Why do you people feed the trolls?

[DSeid]

I am not going to be a hypocrite and name names or provide links, but will rant in an abstract instead. I would appreciate if names are not mentioned here as feeding the trolls is something I do not want to do.

There are real reasons to pit posters and venting a spleen is sometimes cathartic, but there are those trolls who just thrive on the attention and a goodly number of otherwise sane posters who keep feeding them. Why?

Sure, throwing out a lifeline to see if the poster may actually just needs some face saving way out is reasonable for a post. Giving them the benefit of the doubt that perhaps they really are just that dumb and trying some basic remedial education is okay to try, but when they declare themselves either a troll or willfully ignorant give it up. Even if poster is merely an attention whore with neurons who have had a spat so have have stopped talking to each other or even sending Christmas cards once a year, why keep them whoring themselves here, and in other fora?

STOP IT!

[faithfool]

I've been recently guilty of this. In my case, it was not ever having had anything to do with that poster before and erroneously believing that if I engaged them on a personal level, then perhaps I'd get through. The arrogance of that belief was in not realizing that many others had tried the very same bent and been unsuccessful, so why I thought *I* would be any different was ridiculous. So I'm doubly ashamed for not crediting others with their disregarded attempts to help and not doing my homework before going down an obviously distraught path of futility.

I'm sorry for this wrongheaded approach of mine and will endeavor to be more conscientious in the future.

[Heffalump and Roo]

Well, I didn't get the official troll list, so I'm not sure who is on it. And I suspect that if there was an official list, I'm 100% sure I'd disagree with it. The people who I think are attention whores and/or trolls are clearly not who others think they are in many cases.

Even if poster is merely an attention whore with neurons who have had a spat so have have stopped talking to each other or even sending Christmas cards once a year, why keep them whoring themselves here, and in other fora?
What is this about? Is this some sort of oblique reference to someone that I'm unaware of? If so, weren't you going to be making this generic?

On the other hand, a generic rant like this doesn't have meaning since we're probably all thinking of different people when someone is saying something about the so-called "trolls".

[Mangetout]

I honestly haven't noticed any trolls lately - have their threads been deleted, or am I just not looking in the right place, or worse, not recognising obvious trollery?

[Buckler of Swashing]

Even if poster is merely an attention whore with neurons who have had a spat so have have stopped talking to each other or even sending Christmas cards once a year, why keep them whoring themselves here, and in other fora?




What is this about? Is this some sort of oblique reference to someone that I'm unaware of? If so, weren't you going to be making this generic?


Just guessing here, but I think the OP is using 'having a spat and no longer exchanging Christmas cards" as a way of describing the relationship between the neurons of a non-specific, hypothetical stupid/trollish poster (ie: no neurons firing = stupid). I read the sentence too quickly and had the same question as yourself until I re-read. The nature of the metaphor combined with my quick initial reading of the OP did make it seem like the writer might be referring to a specific, human example.

[rolandgunslinger]

I honestly haven't noticed any trolls lately - have their threads been deleted, or am I just not looking in the right place, or worse, not recognising obvious trollery?

I agree. Which trolls?

[Liberal]

I agree. Which trolls?Possibly the one I responded to here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10648671&postcount=166).

[faithfool]

Well, in my own instance I don't believe that the complete definition of a troll covers the person I'm thinking of. Instead, you have someone that appears not to post on anything else but controversial topics with opinions that are pretty much diametrically opposite to everyone else. Further, they are then impervious to any attempts at logic and, as far as I've counted recently, there's at least 3 different threads going on with several members trying to reach them.

And Og no am I not mentioning who it is. I have no desire to have them following all around the board. I just wanted to post to let DSeid know that I'd done what he noticed and then wished to apologize to the Teeming Millions for perpetuating such infuriating trolling.

[What Exit?]

I am not going to be a hypocrite and name names or provide links, but will rant in an abstract instead. I would appreciate if names are not mentioned here as feeding the trolls is something I do not want to do.

There are real reasons to pit posters and venting a spleen is sometimes cathartic, but there are those trolls who just thrive on the attention and a goodly number of otherwise sane posters who keep feeding them. Why?
...
STOP IT!
Well I have to agree with Heffalump and Roo in that I am not sure who the trolls are. The term gets tossed around pretty easily at many posters. Even some that I consider good and interesting posters.

Maybe some people "feed" those you consider "trolls" as they don't consider the posters "trolls" but just posters with very different views. Would you at least consider PM'ing me those you are talking about. I am always curious about these things. My own list is very short currently and I don't even think I would use the word troll. So I guess I am also with Mangetout on this.

[DSeid]

Sorry if my neurons not talking to each other metaphor was unclear. Lib sorry I missed your reply. I will return to that thread and respond. If you honestly do think I have behaved trollishly - ever - please let me know. Or Pit me! I am one of the boring middle of the road posters who never makes either the favorite poster lists or the Pit lists - being Pitted once would be a new experience for me.

faithfool I was not specifically meaning you but I appreciate the fact that you appreciate what I am meaning.

Hefflelump let us just say that there are threads in which the vast majority of regular posters have concluded that the poster is either a troll or willfully ignorant (with opinions varying about which one) and in which the poster is obviously enjoying the reactions that the poster is provoking (there are some for whom even negative attention is attention). I personally have hard time seeing a big difference between a troll and someone who is willfully ignorant but I suppose it exists. There are other posters who have stated that they have concluded that the poster is a troll or a willfully ignorant attention whore and yet they keep taking the bait again and again. Those are the posters I am questioning.

If you really need a specific example private message me and I will share one in a non-public venue.

Sorry, I don't do Pit all that well.

[LouisB]

I'm NOT going to stop posting and I don't care what you say. Or don't say, as the case may be.

[Rubystreak]

I have to agree with Heffalump and Roo. It's hard to know who's a troll and who just disagrees with you, sometimes with great vigor and ignorance. I think of a troll as a person who came to the board specifically to get a reaction out of people, not someone is truly holds the beliefs they claim. Shodan, for instance, is often accused of being a troll, but I don't think he is. He's just someone who vociferiously posts a view most people here disagree with. I'd say trolls are usually either making shit up, or posting things they know are likely to get a rise out of the Dope community, for the sake of their amusement.

Not too many posters actually fit the bill.

[silenus]

But...but...some of them are so cute! And they look like could use a good meal, so I toss them a few scraps. What harm does it do? Everybody deserves some social interaction, even if it is heaps of abuse from total strangers. So they get off on it. Big deal. Some of us get off on pretending we are superior to trolls. Everybody has their place. It's The Circle Of Life. :D

[Bryan Ekers]

I feed them for the same reason I post generally - it amuses me.

[Trepa Mayfield]

But KGS is just so fascinating.

