Do not 'troll' - your opinion?

[Andiferous]

Since it really is rather integral to the purpose of the rule that all who agree to following it understand its' full meaning on the site, I ask, what is trolling'? I will properly give credence when properly earned, but this question genuinely perplexes me. It seems to range anywhere from 'disruption,' to 'cleverness,' or even 'POE' (which is another story). So tell me please, what is a troll. Because if everyone cannot agree on its meaning, it hardly seems worthwhile advice for forum behaviour.

Patrolling? Controlling? Fictionary Troll thingies.

If we're a smart site, we can figure this out without cliches.

 

[RigelKentaurusA]

Using a discussion medium for something other than discussion, trying to elicit annoyance, etc.

 

[kenandkids]

Using a discussion medium for something other than discussion, trying to elicit annoyance, etc.

Add "contributing nothing" and you have it.

 

[Andiferous]

Using a discussion medium for something other than discussion, trying to elicit annoyance, etc.

Add "contributing nothing" and you have it.

Yes but, with full respect, anyone and his or her dog could assume that this thread is borne of intention to troll and deal with it appropriately, given these definitions. Cuz they and we are all subjective, aren't they (and we)?

I see no manual to being a troll on most forums (despite the rule), so given the brilliance of this said site, is there a definite meaning behind the accusations? One with which a person can be trained to abide?

 

[kenandkids]

Yes but, with full respect, anyone and his or her dog could assume that this thread is borne of intention to troll and deal with it appropriately, given these definitions. Cuz they and we are all subjective, aren't they (and we)?

I see no manual to being a troll on most forums (despite the rule), so given the brilliance of this said site, is there a definite meaning behind the accusations? One with which a person can be trained to abide?

Unfortunately it is much like the old definition for pornography, you'll know it when you see it. GA provided nothing and made a constant barrage of leading questions. This was different than his previous attempts. It changes and warps per person and per sock. Next time you see that someone has been banned from numerous similar sites, I suggest asking the mods there why. If someone displays a repetitive behaviour along recognised standards (your own recognised standards) talk to them privately to effect change or explain why they appear to be trolls. No change, no allowance, no loss.

 

[Andiferous]

Yes but, with full respect, anyone and his or her dog could assume that this thread is borne of intention to troll and deal with it appropriately, given these definitions. Cuz they and we are all subjective, aren't they (and we)?

I see no manual to being a troll on most forums (despite the rule), so given the brilliance of this said site, is there a definite meaning behind the accusations? One with which a person can be trained to abide?

Unfortunately it is much like the old definition for pornography, you'll know it when you see it. GA provided nothing and made a constant barrage of leading questions. This was different than his previous attempts. It changes and warps per person and per sock. Next time you see that someone has been banned from numerous similar sites, I suggest asking the mods there why. If someone displays a repetitive behaviour along recognised standards (your own recognised standards) talk to them privately to effect change or explain why they appear to be trolls. No change, no allowance, no loss.

Of course. Yours seems to be a highly rational response to the issue. If it can be further illuminated here, I would be most appreciative, and I do believe in transparency.

 

[kenandkids]

Of course. Yours seems to be a highly rational response to the issue. If it can be further illuminated here, I would be most appreciative, and I do believe in transparency.

I'm not sure what more you are looking for. There are markers that can be looked for. Repetitive posts/responses, language usage, oddly provocative statements, recognised speech/typing patterns, etc.. The best tools you have are fellow mods or people with experience in that particular form of instance, especially on other boards. Go mod-democratic and talk amongst yourselves to decide three things.
1) How to explain the concern to the person who may be simply understood.
2) How to explain what changes that are desired in order to rule out trolling.
3) Whether and/or when to ban the person should 1 or 2 not be effective.

Is that what you wanted?

 

[Andiferous]

Of course. Yours seems to be a highly rational response to the issue. If it can be further illuminated here, I would be most appreciative, and I do believe in transparency.

I'm not sure what more you are looking for. There are markers that can be looked for. Repetitive posts/responses, language usage, oddly provocative statements, recognised speech/typing patterns, etc.. The best tools you have are fellow mods or people with experience in that particular form of instance, especially on other boards. Go mod-democratic and talk amongst yourselves to decide three things.
1) How to explain the concern to the person who may be simply understood.
2) How to explain what changes that are desired in order to rule out trolling.
3) Whether and/or when to ban the person should 1 or 2 not be effective.

Is that what you wanted?

Thank you, it does raise interesting questions. I'm not a mod, btw.

I guess I'm a stickler for clarity.

 

[kenandkids]

Thank you, it does raise interesting questions. I'm not a mod, btw.

I guess I'm a stickler for clarity.

Not now...

 

[Andiferous]

I can see to how you would say 'not now' to either' ...

