When is it trolling?

[The Atheist]

I raised a thread in here some months ago suggesting that a member was trolling, therefore breaking the rules, so I'm not going to suggest anything like that here, but instead want to find out how LitNet decides what trolling actually is.

Wikipedia states: 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.

Knowyourmeme states: A troll is someone who will state something only with the intention of stirring up controversy. Typically the statement is so absurd that only the most noobish of noobs will get offended and respond.

I believe that both those descriptions accurately depict what an internet troll is.

Can we have an official explanation of how Admin decides what constitutes a troll at Literature Network?

[G L Wilson]

Troll is the new term for witch.

[papayahed]

I have to wonder why people feed a troll.

This isn't a popularity contest we don't just ban posters because we don't like what they have to say. If you don't like a specific topic or poster the best bet would be to ignore that particular thread. It is beyond me why people complain about threads yet post to that thread.

[The Atheist]

I have to wonder why people feed a troll.

Me too - I can do it successfuly myself.

This isn't a popularity contest we don't just ban posters because we don't like what they have to say.

I wouldn't advocate that, but it's also not relevant to what I'm asking.

If you don't like a specific topic or poster the best bet would be to ignore that particular thread. It is beyond me why people complain about threads yet post to that thread.

Why don't we take that attitude to politics, then?

That's the part I find somewhat inconsistent - politics is banned because it's divisive; so why not just allow posters not to post in political discussions? It's all pretty much grist from the same mill.

[G L Wilson]

I have to wonder why people feed a troll.

Because people are human and not a bunch of saints.

[papayahed]

Me too - I can do it successfuly myself.



I wouldn't advocate that, but it's also not relevant to what I'm asking.



Why don't we take that attitude to politics, then?

That's the part I find somewhat inconsistent - politics is banned because it's divisive; so why not just allow posters not to post in political discussions? It's all pretty much grist from the same mill.

Interesting, you guys are whining about someone posting about trivial, inconsequential matters what is going to happen with a topic as heated as politics?

None of which matters since the owner of the site has decided No Politics.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

None of which matters since the owner of the site has decided No Politics.

Yep, pretty much end of discussion when it comes to politics.

I'm glad there's no political discussions here, personally, though it's always been a bit fuzzy as to what constitutes a political discussion for me, but I think I'm getting the hang of it.

[YesNo]

Personally, I don't mind trolls. When they come in with their nonsense, it makes me realize not to take myself too seriously.

I especially like the young trolls between 12 and 15 years of age. They don't really know how to participate in the arguments and lack the ability to use irony effectively. I love it when they connect to their alternate accounts to respond to their own posts thinking no one knows. It is too cute!

I know trolling is not polite internet behavior, but a lot of us aren't always models of courtesy for them either.

[The Atheist]

Interesting, you guys are whining about someone posting about trivial, inconsequential matters what is going to happen with a topic as heated as politics?

No, I am not "whining", so please don't come that one. I've pointed out, both here and in lack of posts, that I don't care about the actual trolling.

I am asking [again] what constitutes trolling.

The forum's rules state:

4. In general, you may not use your membership privileges here via posting text or images in the forums, signature lines, tags, blog entries or blog comments, profile visitor messages, social groups, photo albums, or private messages for:

a) flaming, baiting, trolling, or ad hominem (personally attacking or insulting other members), ...

(emphasis mine)

Now, I reckon with many years and tens of thousands of posts under my belt, not to mention having set up and administered boards, that trolling falls into distinct, accurate, and above all universally agreed, criteria. There are threads here now that almost every member of this board would consider to be both inflammatory and trolling.

Whether that is good or bad is of no relevance to me whatsoever. I have no problem avoiding trolls and find them hysterically funny most of the time - and I like to keep an eye on conspiracies to find out the latest.

What matters is this:

Literature Network bans trolling.


Ergo, no current threads are considered by adminstration to be trolling.

Can we please have a definition of what does constitute trolling at this site.

While this may seem like trivia to you, the one thing I place above all others in belonging to a forum is consistent application of the rules. As it stands, the current situation displays a contradiction between the written rules and their application - or a misunderstanding of what those rules mean. So far, implementation of the rules has been pretty well 100% in line with the stated intention and written form of the rulebook.