[Don't fight the hypothetical]

STOP IT!
iNO!
iPlease fuck off and get over yourself.
iLick my hairy nutsack you crazy ass bitch.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I think if you're going to ask people why they're responding to a given poster, I think you have an obligation to identify what poster or posters you're talking about. How are we supposed to know who you think is a troll, and how are we supposed to explain specific posts if we don't know which posts you're referring to?

[Kobal2]

Because people are WRONG on the INTERNET.

[Autolycus]

Oh wow. The Danish Ballad of Eline of Villenskov makes total sense now!

There were seven and a hundred Trolls,
They were both ugly and grim,
A visit they would the farmer make,
Both eat and drink with him.

Out then spake the tinyest Troll,
No bigger than an emmet was he,
Hither is come a Christian man,
And manage him will I surelie

[Princhester]

Yes, but the problem as the OP said is that there are some trolls that clearly get off on the idea they have irritated someone, so if the OP identified them he'd be a hypocrite based on his own OP (as he said). There's at least one poster who I never respond to or discuss in any way for this reason despite them being eminently pit-able.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Yes, but the problem as the OP said is that there are some trolls that clearly get off on the idea they have irritated someone, so if the OP identified them he'd be a hypocrite based on his own OP (as he said).
Then there's no point in starting the thread. You can't expect people to answer the question "Why do you talk to X?" if you're not willing to say who X is.

[MsWhatsit]

I'm pretty sure I am recently guilty of this, and all I can say is that a lot of times you don't realize someone is 1) a troll or 2) completely obtuse and unreachable by reason, until you've already wasted a bunch of posts on them. Sorry.

[clairobscur]

Because I don't know they're trolls, don't realize it until too late, or give them the benefit of the doubt?

Besides, I'm really bad at remembering who's who on a message board. So, the likelihood that I will notice a trend, or have a clue about a particular poster's history is almost nil.

[KGS]

But...but...some of them are so cute! And they look like could use a good meal, so I toss them a few scraps. What harm does it do?
There's your answer.

It boils down to pure Darwinism. Trolls are natural attention-seekers, so they've evolved personalities best suited attract people's attention, even if it's just to make fun of them. Successful trolls evoke responses; unsuccessful trolls aren't skilled enough to get attention, so eventually they slink off and mutate into spammers instead.

But KGS is just so fascinating.If you love me so much, come over and do my laundry. :rolleyes:

[faithfool]

I'm pretty sure I am recently guilty of this, and all I can say is that a lot of times you don't realize someone is 1) a troll or 2) completely obtuse and unreachable by reason, until you've already wasted a bunch of posts on them. Sorry.

Don't feel bad. I think we've all fallen for this sort of thing more than once in our time on the internet and at least you know you're not alone.

[John Mace]

If someone is objectively identifiable as a troll, they will be banned. If they are not objectively identifiable as such, then it's just your opinion that they are trolls.

[DSeid]

Accept it as a hypothetical: there is a poster who you have concluded is either one of the two - either a troll or someone who is not just arrogant and ignorant but willfully ignorant and loving all the negative attention. Do you keep engaging?

I apologize for telling anyone else what to do. Some here find an obvious troll/attention whore to be amusing and will feed for that reason; some perhaps get off on the feeling of superiority they get after having been baited into beating someone up.

As I am keeping this hypothetical and refusing to be specific in a public venue then maybe this should really be a GD, I don't know, but it involves Pit behavior, continued harassment of someone who clearly gets off on provoking that harassment, so I felt it was best here. I could be wrong.

John where is the line drawn between a troll and an attention whore who is just willfully and arrogantly ignorant? The intent in both cases is to provoke the negative responses. One I guess is presenting a false image of who they are and another merely exaggerates their real features. As long as their is reasonable doubt that they are the latter and not the former they will not be banned. What objective measure do you know of to make that assessment? The mods will do their best and give a wide benefit of the doubt I am sure.

[Princhester]

Then there's no point in starting the thread. You can't expect people to answer the question "Why do you talk to X?" if you're not willing to say who X is.

You can ask the question "Why do you talk to posters with characteristics "X"?" which is what the OP did. It's a weak OP but it isn't inherently illogical or silly.

[Nzinga, Seated]

iNO!
iPlease fuck off and get over yourself.
iLick my hairy nutsack you crazy ass bitch.

Huh. Still cracks me up.

[Telcontar]

Because people are WRONG on the INTERNET.

To add to this rather excellent reason:

1.) It's hard to keep track of the good guys and bad guys on SD; there are just too many posters. Unless you live on the boards you may not have noticed that the person in question has behaved badly three times in the space of a week. So you are left to rely on your own experience to determine who is and who is not a troll. Then it takes awhile to sort the uninformed from the willfully ignorant (and, by that point, you've probably been arguing with them for awhile).
2.) People watching a thread might not be aware that a given poster is a troll, even if you are. By arguing with the troll you save the watchers from taking them seriously, thereby fighting the ignorance of reasonable readers who were not sufficiently informed on the issue (think the post Liberal linked above).
3.) Hi, Opal.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Accept it as a hypothetical: there is a poster who you have concluded is either one of the two - either a troll or someone who is not just arrogant and ignorant but willfully ignorant and loving all the negative attention. Do you keep engaging?
My answer is that if I personally think someone is an obvious troll, then I don't engage them. If I do engage with someone that you feel is an obvious troll, it just means that it hasn't become obvious to me yet.

[Heffalump and Roo]

Hefflelump let us just say that there are threads in which the vast majority of regular posters have concluded that the poster is either a troll or willfully ignorant (with opinions varying about which one) and in which the poster is obviously enjoying the reactions that the poster is provoking (there are some for whom even negative attention is attention). I personally have hard time seeing a big difference between a troll and someone who is willfully ignorant but I suppose it exists. There are other posters who have stated that they have concluded that the poster is a troll or a willfully ignorant attention whore and yet they keep taking the bait again and again. Those are the posters I am questioning.
That doesn't make the other posters right. How do you know that the positions of the other posters are right? There are a number of positions that are held at the Dope that are not popularly held in the wider society of the US. And the Dope has a fairly US-centric viewpoint. So it may just be that the person might be "right" by majority viewpoint if they weren't posting on the Dope.
Using other posters' opinions as a measure of whether someone is right or wrong is not a good one, especially on a message board like the Dope where there are lots of minority opinions in the wider society that are agreed upon here.

Accept it as a hypothetical: there is a poster who you have concluded is either one of the two - either a troll or someone who is not just arrogant and ignorant but willfully ignorant and loving all the negative attention. Do you keep engaging?
It depends on how I've determined that they're willfully ignorant. If they're just posting threads that don't make sense repeatedly, I try to point that out to others in the correct venue.
But if I just disagree, they have equal chance of being right. If I think they're not understanding the complexity of my argument, I'd probably move on. But they may not be willfully ignorant; plain unsophisticated is sufficient for that.