But it is still a subject of interest. Call it fascination from someone trying to 'moderate' the undefined rule a very long time, and one whom has developed a resistence to it.

I need to know why this rule exists, I guess. If I can't know before accidentally triggering a contradiction to this rule, then I don't know what rule I've ever really broken. It's one that doesn't sit comfortable with me, and its' violation might be accidental.

 

[Aught3]

Trolling, if you amuse the mods you can stay. If you annoy us you are out. So you are safe Andie :lol:

 

[Andiferous]

Trolling, if you amuse the mods you can stay. If you annoy us you are out. So you are safe Andie :lol:

:lol:

Terribly glad to amuse. But, at the same time....

I beleive you are secretly telling me that I've broken something. My ineffectiveness is the only thing that saved me from a life under Dwarf-town.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

The difference between a Troll and a regular user is that a Troll exists simply to get a rile out of you.

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 readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

There are 5 rules.
1) Trolls be Trolling. - They exist, and they are watching your every post.
2) Don't feed the Troll. - You respond, they win. Even a single serious response constitutes a successful troll.
3) Slam the Troll, not the account. - The faster you recognize that they're trolling, call them on it, and word the response to be addressed at the Troll, instead of his sock, then you can successfully score a hard hit against the troll.
4) Take nothing Seriously. - Because they DEFINITELY aren't.
5) They never go away. - Because If I can make 10 socks and use 50 IPs in about 1 hour, they truly dedicated troll can probably out-scope my actions in his sleep.

 

[Andiferous]

Alright; but analyse these yourself under the phychological ( *logical* method,) and you may well win without the added help of reinforcements.

If it's going to be a competition of argumentation, there is no need to hide from each other and either argument. I'll take on Aught3 just to prove that. :twisted:

 

[Case]

Let's face it, though, If the trolls on here were actually effectively silenced, the forums would be very quiet.
Not that I would mind, I prefer quality over quantity, but a low-activity forum simply attracts fewer new people, so from an advertising standpoint I'm not sure which is better.

 

[nemesiss]

Using a discussion medium for something other than discussion, trying to elicit annoyance, etc.

by that term, correcting someone (like Nephilimfree) on his/her mistake could from their point of view could be considered trolling.

 

[Welshidiot]

@Andiferous

1: The prime requisite for being defined as a troll would appear to be a lack of sincerity/honesty,...ie: "if a troll means it, then they're not really trolling."
So a troll has to aggravate without becoming aggravated, and ideally without being invested in any way in the topic they're "discussing".

2: I don't think you're going to get a definitive definition of a troll from most inter-nutters, because if we have a standardised definition, then we won't be able to arbitrarily call people trolls just cos they happen to be winning the debate.

 

[DepricatedZero]

Using a discussion medium for something other than discussion, trying to elicit annoyance, etc.

by that term, correcting someone (like Nephilimfree) on his/her mistake could from their point of view could be considered trolling.

Yes, I do consider NephilimFree to be a troll in the internet sense of the word. He knows, he's been corrected, many many times over. He doesn't continue because he's vindicated in any belief or because he's possessed of a righteous conviction - he continues because it raises hackles and makes him popular. He's trolling.

1: The prime requisite for being defined as a troll would appear to be a lack of sincerity/honesty,...ie: "if a troll means it, then they're not really trolling."

This is pretty much it, imo. Sincerity, more than honesty, even. A troll can say something honest, if it furthers their agenda. The sign of a good troll, imo, is the proper use of bait. When I troll, the way I tend to work is to, as I picture it, sort of argue a circle around my target until I can get them to defend the most ridiculous position possible. I think that's hilarious. It's subtle, and can be hard to pick from my standard method of argument, which is to get my opponent to acknowledge the ridiculousness of their claim.

The difference I suppose is in the result - if you find yourself defending human experimentation on Scandinavian children, you've probably activated my trap card.

I used to do this frequently on the world of warcraft forums, til I quit playing a few years ago. I don't do it here, of course, because I actually like you guys and I'm here with sincerity.

At any rate, the key to me is sincerity. It's not a troll if there's any level of sincerity(which doesn't necessitate truth) to it. A great example from this board, imo, is this: (and sorry, not trying to point fingers or entroubulate anyone, please don't punish this >.>) http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk//viewtopic.php?p=110615#p110615
The above thread is a perfect example of a smooth bait n switch. Like so:

2: I don't think you're going to get a definitive definition of a troll from most inter-nutters, because if we have a standardised definition, then we won't be able to arbitrarily call people trolls just cos they happen to be winning the debate.

this made me lol

 

[australopithecus]

May I just say, Dep, fantastic song choice for your sig.

As for trolling, I think it's been nailed. A lack of sincerity plus proactively setting out to illicit an negative response from people.

 

[Prolescum]

<!---[if possible]>
Try subtlety
<!--[endif]-->