When is it trolling?

[G L Wilson]

Witch finders are always in need of clarification. Who can I touch? Who is off limits? What am I doing? Where am I going? Why is the sky blue? Why are my sheep sick? Why am I sick? Why, oh why? Who, oh who? Him, her, that over there! It's all so vicious, it's incredible.

[The Atheist]

You know that saying about making a mountain out of a mole hill? It's a stupid saying, but it works. . . .

Asking one question is making a mountain out of a molehill? Must have tiny mountains around your way.

Witch finders ....

I'm finding it hard to figure how that question is causing so many assumptions and objections to come out, but that's life.

[G L Wilson]

No-one likes to be called a troll, especially by one stirring for a fight. You're not a copper by any chance, are you, The Atheist?

[YesNo]

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.

One of the problems with verbal abuse is that the people most guilty of it don't think they (we) are doing anything wrong. The abuse is justified with self-righteousness or claiming that other people agree with them.

An example of a witch-hunt, or a group-troll, in a forum would be when someone is perceived as being weak. When other posters jump in just to ridicule the person, those other posters turn into trolls.

I don't really mind trolls in forums, since it gives me a chance to practice patience when confronted with inane remarks. However, I can see how moderators or site owners don't like trolls. Trolls drive people away from a site. I can also see how there would be a notice warning the rest of us that trolling is not allowed on a site. It gives moderators the option but not the obligation to deal with verbal abuse.

[MarkBastable]

One of the problems with verbal abuse is that the people most guilty of it don't think they (we) are doing anything wrong. The abuse is justified with self-righteousness or claiming that other people agree with them.

An example of a witch-hunt, or a group-troll, in a forum would be when someone is perceived as being weak. When other posters jump in just to ridicule the person, those other posters turn into trolls.

I don't really mind trolls in forums, since it gives me a chance to practice patience when confronted with inane remarks. However, I can see how moderators or site owners don't like trolls. Trolls drive people away from a site. I can also see how there would be a notice warning the rest of us that trolling is not allowed on a site. It gives moderators the option but not the obligation to deal with verbal abuse.

I agree with all that, except, perhaps, that we might disagree over the definition of 'troll'. I think mine is narrower than yours - for instance, I would say that trolling was a deliberate and active attempt by one person to provoke, irritate and generally cause discord. The reactive group activity you're talking about I guess I'd call bullying - which isn't pleasant either.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Asking one question is making a mountain out of a molehill? Must have tiny mountains around your way.

No. The question is the molehill; all the other crap is the mountain.

[The Atheist]

No-one likes to be called a troll, especially by one stirring for a fight. You're not a copper by any chance, are you, The Atheist?

More of a silver, really.

No. The question is the molehill; all the other crap is the mountain.

Ok, just the timing of your post coming straight after mine. I agree completely.

[Atehequa]

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.

Seemingly. I've been on a good many forums and have found that their administrators and moderators in puppet persona form are some of the biggest trolls around. What better way to run off someone they don't like without tarnishing their regular posting names ?

[The Atheist]

Seemingly. I've been on a good many forums and have found that their administrators and moderators in puppet persona form are some of the biggest trolls around. What better way to run off someone they don't like without tarnishing their regular posting names ?

That would never happen here. In my view the moderation and admin here are the all-round best management team on the entire internet.

Which is why I find it hard to figure that the central question remains unanswered.

[G L Wilson]

That would never happen here. In my view the moderation and admin here are the all-round best management team on the entire internet.

Which is why I find it hard to figure that the central question remains unanswered.

God was once considered a good manager, it seems that you are in need of a substitute. Instead of looking for the next messiah, The Atheist, why don't you look to yourself to see if you are not a troll?

[togre]

When trying to define "troll" and "trolling" I can't help but paraphrase what a Supreme Court Justice said with regard to pornography--"I cannot define it, but I know it when I see it."

There is an element of discretion in identifying and responding to a troll. But that doesn't make it subjective--A troll is a troll.

With regards to this forum, without resorting to hyperbole, I have found the moderating on this site very consistent and of a high quality.

[MarkBastable]

That would never happen here. In my view the moderation and admin here are the all-round best management team on the entire internet.

Which is why I find it hard to figure that the central question remains unanswered.

God was once considered a good manager, it seems that you are in need of a substitute. Instead of looking for the next messiah, The Atheist, why don't you look to yourself to see if you are not a troll?

Now, looking at the first post and the response that it apparently provoked, you have to say that that second post - man, that's grade-A mainlined pure chem trolling.

[YesNo]

Now, looking at the first post and the response that it apparently provoked, you have to say that that second post - man, that's grade-A mainlined pure chem trolling.

Yes. I think you're right! It doesn't get finer than that.

[Vonny]

I agree with all that, except, perhaps, that we might disagree over the definition of 'troll'. I think mine is narrower than yours - for instance, I would say that trolling was a deliberate and active attempt by one person to provoke, irritate and generally cause discord. The reactive group activity you're talking about I guess I'd call bullying - which isn't pleasant either.

I don't think the person in question is a troll, whatever a troll is.

I called him "mean-spirited", and then mentioned a couple of facts of my life history.

He replied, "When you were a child you did not think as a child." (That post has been removed now.)

So I knew this was a thinking and feeling person.

In another instance, when I gave a more detailed account of my life (including details of a horrific surgery I underwent) I was told by someone who isn't supposed to be a troll, that I'm "naive," which was unsettling to me when I feel that I've lived several lifetimes.

[G L Wilson]

Musicology is the man in question, is he not? I have only run across one of his posts and he seemed quite mad to me but certainly no troll.