag," but it doesn't seem to be on the site anymore.

Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
...thus eroding the forum's environment and capacity towards reasoned dialogue...

Sam, I would agree with all of that except for maybe this part. I find the reasoned responses to mal's posts informative and enlightening. While mal himself does not add reasoned dialog to the forum, he elicits it. (Or, at least, if not reasoned dialog, then reasoned individual posts.)

Whereas Clive only thinks he does this.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
Ideologue

Atheist

What's funny is I remember the term "Slag," but it doesn't seem to be on the site anymore.

I'd rather be an ideologue for a correct position than a moral equivocator like some here.

Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :

quote:
...[sh]e is genuinely astonished, bewildered and and indignant that [her] views are not universally embraced as the Truth.

Hi Lisa.

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sean Monahan:

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
...thus eroding the forum's environment and capacity towards reasoned dialogue...
Sam, I would agree with all of that except for maybe this part. I find the reasoned responses to mal's posts informative and enlightening.

Right, but that's not a dialogue, because it's one-way. You can correct him (or reshpeckobiggle, or ron lambert, or bean counter) but you might as well be talking to a wall.

If a forum used to have productive or at least respectful dialogue, and it gets replaced with a point where the most common interactions are driving away moderate, polite, and ultimately functional and productive members of the forum, because the subjects are getting overwhelmed with people who derail this with their one-way interactivity where they constantly puke their opinions into the thread and remain impervious to correction or self-moderation, throwing the forum headlong into antagonism because regular users become progressively (and rightfully) more and more frustrated with where they're derailing the entire forum towards.

quote:
What's funny is I remember the term "Slag," but it doesn't seem to be on the site anymore.

That's because it was in the "What's happened to hatrack" thread which now appears to be deleted.

PPS: if anyone can find a copy of that somewhere on the internets, it's the answer to the whole 'slag v. troll' thing. It would take me forever to re-write it and I'm at work, so if not, I'll have to chase it down tonight.

Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sean Monahan:
I am posting in this high quality thread.

Dang, you beat me to it.

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:
Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
Ideologue

Atheist

What's funny is I remember the term "Slag," but it doesn't seem to be on the site anymore.
I'd rather be an ideologue for a correct position than a moral equivocator like some here.

What she said. Among the other evils that religion brings, it causes you to tolerate assertions of false fact (or even worse, as with kmb, assertions that there are no facts). To do otherwise when uncheckable facts are asserted as matters of life and death leads to dreadful wars. A healthy society would not show respect for those who assert what is demonstrably false, although as a matter of mercy and pity it might refrain from imprisoning them, especially since the art of curing the insane is, alas, in its infancy.

However, Samprimary seems to be working off a classification scheme not related to the Internet Warriors page, and I was interested in his classification rather than random links to years-old memes.

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :

oh hey cool now hatrack's being FO REA' trollspammed.

hi encyclopedia dramatica.

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :

quote:
Originally posted by An Escape Goat:
... Orson Scott Card first broke out of his cocoon in Richland, Washington, were he lived his early life as a Mormon zergling with his Hydralisks.

Funky BTW. Mormons as zerg rush.

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
oh hey cool now hatrack's being FO REA' trollspammed.

hi encyclopedia dramatica.

Maybe I'm being naive but that post seemed to have so many references to the poster themselves being wrong that it seemed more like someone already here trying to put up a lengthy joke (including the member title, and the fact that it's in this thread instead of its own topic). But the level of vulgarity alone make it hard to believe they really thought it was somehow in line with the forum ...

End result? This thread needs more similies:
[Monkeys]

Hobbes

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :

I was thinking that it was an existing poster who after being informed by the "New Information" that it is effectively impossible to ban/deal with a persistent troll, has decided to play around with that. *shrug*

Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :

It's worse, An Escape Goat is posting trolling stuff all over the forum. Some of it is really, really vulgar...

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hobbes:

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
oh hey cool now hatrack's being FO REA' trollspammed.

hi encyclopedia dramatica.
Maybe I'm being naive

you're being incredibly naive.

forum's bein' trolled

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by contents under pressure:

quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
How are you not, under any of your alts?
I created multiple alts (one after the other) for the simple reason that I was unfairly banned for merely stating my opinion. If Lisa can say monstrous things about the Palestinians then it's curious why I can't share my frank opinion on feminists/homosexuality/etc.

Whistled. On the off chance that PJ hasn't already seen it.

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :

quote:
you're being incredibly naive.

forum's bein' trolled

Yah, well, in my defense that was after their first post.

Hobbes [Smile]

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :

[Smile]

to explain better: what was being posted was the entry on Orson Scott Card from Encyclopedia Dramatica.

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :

Ohh. I didn't know that was a real thing. But that makes me ignorant, not naive. [Razz]

Hobbes

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
Yes and no. Lisa skates very close to the line and occasionally steps over it. When warned by Pop, she has rescinded, edited, etc., as she was asked to do.

Clive ignores the line altogether, and then ignores what he is told by Pop and gets banned for doing it anyway.

QFT

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:

quote:
Originally posted by An Escape Goat:
... Orson Scott Card first broke out of his cocoon in Richland, Washington, were he lived his early life as a Mormon zergling with his Hydralisks.
Funky BTW. Mormons as zerg rush.

Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MightyCow:
You still haven't revealled which regular poster you actually are, but it isn't that hard a guess.

If the mods wanted to, couldn't they just check the IP? (never mind, I just read the answer)

[ April 21, 2010, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: aeolusdallas ]