You can ask the question "Why do you talk to posters with characteristics "X"?" which is what the OP did. It's a weak OP but it isn't inherently illogical or silly.
But in this case, characteristic "X" is too vague to be of any use.

[Jackmannii]

Because people are WRONG on the INTERNET.OOooo, it makes me so MAD!!!

[Discordia]

If someone is objectively identifiable as a troll, they will be banned. If they are not objectively identifiable as such, then it's just your opinion that they are trolls.

Given that the definition of trolling includes intent, I'd love to know how you can objectively identify it. You're also assuming the mods will always ban people who troll, which is complete tosh. People like Diogenes have trolled plenty of times and never been banned.

Don't know why trolling isn't allowed anyway, they can be quite amusing. The crappy ones can be ignored.

[FinnAgain]

It's like tonguing a sore spot in your mouth when you know that you shouldn't. That's pretty much the best I can do to explain it. Sometimes the drive to fight ignorance/stupidity/lies is strong enough that good sense gets drowned out. Of course, there are also times when it's clear that a troll isn't going to go away or get banned any time soon, and it's amusing enough for me to make fun of them a bit.

There's also the fact that, unfortunately, trolls often aim to deceive and mislead those who are reading along. Dishonesty and deception are things that I absolutely cannot stand. And I'd sometimes rather feed a troll then allow them to trick other people.

Of course, sometimes the trolling is so blatant that it's more laughable that something that has to be responded to. I won't name names as you've requested, but there's a thread in GD right now that's being trolled so hilariously and with such determination that the troll in question has produced a self-caricature and is its own best refutation. At times like that, I can step back and laugh, perhaps after poking at the troll's stupidity once or twice for fun.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Given that the definition of trolling includes intent, I'd love to know how you can objectively identify it. You're also assuming the mods will always ban people who troll, which is complete tosh. People like Diogenes have trolled plenty of times and never been banned.
If you ever think I'm trolling, fucking report me. No go fuck yourself, whoever you are.

[even sven]

Sorry about that guys. I guess I got successfully trolled. You live you learn.

[FinnAgain]

Ah well.

[Discordia]

If you ever think I'm trolling, fucking report me. No go fuck yourself, whoever you are.

I already said I don't think trolls should be banned, so I don't know why I would do that. I wasn't insulting you anyway, there's no need for such language. Your trolling is usually pretty good, though sometimes it really gets over the top. Certainly better than the average troll!

[faithfool]

That doesn't make the other posters right. How do you know that the positions of the other posters are right? There are a number of positions that are held at the Dope that are not popularly held in the wider society of the US. And the Dope has a fairly US-centric viewpoint. So it may just be that the person might be "right" by majority viewpoint if they weren't posting on the Dope.
Using other posters' opinions as a measure of whether someone is right or wrong is not a good one, especially on a message board like the Dope where there are lots of minority opinions in the wider society that are agreed upon here.

What makes society at large necessarily right then? Sometimes multiple posters, especially many varied different ones with no axes to grind, are correct if they are butting their heads up against someone who, say, mischaracterizations others' positions, projects their own biases, and disregards information.

It depends on how I've determined that they're willfully ignorant. If they're just posting threads that don't make sense repeatedly, I try to point that out to others in the correct venue.
But if I just disagree, they have equal chance of being right. If I think they're not understanding the complexity of my argument, I'd probably move on. But they may not be willfully ignorant; plain unsophisticated is sufficient for that.

Just disagreeing with someone isn't enough of a reason to view them as a troll and I'm sure that in plenty of cases, "plain unsophistication" would indeed be enough to simply note the situation and move on. However, I think if someone repeatedly displays blatant dishonesty with their debate (for lack of a better word) tactics, then that person is something much more and undoubtedly would fall under the heading of "willfully ignorant."

But in this case, characteristic "X" is too vague to be of any use.

Eh, as a hypothetical it works well enough.

And good points Finn, but although I all too well understand the desire to fight ignorance for those following along at home, I sometimes think with people like this ignoring their attention-whore craving is what's best served because then there isn't piles of their false bullshit for anyone to wade through. Then they go away sooner.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I already said I don't think trolls should be banned, so I don't know why I would do that. I wasn't insulting you anyway, there's no need for such language. Your trolling is usually pretty good, though sometimes it really gets over the top. Certainly better than the average troll!
I think maybe I'm the one being trolled.

[Maastricht]

Another board I know allows moderators or (senior) members to rate other posters. Posters can get good points as well as bad points. That ought to make it easier to identify what most people consider trolls.

[Idle Thoughts]

I think there's a huge difference between being a troll and being an asshole. Being an asshole doesn't always equal being a troll.

There are a few on this board I suspect are trolls (maybe two or three). This is not because I disagree with anything they say. One of the biggest things I dislike is the fact that people say "just because you don't like what they say or disagree with them doesn't make them a troll" because I often don't even care about what some people say--the fact that they are making certain topics or posts just to get a rise out of others or get reactions is the definition of troll.

So I guess what I'm saying is that, yeah, I agree there are some people who are trying to troll and I agree it's not good to feed them, but some people are more assholes then trolls.

DTC is an asshole. Small British Shop Owner was a troll.
Shodan is an asshole. 2.5 inches of fun was a troll.
Der Trihs is an asshole. TLDR was a troll.

See the difference?
The assholes may be assholes all of the time or some of the time*, but at least they're OUR assholes. The trolls, on the other hand, have no place here.




*Just for the record, I actually don't think that Shodan, DTC, or Der Trihs are assholes, but I needed examples and since MOST people seem to think they're the most asshole-ish, I used them

[Discordia]

Yeah, the difference is the trolls are faking being assholes. I'd rather ban the actual assholes!

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I think there's a huge difference between being a troll and being an asshole. Being an asshole doesn't always equal being a troll.

There are a few on this board I suspect are trolls (maybe two or three). This is not because I disagree with anything they say. One of the biggest things I dislike is the fact that people say "just because you don't like what they say or disagree with them doesn't make them a troll" because I often don't even care about what some people say--the fact that they are making certain topics or posts just to get a rise out of others or get reactions is the definition of troll.

So I guess what I'm saying is that, yeah, I agree there are some people who are trying to troll and I agree it's not good to feed them, but some people are more assholes then trolls.

DTC is an asshole. Small British Shop Owner was a troll.
Shodan is an asshole. 2.5 inches of fun was a troll.
Der Trihs is an asshole. TLDR was a troll.

See the difference?
The assholes may be assholes all of the time or some of the time*, but at least they're OUR assholes. The trolls, on the other hand, have no place here.




*Just for the record, I actually don't think that Shodan, DTC, or Der Trihs are assholes, but I needed examples and since MOST people seem to think they're the most asshole-ish, I used them
Thank you. I agree. I'm perfectly willing to accept that sometimes people think I'm being an asshole. I've never intentionally trolled. I say what I really think.

