What exactly is "Trolling"?

[Myrtle]

Charges & counter-charges are flying around the forums surrounding the practice of 'trolling'......

As I can think of a number of possible definitions, I'd like to be clear what the word actually means in regards to posts here on 2+2.

Some help please?

[lighterjobs]

living under a bridge eating goats?

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
living under a bridge eating goats?

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmmmmmm......methinks Oklahoman's have to be carefull making comments about goats & sheep?

/images/graemlins/wink.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Hamish McBagpipe]

From www.urbandictionary.com (http://www.urbandictionary.com):

[ QUOTE ]
1. A large, brutish creature of European myth, often lacking in intelligence. Sometimes compared to the Japanese oni.
2. A dumbass who makes idiotic posts in message boards newsgroups for the sole purpose of pissing people off, often lacking in intelligence. Sometimes compared to people who pass you by on the sidewalk then grab you in inappropriate places.
ex. 1. "AAAAAAHH, it's a troll!"
"Protect the women and children! Grab your torches!"
ex 2. "AAAAAAHH, it's a troll!"
"****head... we banned him five times and he keeps making new accounts about how he pwns all and that

[/ QUOTE ]

But they also say this:

[ QUOTE ]
2b. Noun
An aesthetically repulsive person, often has terrible social skills, usually a woman. See Troglodyte.

2c. Noun
An old, unattractive gay man who hits on young men, and cannot seem to understand that they want nothing to do with him.

[/ QUOTE ]

For Trolling:

[ QUOTE ]
1. Visiting a specific website at high frequency (more then once every five minutes), searching indefinetly for updates, clicking every link, downloading every photo, reading every piece of text, etc.

2. Visiting an online forum in order to read every single thread, over and over...even if you've read it 10 times already, meanwhile searching for that one lucky thread where you might be able to throw in a "lol" or "word up", though it probably won't be necessary.



[/ QUOTE ]

But also:
[ QUOTE ]
Going out at night for the sole purpose of engaging in a sexual act with an ugly person.
After a rough day at work, Pete decided to go trolling at the local dive bar. To justify the act, he reasoned that "its all pink inside".

[/ QUOTE ]

Pick the meaning that may apply to the given circumstance.

[AngryCola]

This is the definition I use:

"Trolling is an internet term that means you are not posting to actually start or participate in a good discussion, but simply to anger another member or group of members."

-Anonymous on another forum

I will only add that the 'troll' often doesn't even believe what is in his own posts.

People use the term troll in all sorts of ways, though.

[Myrtle]

tyvm, Hamish.....leave it to a practical Scotsman to reply right to the point.

Do I take it you mean that perhaps 'Trolling' can have many meanings, is subjective, and is defined by the eyes of the beholder?

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the definition I use:

"Trolling is an internet term that means you are not posting to actually start or participate in a good discussion, but simply to anger another member or group of members."

-Anonymous on another forum

I will only add that the 'troll' often doesn't even believe what is in his own posts.

People use the term troll in all sorts of ways, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

sounds reasonable to me....except what may or may not anger another member or group is open to personal interpretation, is it not?

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
except what may or may not anger another member or group is open to personal interpretation, is it not?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is one of the main reasons the term ends up being used so loosely by many people.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
except what may or may not anger another member or group is open to personal interpretation, is it not?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is one of the main reasons the term ends up being used so loosely by many people.

[/ QUOTE ]

totally agree.....

So riddle me this: To be accused of "trolling" is highly likely to mean entirely different things, based upon the definition held by the accuser, is it not?

Does it not then follow that being banned for "trolling" could just as likely be being punished for doing something that is so loosely defined that it can be used as justification by the banner without reasonable substantion?

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
Does it not then follow that being banned for "trolling" could just as likely be being punished for doing something that is so loosely defined that it can be used as justification by the banner without reasonable substantion?

[/ QUOTE ]

I knew this is where you were going, but I'll respond.

The problem is that what one person defines as "reasonable substantiation" is more often than not different from how others see it. If everyone had to agree about whether or not a person was 'trolling', the problem would never be dealt with. It does happen. People do troll forums just to stir up trouble.

Since I think that I know where this thread will be going after this, I'll be on my way.

[Myrtle]

AC,

This thread could go in many different directions......please don’t be so cocksure about my intentions.

FWIW, I think that I could just as easily be accused of “trolling” just by addressing this issue, but I will tell you that what my intention by doing so is to attempt to grasp the essence of a multi-faceted issue.

I’ve watched the charges & counter charges fly back & forth in other strings. None of us are below misunderstanding or confusion or forming opinions (positive or negative) based upon the perceived substance (or lack thereof) of another posters writings.

IMO, any poster is entitled to state their opinion. They are entitled to stick their own feet in their mouth if they so choose. They are entitled to act in a childlike manner should they wish. Along with this entitlement also comes the responsibility for them to defend/justify whatever position they take.......let the chips fall where they may. They also have a responsibility to follow the rules of the forum.