I'm quite happy with the discipline level required in posts here - after all, my single [unfair, boo!! ] infraction was four years ago - because the rules are applied consistently.

If you can explain what the rule means, or heck, change the rules and allow it - I don't care.

I just want to understand.

None of which matters since the owner of the site has decided No Politics.

Yep, and I raised a thread on the very subject a couple of years ago and am quite happy not to have it as a subject. That's why I've been reporting threads that seemed to cross the line.

I was obviously right, because those threads which had strayed in Party central that I reported disappeared.

[MarkBastable]

Originally Posted by papayahed
I have to wonder why people feed a troll.


To put it less prejudicially, why do some people pay attention to trolls?

And the answer, I think, is that some of us are predisposed to ignore the irritations in our lives, and some tend to confront them. The ignorers generally think the confronters are wasting their time, and the confronters think the ignorers are wimping out.

Either way, the troll is causing grief - and it doesn't matter which of the above factions you lean towards, because that grief is visited upon the community as a whole.

PS I'm suddenly overwhelmed by the inclination to buy a round of celebratory drinks.

[qimissung]

It's interesting that you ask this question, Atheist. I've quoted you a few times to my kids who respond "Trolls on the internet, Mom."

My point is, I think it's somewhat subjective.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think the mods are pretty consistent when it comes to when it comes to trolling, as consistent as they can be, at least. Really, when it comes down to it, trolling is just a matter of personal discretion, no? How can one really define whether or not something is trolling behavior, aside from the obvious extremes?

Trolling has such an odd definition, because almost any thread that brings something interesting (at least, to me) can often be seen as trolling. To provoke an emotional response seems the perfect reason to create a thread.

I think the mods are doing just fine, especially with the Musicology threads, which I know is what has spurred this thread. I think, for the most part, he is trolling, but the mods monitor the threads, and once they start getting more personalized, or circularly redundant, they're locked.

[billl]

One thing that I imagine would sort of cast a wrench into a mod's "Is this sincere or trolling?" calculations would be the existence of a thread or threads that appear to be trolling, but nevertheless end up being, say, a nearly year-long debate between basically just two enthusiastic individuals, amounting to more than 500 replies.

[MystyrMystyry]

I agree Billl - but is unintentional trolling considered trolling? Especially when the so-called troll begins his own thread, at the heart of which would seem to the uneducated a troll argument?

There is a so-called 'troll' on this forum the likes of which I've experienced nowhere else, a troll who is not actually a troll (Vitamin D deficient maybe, but not by any definition a troll.

We simply need, therefore, a new word to define a particular psychological condition that can stand for Paranoid Conspiracy Theorist, or PCT (you know the kind - Mel Gibson portrayed one in that film 'Conspiracy') which do actually exist amongst us.

They are harmless, not known to carry weapons of any sort even for self-defence, and don't generally attack people with personal insults - but they have every right to respond in kind if people start to do it to them.

So should these PCT's be ridiculed - or nurtured? Or both?

I think when you first come across one it can be confusing, but upon realising what is actually wrong you may find that a bit of understanding can perhaps help them in their recovery.

[The Atheist]

It's interesting that you ask this question, Atheist. I've quoted you a few times to my kids who respond "Trolls on the internet, Mom."

They wouldn't be the first!

Pretty much everyone who starts topics is called a troll at some stage, but there is a pattern of behaviour that makes a troll stand out from the masses.

Trolling has such an odd definition, because almost any thread that brings something interesting (at least, to me) can often be seen as trolling. To provoke an emotional response seems the perfect reason to create a thread.

Yep, I just agreed with you. It's the pattern and repetition that makes a trol a troll.

I think the mods are doing just fine, especially with the Musicology threads, which I know is what has spurred this thread. I think, for the most part, he is trolling, but the mods monitor the threads, and once they start getting more personalized, or circularly redundant, they're locked.

If that's the case, there isn't a problem - we just need to have the rule changed to describe what is and isn't allowed.

One clear definition of what constitutes trolling and where the line is drawn for posting here.

I think when you first come across one it can be confusing, but upon realising what is actually wrong you may find that a bit of understanding can perhaps help them in their recovery.

This doesn't address the topic at all and is an ill-concealed ad hominem suggesting someone may have a mental illness, purely based on behaviour in an anonymous-posting forum.