[Inner Stickler]

I think maybe I'm the one being trolled.I've noticed that some people view trolling as a binary state. Either you are one or you aren't. Others see it as something you can engage in once in a while. So what one might term jerking your chain, another would deem trolling. I wonder if you see it from the former and Discordia sees it as the latter.

[Heffalump and Roo]

What makes society at large necessarily right then?
I wasn't trying to say that society at large was right. My point was that the OP was using the fact that most of the other posters here agreed, so that made the person they're disagreeing with a troll. So I pointed out that having lots of people agree with you doesn't mean the other person is wrong.
Sometimes multiple posters, especially many varied different ones with no axes to grind, are correct if they are butting their heads up against someone who, say, mischaracterizations others' positions, projects their own biases, and disregards information.
How can you know that it's not the reader who is doing all those things?

Just disagreeing with someone isn't enough of a reason to view them as a troll and I'm sure that in plenty of cases, "plain unsophistication" would indeed be enough to simply note the situation and move on. However, I think if someone repeatedly displays blatant dishonesty with their debate (for lack of a better word) tactics, then that person is something much more and undoubtedly would fall under the heading of "willfully ignorant."
If someone shows blatant dishonesty of their debate tactics, why couldn't the opponent point this out?

Eh, as a hypothetical it works well enough.
Not really, since I'm having a difficult time imagining the scenarios you're discussing above. You seem so sure that everyone agrees when this happens, but I'd have to see a situation to see if I agree or even know what you're talking about.

[FinnAgain]

If someone shows blatant dishonesty of their debate tactics, why couldn't the opponent point this out?


Well, it's specifically against the rules in Great Debates.

[Discordia]

I've noticed that some people view trolling as a binary state. Either you are one or you aren't. Others see it as something you can engage in once in a while. So what one might term jerking your chain, another would deem trolling. I wonder if you see it from the former and Discordia sees it as the latter.

Yep. I think pretty much all posters, or at least the ones who post in GD and the like, have trolled at some point.

[faithfool]

How can you know that it's not the reader who is doing all those things?


If someone shows blatant dishonesty of their debate tactics, why couldn't the opponent point this out?

I can only go on my own experience here, but again, since it seems that there are a whole buttload of posters over several different threads, all with nothing in common, that this seems to be happening to, I have a hard time ascribing nefarious motives to the entire group. It seems much more simple that it's the one person they're throwing their hands up over.

Also, many have pointed this out to their "opponent" to no avail. There's evasion, lies and downright disengenuousness. But perhaps it really is everyone else instead of the one person it appears is causing havoc. Just my observation.

Not really, since I'm having a difficult time imagining the scenarios you're discussing above. You seem so sure that everyone agrees when this happens, but I'd have to see a situation to see if I agree or even know what you're talking about.

Well, considering there's been what, four or five people (plus the OP) who apparently this has happened to recently, I think I'd start from there. I suppose if that doesn't help, I'd go looking myself (say, by clicking on "posts by the users" of members in this thread who feel they've been involved in that sort of thing) if folks (like the OP) didn't wish to call anyone out specifically for some reason. Of course, that's just what I'd do. Your mileage may vary.

[Peanut Gallery]

I am 100% behind the OP. Indeed, I actually posted a similar "DNFTT" thread not long ago. (I made the mistake of mentioning Shodan, which DSeid has done well not to.)

The idea is not to identify who is a troll and who is not. Those people will do what they do. But instead, the rest of us can think twice when responding to certain posts/posters.

Too often, people will sidetrack what could have been a good debate by spending two pages arguing some semantic nonsense or other irrelevancy, when they could have just ignored it after one or two posts. Sometimes they're arguing against truly ignorant people. Great! But more often, it is against the same handful of asshole/trolls (trollholes?). They start with their normal asshole routine, but when their position has been shredded, they fall right back on making shit up like trolls, until nobody remembers what the thread was about. And the worst part ... the part we can all correct ... is that everybody still entertains them at it, time after time.

It's tragically hilarious on a board which prides itself on its intelligence. You'll get somebody providing dozens of legal cites and diagrams and charts and so on to defend Bill Clinton's blowjob in an epic thread about global warming.

[RTFirefly]

Because people are WRONG on the INTERNET (http://xkcd.com/386/).
Obligatory XKCD link added. Shame on you for not including it to begin with!

[What Exit?]

Yep. I think pretty much all posters, or at least the ones who post in GD and the like, have trolled at some point.

Is this where you tell us how you had been lurking for years reading GD? Because I think your theory is basically bullshit and most posters, even regular GD posters have not trolled even at some point.

[Jack Batty]

I suppose I can't really speak for anyone else, but I think the overriding factors in which posters feed the trolls are that there's this convenient little field in which to type, a button called "Post Reply" and the fact that this is a message board on the Internet.

Shit, you might as well ask us to stop posting polls wondering which Partridge Family characters we are.

[Shodan]

I am 100% behind the OP. Indeed, I actually posted a similar "DNFTT" thread not long ago. (I made the mistake of mentioning Shodan, which DSeid has done well not to.)You don't seem to have learned from the mistake, though.

Regards,
Shodan

[Green Bean]

DSeid: There seems to be an assumption inherent in your OP--that most of the regular posters have a pretty good idea who the trollish people are.

Baloney. I have no clue.

Do you hang out in GD a lot? I don't. But it seems to me that a lot of the types of discussions that include "willful ignorance" and things like that happen in GD.

So if a GD denizen ends up embroiled in a Pit thread, how would I know that he's a slippery eel of a poster who regularly engages in misdirection, straw-man arguments, and intellectual dishonesty?

Plus, even if the person demonstrates trollish behavior in the Pit thread, those of us who aren't necessarily attuned to that type of argument might not even notice.


Besides, some trolls are fun. Jack Dean Tyler was fun. Wildest Bill was fun. I thought TLDR was fun, too. We might as well have some fun talking with them before their inevitable banning. With regard to the less-fun trolls--I personally don't find endless semantic arguments of any type to be enjoyable, but some people do. That's their prerogative.

I hear what you're saying about how sometimes threads get hijacked or sidetracked, and how annoying that can be, but I think there are better ways to deal with it than berating all of us for ordinary message board behavior.

[Ethilrist]

I think a relatively small number of people are trolling, and for each of those people, there are a few who either don't get it or who just respond to the bait, with the end result looking like all trolls get fed by a lot of people. Whenever I notice somebody trolling, my internal editor turns it into a humor post (on account of the fact that actually trolling will get you banned, but appearing to troll when in fact you're just being silly (or stupid) won't). The trolling that I don't realize is trolling? Well, who cares?

As somebody put it on my son's WoW guild forum, "I wasn't trolling; I was just posting deliberately provocative statements in order to incite an emotional response."