However, shouldn’t a moderators’ position be at least one level higher removed from a poster? I’m not sure that in the Dynasty/Smoothcall imbroglio that that is the case.

It’s so very easy to take shots at Smoothcall because of how he posts, and many have and do. I’m wondering how many are really looking at WHAT he is saying instead of passing judgment on him because of HOW he expresses himself.

I sense a bit of superficial ‘killing the messenger’ in this regard, and I’m wondering how some other posters see it.....

[Cyrus]

Ah, trolling, a fishing term for the internet. On message boards, such as 2+2, when a poster has no intention of starting a real discussion or honestly contributing something but posts strictly in order to generate responses (the more, the merrier), that poster is a troll. He's like a fisherman trailing a baited line from behind his boat.

Do not confuse with flaming, though. A poster is flaming when he starts insults or personal attacks which cause the whole thread/message board to degenerate into a flame war (=the trading of insults and personal attacks between a number of posters).

A poster can start a trolling thread without any flames (personal attacks). For example, a poster can start a thread proclaiming the many benefits of using the Martingale to beat roulette. Since we assume that the people who frequent 2+2 know better, we can safely assume that such a poster is probably trolling.

But, sometimes, the reader of a post cannot immediately understand its true meaning, mistaking it for trolling. And he accuses the original poster of being a troll. This situation is called a gin blossom.

[Phat Mack]

[ QUOTE ]

This situation is called a gin blossom.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only by the cognoscente. Wacka Wacka.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, trolling, a fishing term for the internet. On message boards, such as 2+2, when a poster has no intention of starting a real discussion or honestly contributing something but posts strictly in order to generate responses (the more, the merrier), that poster is a troll. He's like a fisherman trailing a baited line from behind his boat.

[/ QUOTE ]

This definition most closely approaches mine. The object it to get as many strikes as possible in order to catch as many fish as possible. What the fisherman does with the fish once he catches them, however, is an entirely different story. He may throw them all back in the water, as his ultimate goal is simply the ‘sport’ of the battle, or he may keep them all, as his goal may be to stock his food larder.

The point here is that there is a difference between the action (trolling) and the intention (what to do with the fish once they’ve been caught). To combine the terms to infer a singular meaning is most often inaccurate and misleading

[ QUOTE ]
Do not confuse with flaming, though. A poster is flaming when he starts insults or personal attacks which cause the whole thread/message board to degenerate into a flame war (=the trading of insults and personal attacks between a number of posters).

A poster can start a trolling thread without any flames (personal attacks).

[/ QUOTE ]

Again...agreed, if what you’re saying is that a ‘trolling’ thread can be a thread that simply asks a question. The problem arises when the question (or statement that may be made that accompanies the question) is controversial. Controversy, by its’ intrinsic nature sparks ‘flaming’. Flaming, in and by itself, may, or may not, be appropriate. There is a difference between discussing a strong conviction with passion, versus plain emotional venting. That difference is subject to interpretation, and it is my opinion that many cannot differentiate the two, and end up lumping them into the same category, which leads to much confusion. This goes directly to the issue of ‘paying more attention to the personality or style of the messenger, than the message that is being conveyed.

[ QUOTE ]
For example, a poster can start a thread proclaiming the many benefits of using the Martingale to beat roulette. Since we assume that the people who frequent 2+2 know better, we can safely assume that such a poster is probably trolling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup.....but it is hard not to get stuck on the word “assume”, because that is where the danger lies. In your Martingale example, ‘assuming’ infers that one is completely abreast of the analysis of the Martingale System. What do you do with the person who has used it, doesn’t really understand it, but has had a short run of success with it, and therefore innocently believes that it a viable strategy to beat the table?

As Strother Martin said to Paul Newman in ‘Cool Hand Luke’.......”What we have here is a failure to communicate”.

So who is making the bigger mistake? The poster who believes that his conviction is accurate or the reader who knows better, and forms an opinion that the poster is an idiot?

It all goes to subjective interpretation, which is a communications issue, which is a subject that I believe many of us do not do very well with.

There’s simply too much ‘assuming’ going on, without a reasonable amount of ‘explaining’ to support it.


[ QUOTE ]
But, sometimes, the reader of a post cannot immediately understand its true meaning, mistaking it for trolling. And he accuses the original poster of being a troll. This situation is called a gin blossom.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I am evidently not one of the cognoscenti, I'll need your exposition on the 'gin blossom' concept.....

[tech]

Forum Troll (http://www.digitalidesigns.net/grfx-newest-other-dtft.htm)

[Vincent Lepore]

Just because someone puts my picture up here doesn't make me a troll! Handsome one though, if I do say so myself.

Vince