That's the third time witless anonymous comments have dismissed something I've said anonymously - I'm beginning to think the real troll on this forum is the one who least suspects it
That's the third time witless anonymous comments have dismissed something I've said anonymously - I'm beginning to think the real troll on this forum is the one who least suspects it
I think it's more a matter of intent. If the poster is simply looking to get reactions and attention by whatever means, that's trolling. A poster who believes what he's saying and is truly trying to convince others isn't a troll, even if he insists on being wrong. A troll doesn't care if he's right or wrong because that isn't the point.Originally Posted by The Atheist
If that behavior suggests a complete and sincere detachment from reality, it's a valid observation.
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Mahatma Gandhi
That's an interesting idea.
I see trolling as a form of verbal abuse. With verbal abuse in general it is hard to tell who the abuser really is since all the participants are blaming everyone else of abuse. As long as I'm not part of such an exchange, I use the following rules of thumb to identify the real abuser.
1) The verbal abuser is the one who whose mouth is running the most in the argument.
2) The verbal abuser is the one who claims that others are the real verbal abusers.
I think it's easier than that.
I've never seen a group-troll directed at an individual. So the troll is the person standing there on his own, gleefully mouthing off while surrounded by irritated people.
These are probably two different things, first the troll, then the responses to him/her, but I'm not sure they can be separated. It states in the rules (which I copied from a thread closed due to these issues):
a) flaming, baiting, trolling, or ad hominem (personally attacking or insulting other members),
....
d) threatening, harassing, abusing or intimidating other members,
....
h) any other interruptive behaviour that negatively affects other members’ fair use of this site.
One might provoke the other, but neither are allowed, it would seem.
I also think Mystry's point is valid. In fact an ad hominen argument is not always a fallacy. I think it speaks to the compassion and leniency of the moderators that they have some flexibility built into their system, and perhaps take each case on its own merits. I don't know this, as they have never said as much to me.
As it says in Wikipedia:
An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the truth of a claim to a negative characteristic or belief of the person advocating it.[1] The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy,[2] but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue
Last edited by qimissung; 06-08-2011 at 12:16 PM.
"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its' own reason for existing." ~ Albert Einstein
"Remember, no matter where you go, there you are." Buckaroo Bonzai "Some people say I done alright for a girl." Melanie Safka
Paranoia and panic add up to magic, it is magic how mediaeval most people are.
No problem, but again would require a rule change.
No.
It was a polite way of saying someone was mentally ill, which is another way of saying "you're insane".
If you genuinely believed someone at your work was mentally ill and wanted to help, would you take them aside and try to get them to talk - or analgously, send some PMs to get a private dialogue started - or would you shout at at work, "Hey, Sylvia, you're acting paranoid, I really think you should see a mental health professional - your behaviour is irrational and detached from reality!"
These are probably two different things, first the troll, then the responses to him/her, but I'm not sure they can be separated. It states in the rules (which I copied from a thread closed due to these issues*
a) flaming, baiting, trolling, or ad hominem (personally attacking or insulting other members),
....Nobody said it was a fallacy.
It is, as you kindly quoted, against the rules.
Maybe you missed my "and"?
Last edited by The Atheist; 06-08-2011 at 02:11 PM.
Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."
Anon
A witch hunt would be an example of "group-troll" behavior.
I don't particularly care about the trolling. It amuses me more than anything, the black Jane Austen thread and the stationary Earth thread are two of my favourites on this site. Hilarious stuff.
"If the national mental illness of the United States is megalomania, that of Canada is paranoid schizophrenia."
- Margaret Atwood
Definitely, I think.
Well, perhaps. I think what that actually would be is not trolling, but a witch-hunt.
Still, even if a witch-hunt can be defined as 'a gang of trolls', I've never seen it happen in a forum. Perhaps I've just been lucky to hang out with reasonable bunches of people.
I would if the behaviour was observably repetitive, not shout it out no - but again I'm capable of incredible things - not like some tiny little boring men who don't know when to stop banging on about something
For the record:
The OP was the only one to use the word insane (I merely mentioned a known psychological condition and side-referrenced Vitamin D deficiency as a possible cause for abject behaviour, and in fact pointed to no-one in particular)
The OP seems to want to believe only what they want and interpret it as only they see fit
Couldn't agree more. I'd not seen anyone promoting the earth as the centre of the universe before, and using a time-lapse photo aimed at the northern celestial pole as evidence was brilliant.
I will repeat again so there's no confusion:
I am merely trying to resolve what seems to me to be an anomaly in the rules. Yes, I am quite fussy like that - I'm equally happy with or without rules, but if you're going to have them, then use them. If they need changing, then change them.
I'm finding it hard to figure how that question is causing so many assumptions and objections to come out, but that's life.
Ho hum.
Hint: if you check back, I am not the one off track here.
See, it's even simpler than that.
I posted it in this section to get feedback from moderation and administration. It seems to have somehow become a discussion subject, but until the actual Literature Network position is posted, none of the other posts count for anything beyond bumping post counts.
When that interpretation is given, I will be finished here. If the opportunity to answer isn't taken up, I guess I'll have to make assumptions about it.
Thanks for your valuable input.
Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."
Anon
You know that saying about making a mountain out of a mole hill? It's a stupid saying, but it works. . . .
By banging on I of course referred to the original thread - 4 years ago was it?
Posting Permissions