[Rand Rover]

I think I could be rightly accused of sidetracking threads on semantic arguments, but I don't do it with the intent to sidetrack the thread. Rather, I comment on a side semantic issue when I think it's actually more important than whatever the OP thought his ain point was. If people respond to me and the thread gets sidetracked, that's out of my control. It arguably makes the thread better if others agree that I picked the better issue to discuss.

[olivesmarch4th]

Well I'm having trouble with this hypothetical stuff so I am going to have to drop some names. I think a lot of people that have been labeled as ''trolls'' are really just irritating and have unpopular opinions. It's rare that I've seen a post (or collection of posts) and thought, ''That guy's definitely a troll.'' Of course, I'm more trusting than others-- 2.5 Inches of Fun had me going right up until his inevitable banning.

Dio, for example, gets accused of trolling an awful lot, but really he's just very blunt regardless of whether his opinion is popular or unpopular. His delivery and debate style is incredibly consistent, which is basically what people get so up in arms about.

Der Trihs gets accused of trolling a lot too, but really he's just insanely passionate about atheism to the point that he doesn't mind offending others.

A lot of right-wingers get accused of being trolls by nature of them having opinions that significantly differ from mainstream Dope perspective. Take Jesse Leigh--annoying as fuck in that thread about The Most Important Person In History but pretty obviously sincere and in the very least respectful about her ideas. I think it's only a matter of time before someone starts calling her a troll.

Everyone accused ivan astikov of trolling when he first arrived but he seems to have settled in pretty well. I think he was just learning the ropes. (FWIW, ivan, I liked you from the beginning. You seem very good-natured.)

A true troll would have to be someone who deliberately posts certain things to get a rise out of people and stir up shit on the boards. And I think some of our more aggressive posters do this deliberately from time to time, but I'd be hard pressed to think of any who makes it their life mission.

[Hogwash]

The word 'troll' is so over-used these days it has lost all significant meaning. What used to be a term for people who held insincere and/or inflammatory opinions for the purpose of fooling or irritating others is now used for 'the guy that I disagree with', or 'the poster that offended my favourite band'. It almost makes me wince whenever I see it thrown out, justified or not.

[Marley23]

If someone is objectively identifiable as a troll, they will be banned. If they are not objectively identifiable as such, then it's just your opinion that they are trolls.
If it was that easy, we'd ban more trolls and/or there would be less dispute about whether or not someone deserved banning when it happened. DSeid isn't making it clear who he's talking about even though the t-word usually gets thrown at the same couple of people these days, so I guess it'll remain his opinion, because it's hard for anybody to make an argument for or against somebody being a troll when the person isn't being identified.

[ivan astikov]

I still can't find anyone I dislike enough to give a mention, but can I just say that olivesmarch4th is a great judge of character! :D

[DSeid]

Dio, for example, gets accused of trolling an awful lot, but really he's just very blunt regardless of whether his opinion is popular or unpopular. His delivery and debate style is incredibly consistent, which is basically what people get so up in arms about.Dio really wasn't the inspiration for this thread in any way. Honestly. Not at all. He is not an idiot, I have no sense of him being an attention whore, and my experience has been that he posts just fine in most threads. But just by way of a specific case to discuss for proper use of terms, I offer up his behavior in this thread. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=500242) Please note: the issue is not that I disagree with the points that he makes, but comment #18: Forget it, Newcrasher, it's Israel. There is absolutely nothing Israel can ever do, and no line it can ever cross that Americans will ever criticize. It's the ultimate sacred cow, even in relatively liberal communities like this. Americans basically see Palestinians as evil and subhuman and deserving of extinction. Israel is never anything but a suffering martyr longing only for peace. You're never going to change these people's minds.and his quick admission that no, no one in that thread was saying that, and that he doesn't really believe what he said, that he was justtrying to mirror the kind of knee-jerk, unnuanced, black/white oversimplification that's always used by Israel supporters to steamroll any attempt to argue that the Palestinians have any legitimate grievances or that any aggressive act by Israel may not be 100% justified.(Post#25)

An honest question: was the first post an attempt at satire or trolling or something else? I don't think it is trolling even though it is indeed staking out a position that he does not believe in order to provoke a reaction because I believe that he intends to obliquely make a point that he does believe, even if it had no bearing on the thread.

Now when he follows that up with a variety of posts that declare rockets don't count as attacks unless they threaten the very existence of the country, that he believes that intending to harm civilians is the same as unintentionally and unavoidably harming them (and a host of other inexplicably bizarre positions) are we to believe that he really holds those positions or that he trying to satire in some way or is it trolling?

And again to make clear, no, this is not the sort of behavior my op referenced and I kind of like Dio. I mean attention whoring and even if Dio is trolling he is honestly trying to illustrate something he does believe by doing it - which is not the kind of thing that bugs me.

[Kalhoun]

Sometimes it's just a release. Plain and simple. That's what cyberspace is for.

[RedFury]

Lame pitting, IMHO. As written it implies some sort of inner sanctum knowledge of who the "trolls and ignorants" are...which is really BS for many of the aforementioned reasons.

Got a beef? Bring it. Because as you likely know, "Beating Around the Bush" is just so 2004.

...

Yeah yeah not to worry, I'll stick to my real job and let 'luc and Vinyl take care of the jabs. More of a hammer guy myself.

Later...

[Heffalump and Roo]

I can only go on my own experience here, but again, since it seems that there are a whole buttload of posters over several different threads, all with nothing in common, that this seems to be happening to, I have a hard time ascribing nefarious motives to the entire group. It seems much more simple that it's the one person they're throwing their hands up over.
But you're making the same argument that I just responded to that you commented on that DSeid had made. You're claiming that there's a whole bunch of posters on the Dope who think the poster is wrong. That doesn't make that one poster wrong. Again, the Dope has some views that are very specific and are not necessarily mainstream. I'm not claiming nefarous motives to the group, just that they generally agree on a number of things so a bunch of posters agreeing is common here, but that doesn't necessarily make them right.

But again, I don't know what you're talking about, so I can only guess that this is content-driven and not style-driven or not tone-driven. There are huge differences there as well.

Also, many have pointed this out to their "opponent" to no avail. There's evasion, lies and downright disengenuousness. But perhaps it really is everyone else instead of the one person it appears is causing havoc. Just my observation.
All those words. . . evasion, lies, downright disengenuousness. . . are motivation- derived. No one on a message board can tell someone's motivation. We can only guess.

The one person may be creating havoc because people here disagree with them. But that doesn't make them wrong.

Well, considering there's been what, four or five people (plus the OP) who apparently this has happened to recently, I think I'd start from there. I suppose if that doesn't help, I'd go looking myself (say, by clicking on "posts by the users" of members in this thread who feel they've been involved in that sort of thing) if folks (like the OP) didn't wish to call anyone out specifically for some reason. Of course, that's just what I'd do. Your mileage may vary.
Interestingly, last night I actually did a quick scan of some posters' last few posts from this thread that have noted that they have been having problems. I didn't see anything. Then again, I don't know what I'm looking for, so maybe I passed right by without noticing.
Please note that there have been several posters in this thread who hang out in GD who have not noticed any trolls. If they're so prevalent, one would think they'd be noticeable.
And now that I've seen some posters posting names, I'll stand by most original post and say that I disagree with any of the list of names so far that any of them are trolls.

An honest question: was the first post an attempt at satire or trolling or something else? I don't think it is trolling even though it is indeed staking out a position that he does not believe in order to provoke a reaction because I believe that he intends to obliquely make a point that he does believe, even if it had no bearing on the thread.
Now you're really cutting it too finely. When you're talking about making points that you don't honestly believe for a couple posts, you're saying that no one can play devil's advocate or try out an idea or investigate alternative ways of thinking. I hope that's not your point.
But since you say this is not what your OP is about, it's still unclear as to what it *is* about.

[Heffalump and Roo]

(Sorry for the double post; missed the edit window)
I was just thinking about Idle Thought's post and the trolls he listed there that are no longer here. Those don't go on the list. They were trolls. But since they're no longer here, we can't be talking about them. I pointed them out as trolls when I saw them and engaged them only if it was entertaining.

[faithfool]

Nevermind. I solely came in here to support DSeid's thesis and apologize for being one of the one's duped. Since I simply was observing the same things that apparently the folks here who have noticed something, by attempting to explain (following the same guidelines as outlined in the OP) and obviously failing, I'll withdraw from the discussion and perhaps another person might with to attempt it who can easily do a better job.

[DSeid]

Heffalump

My sole motivation for bringing up the specific of Dio's post is to try to gain some sense of what people think is trolling, what is attention whoring, etc.

Dio is most definitely not playing devil's advocate or trying out an idea. He consistently takes a similar stance in every thread regarding Israel and he has readily admitted on more than one occasion that he takes his extreme positions that he does not really embrace in response to some perception that he has of simplistic black and white positions taken by some in other venues on the other side - "mirroring" that behavior that he finds offensive in others in all threads about Israel that he participates. He clearly really does lean in that direction as well but the extremism is insincere. It doesn't bother me much as he is, when asked, honest enough to admit to it.

What is the proper thing to call that?

[Bryan Ekers]

What is the proper thing to call that?

Bein' a jerk?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Rhetorical hyperbole.

[Bryan Ekers]

That would be fine if you started with the hyperbole and gradually narrowed in on a workable realistic proposal. Instead, I've noted that you start out wacky, and when that (surprisingly) doesn't work, you go even wackier and wackier.

I admit, it's entertaining and all, watching you take your credibility out back and shoot it over and over.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

It's over your head.

[Bryan Ekers]

No, it's actually beneath me.

[FinnAgain]

Well, as long as you've named names D...

Bein' a jerk?

Yeah, but adopting a position you don't actually agree with that you create because you erroneously believe it mirrors your opponents' positions, order to 'throw it back in their faces'? That's rather clearly trolling.

I mean, fuck, look at how Dio is reduced to making up definitions for words as if he was Humpty Dumpty. Definitions that make things like the Blitz "not an attack" and would make random carpet bombing of Gaza as, also, "not an attack". He just makes shit up as he goes along so that he can frustrate people. His recent trolling started, for instance, by accusing people of using a "lie" in stating that Israel had been attacked by Hamas. He's not a stupid person, although he is pig headed.
He's certainly not stupid enough to believe that people were using a "lie" to describe hundreds of rockets launched by the government of one nation against the people of another, as an attack. And he does that to troll white people by insulting them as overly sensitive liars who invent claims of racism and to troll people who aren't anti-Israel by calling suggesting that they're lying when they claim that high explosive ordinance is an attack.

Dio knows full well that nobody was lying and that his definition of the word "attack" is at odds with the English language, poli sci, the rules of international conflict, etc...
So he was pretending that his made up definition was accurate in order to call other people liars. That's trolling.

The difference between trolling and playing devil's advocate is twofold. The first is that if you're playing DA you should let people know that fact. The second is that in playing DA, you don't adopt positions that are designed pretty much solely to piss people off.

And for the record, I do wish that people in that thread hadn't been feeding him quite so much. Mocking his startling stupidity was funny enough, but more than a few people were acting as if he was interested in honest discussion rather than crafting dishonest positions to piss people off. His trolling pretty much completely hijacked the thread for dozens of posts. I wish more people really would ignore his bullshit, because it's usually along the same lines. He takes something that has an actual definition, like "racism" or "attack", and then pretends that racism isn't racism if it's directed against white people and attacks aren't attacks unless they can topple an entire government.
There's absolutely no point in feeding him once he decides that he's going to go all out and troll the fuck out of a thread.

[DSeid]

Okay, his head is beneath you. We accept whatever relationship you two have. Moving along (and the aside that you must realize that it only polarizes discussions Dio, when these subjects could really use some appreciation of the real complex dynamics and motivations) it does fit the definition of trolling even if it annoys little. And it hijacks real discussions as well (as Finn says I see on preview)

Thing is that your trolling is at least an honest trolling of a sort and if anything ends up helping the other side of the debate some by painting your side is such an absurdist light. You are rarely nasty about it. And you also have many other areas in which you provide real and significant contributions. I believe that your trolling is tolerable. I'd like a different word for that sort than for those who make no significant contributions other than to whore for attention - and fill in whoever you have as your personal example there.

I know that we all have our own opinions about who meets or doesn't cross that line and that my refusal to open up another Pit thread devoted to the same poster makes this a lame pit. I've gotten my answer to why some persist in feeding the trolls/attention whores by now - some just can't resist poking at the troll, some just can't let the troll get in the last word, and some are amused by the idiocy. Okay, my ignorance is hereby reduced.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

If you ever think I'm trolling, report it

ETA, above is said to Finn, not to DSeid.

[Kobal2]

Obligatory XKCD link added. Shame on you for not including it to begin with!

I swear I tried, but the edit window was over by the time I found the exact page (was waaaay older than I thought it was). I considered doing a new post just for the link but ... yeah.

[olivesmarch4th]

Heffalump

My sole motivation for bringing up the specific of Dio's post is to try to gain some sense of what people think is trolling, what is attention whoring, etc.

Dio is most definitely not playing devil's advocate or trying out an idea. He consistently takes a similar stance in every thread regarding Israel and he has readily admitted on more than one occasion that he takes his extreme positions that he does not really embrace in response to some perception that he has of simplistic black and white positions taken by some in other venues on the other side - "mirroring" that behavior that he finds offensive in others in all threads about Israel that he participates. He clearly really does lean in that direction as well but the extremism is insincere. It doesn't bother me much as he is, when asked, honest enough to admit to it.

What is the proper thing to call that?

I don't know. His style of argument is beyond me. I am not normally aggressively certain about my positions to the extent that I would risk offense to others. To someone unaccustomed to this style it may certainly look like trollish behavior, but given my opportunity to observe him over the last couple of years, I conclude he's just partial to a style of debate not my own. Many other posters do the same thing, he just captures my attention most likely because of his valuable contributions in other contexts.

I think part of the reason the whole ''troll'' accusation gets thrown around lately is because people have a tendency to take these strong opinions very personally. While Dio's position in that thread certainly elicits a ''WTF?,'' as does Jesse Leigh's in the other GD thread, as does curlcoat's in the child-pet GD thread, the troll aspect only surfaces if you come to believe that the poster is intending a vicious assault on the very principles you hold dear, means to insult you personally with his/her stated position, etc. I don't think that's the case for any of the above examples. In Dio's case, he's just trying to make a point (which I'll admit I still don't grasp even though you've explained it more than once) in a less-than-usual way.

When there are instances where people let their guard down and take these things personally (as I will fully admit I have in the past), that's when the ''DNFTT'' accusations come out. But in most cases it's just two or more people getting really caught up in their emotions about a subject they vehemently disagree on. I do believe that if the majority of posters on the Dope find an idea repugnant, it's probably a fairly accurate reflection of mainstream thought... however, I think the lone dissenters have a right to express their controversial views without being accused of trolling.

On preview I see you were addressing your comment to Heffalump and I'm interested in her interpretation as well, but I'll let my own remarks stand.

[faithfool]

....I know that we all have our own opinions about who meets or doesn't cross that line and that my refusal to open up another Pit thread devoted to the same poster makes this a lame pit. I've gotten my answer to why some persist in feeding the trolls/attention whores by now - some just can't resist poking at the troll, some just can't let the troll get in the last word, and some are amused by the idiocy. Okay, my ignorance is hereby reduced.

I've bolded the part that bears repeating, which undoubtedly goes a long way towards explaining why DSeid hasn't called anyone out and wished to have a hypothetical discussion instead.

Just sayin'.

[FinnAgain]

Dio, what makes you think I haven't reported your trolling?
Besides, Marley has already pointed out that the mods are no more 'objective' than we posters are. They don't get to legislate ontology any more than we do. Trolls are trolls whether or not they're modded.
And posters like Sevastopol are warned roughly annually for trolling and recently Tom described PRR's conduct in the same language as the board's official definition of trolling without issuing a slap on the wrist let alone a Warning. There's no reason to expect that all the trolls here will be dealt with, and I can make much better use of my time by laughing at how ridiculously stupid you look when you claim that people are lying for stating that hundreds of anti-personnel rockets would constitute an attack, or that the rockets would be similar to kicking dirt or a five year old kicking your shins.

I don't mind your trolling so much as I mind people responding seriously to your trolling. At least, after a post or two when it becomes clear that you're trolling, since you do sorta have a selective troll nature and you do sometimes offer comments of value. Other times, you just troll your heart out. You are, I'll admit, at least a funny troll and D is right, you're very rarely hateful. Most often you're simply risible as you race into the realm of self-parody.

And simply for the record, you were in fact once warned in one of the first Pit threads I ever started. And that was after you admitted to using a term you knew was inaccurate, in order to piss people off. Back then, it was you pretending that the US was engaged in a "campaign of genocide" against Iraqis and decided that a contentious issue would be made more inflammatory by your amping up the rhetoric to absurd levels. (Sound familiar?)

Oh, and on edit:

In Dio's case, he's just trying to make a point (which I'll admit I still don't grasp even though you've explained it more than once) in a less-than-usual way.

Naw, he started making that 'point' by saying that those who didn't agree with his invented definition were using a "lie".

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Wasn't that "genocide" thread like 5 years ago? You've got a long memory. I barely remember it.

I think that my fault is not "trolling" in the sense that I'm intentionally arguing anything I don't believe, it's that I have a weakness for over-the-top hyperbole. When I get worked up I turn into George Carlin, the latter years.

For the record, I wasn't trying to be cute in that Israel thread in that whole "attack" tangent. I really was trying to argue that Israel as a state, was not under any existential threat and that its claims that its operating in self-defense are (in my opinion) disingenuous.

I don't care if you disagree, and I don't think you're a bad person if you do, but I wasn't stating anything I didn't believe.

Even the "mirror" post was only a slight exaggeration of what I believe.

[Ludovic]

If you ever think I'm trolling, report it

ETA, above is said to Finn, not to DSeid.I already reported this post of yours, in which you are trolling. Of course, my definition of trolling is different from everybody else's, but you'd have to be an idiot not to agree with me.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Naw, he started making that 'point' by saying that those who didn't agree with his invented definition were using a "lie".
I didn't say that. I said the "essential lie" was that Israel was operating in self-defense. I was calling Israel a liar, not other posters.

[FinnAgain]

I think that my fault is not "trolling" in the sense that I'm intentionally arguing anything I don't believe, it's that I have a weakness for over-the-top hyperbole.

You do realize that everything after the comma directly contradicts everything before it? By admitting you're using "over-the-top hyperbole" you're admitting that you're using an exaggeration that is bombastic and overblown and that you don't believe.

And yeah, not only was it the first Pit thread I ever started, but it was over an inflammatory lie about how the US was involved in a deliberate campaign to exterminate the Iraqis. It was some of the craziest, ugliest, most dishonest shit I'd ever seen. Still is.
In terms of raw Crazypants Theater Quotient, you were about on the same level as people who claim that fluoride is in our water to facilitate mind control or that anti-personnel rockets, launched by the government of one nation against another nation, don't constitute an attack and anybody who claims it does is lying. That kind of outrageous trolling tends to stick in my mind.

But never mind, even discussing this here with you I'm feeding you. And it's not funny enough to justify me continuing.

On the edit, however, I will briefly point out that you're now trolling in this thread some more. To the point:

I didn't say that. I said the "essential lie" was that Israel was operating in self-defense. I was calling Israel a liar, not other posters.

Other posters in the thread had made that exact same claim, and even if they hadn't, you'd have to be an idiot not to realize that they were bound to. Your were making up a bogus definition of "attack" in order to call them liars.

[Heffalump and Roo]

On preview I see you were addressing your comment to Heffalump and I'm interested in her interpretation as well, but I'll let my own remarks stand.
I'm not sure why the OP asked me what it's called since I didn't write the post. The author of the post answers here:
Rhetorical hyperbole.
Hyperbole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole)
Hyperbole (pronounced /haɪˈpɝːbəli/ hye-PER-buh-lee; "HYE-per-bowl" is a mispronunciation) comes from ancient Greek "ὑπερβολή" (meaning excess or exaggeration) and is a figure of speech in which statements are exaggerated. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is rarely meant to be taken literally.

Hyperbole is used to create emphasis. It is a literary device often used in poetry, and is frequently encountered in casual speech. It is also a visual technique in which a deliberate exaggeration of a particular part of an image is employed. An example is the exaggeration of a person's facial feature in a political cartoon.
It sounds like Dio was trying to create a caricature of the other side through the use of exaggeration. The difficulty is when the two sides are very polarized, it's often difficult to exaggerate enough to make it obvious. Some people will take it literally. And when you try to correct that by exaggerating more, it looks like what Bryan Ekers is describing:
That would be fine if you started with the hyperbole and gradually narrowed in on a workable realistic proposal. Instead, I've noted that you start out wacky, and when that (surprisingly) doesn't work, you go even wackier and wackier.

I admit, it's entertaining and all, watching you take your credibility out back and shoot it over and over.

On preview: Dio gave his interpretation, so mine was just a guess, but I'll leave it since I had already written it.

I've bolded the part that bears repeating, which undoubtedly goes a long way towards explaining why DSeid hasn't called anyone out and wished to have a hypothetical discussion instead.

Just sayin'.
Could you explain that just a bit more? It looks like he's saying that he didn't want to start another Pit thread to Pit Dio, but earlier he said that Dio was not the inspiration for this thread. The only part I got from the quoted statement was that it was a lame Pit. That part I understand.
What was the part you were pointing out suggesting?

Of course, my definition of trolling is different from everybody else's, but you'd have to be an idiot not to agree with me.
:D I think that's most people's definition of trolling. . .you'd have to be an idiot not to agree with me.

[FinnAgain]

It sounds like Dio was trying to create a caricature of the other side through the use of exaggeration. The difficulty is when the two sides are very polarized, it's often difficult to exaggerate enough to make it obvious. Some people will take it literally. And when you try to correct that by exaggerating more, it looks like what Bryan Ekers is describing:

If someone came into a thread on Affirmative Action and said "Yah, blacks are just lazy whiners who expect to sit on their asses and be handed whatever they ask for. And oh by the way, I don't really believe that." Well, then most folks wouldn't be having this discussion, we'd just say that someone shouldn't use bombastic and inflammatory rhetoric in a contentious topic that would be custom tailored to increase animosity and hijack the thread.

If then you respond by upping the absurdity and claimed "The essential lie is that blacks suffer from racism even today. Racism doesn't mean discrimination based on race, no, it's only racism if they castrate you and lynch you. Why are blacks using that lie? Not that I really believe that "

Well, again, people would be justified in taking that person to task for deliberately tossing out the most inflammatory bullshit possible rather than simply making their point honestly and clearly.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

You do realize that everything after the comma directly contradicts everything before it? By admitting you're using "over-the-top hyperbole" you're admitting that you're using an exaggeration that is bombastic and overblown and that you don't believe.
This is ridiculous. By this standard, anyone who ever uses exaggeration or hyperbole is a "troll."
Other posters in the thread had made that exact same claim, and even if they hadn't, you'd have to be an idiot not to realize that they were bound to. Your were making up a bogus definition of "attack" in order to call them liars.
This is just flat out paranoid bullshit. I accused the other posters of nothing and questioned none of their motives. Disagreeing with people is not the same as calling them liars. I was arguing that that they believed a lie, not that they authored one.

[faithfool]

Could you explain that just a bit more? It looks like he's saying that he didn't want to start another Pit thread to Pit Dio, but earlier he said that Dio was not the inspiration for this thread. The only part I got from the quoted statement was that it was a lame Pit. That part I understand.
What was the part you were pointing out suggesting?

I read that as he had a general gripe (posters that troll) sparked by a specific recent incident that has resulted in a current pit thread. Hence on top of wanting to keep this a hypothetical discussion in general, he was pretty much forced to refrain from pitting the said individual (again) because they already have a pit thread going on about them at the moment.

At least, that's a paraphrase of what I took it to mean.

[DSeid]

I read that as he had a general gripe (posters that troll) sparked by a specific recent incident that has resulted in a current pit thread. Hence on top of wanting to keep this a hypothetical discussion in general, he was pretty much forced to refrain from pitting the said individual (again) because they already have a pit thread going on about them at the moment.

At least, that's a paraphrase of what I took it to mean.Yes. I do not want to feed the poster that I believe to be a troll and who is already being fed with a long ongoing Pit thread by mentioning said poster by name here as well. Sorry that such makes for a lame Pit thread but so be it.

[faithfool]

Yes. I do not want to feed the poster that I believe to be a troll and who is already being fed with a long ongoing Pit thread by mentioning said poster by name here as well. Sorry that such makes for a lame Pit thread but so be it.

No, I don't think that makes this lame. But I do think it's forced you to take conceits that hinder your argument and have now got people focused on whether or not Dio is a troll. And as someone who has unfortunately engaged this person, I completely understand doing anything necessary to refrain from doing so again in the future.

Besides, semantics ignored, I still think this is a worth while discussion even in a hypothetical sense and as I mentioned earlier, it's certainly something I'll try to be cognizant of in the future.

[dropzone]

Yeah, the difference is the trolls are faking being assholes.But it's so much fun!

Ahem, the one time I was accused of trolling it was because i started out pissed that my daughter, a fine clarinetist, wasn't allowed into the HS Jazz Band because, "the clarinet isn't a jazz instrument." After listing some several jazz clarinetists and receiving explanations why the clarinet is is not normally included in HS jazz bands, I was still convinced of my righteousness, though less pissed off. Continuing as a pissed-off dad made me a troll. Living under a bridge does not make one a troll, but it can here.

ETA: I wasn't caught the other times.


(not really. "Angry drop" is different from "Temporarily pissed-off drop."

[raindrop]

A very informative website about trolls... and you just might recognize a few in the list.

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/

[Bryan Ekers]

A very informative website about trolls... and you just might recognize a few in the list.

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/

That's not specifically about about trolls, it's about message-board personality types, one of which is "troller."

Personally, I figure I'm mostly this (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/bigcat.htm) with a bit of this (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/yukyuk.htm) with the necessary impurity of this (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/jerk.htm).

[Heffalump and Roo]

Well, again, people would be justified in taking that person to task for deliberately tossing out the most inflammatory bullshit possible rather than simply making their point honestly and clearly.
Well, you have me at a disadvantage since I didn't participate in the Israel thread, but I doubt your analogy is little more than hyperbole itself since it's a pretty inflammatory topic that you chose to use as an analogy.

I read that as he had a general gripe (posters that troll) sparked by a specific recent incident that has resulted in a current pit thread. Hence on top of wanting to keep this a hypothetical discussion in general, he was pretty much forced to refrain from pitting the said individual (again) because they already have a pit thread going on about them at the moment.

Yes. I do not want to feed the poster that I believe to be a troll and who is already being fed with a long ongoing Pit thread by mentioning said poster by name here as well. Sorry that such makes for a lame Pit thread but so be it.
Ooooh. Well, now I know who you're talking about. I wasn't paying attention to that trainwreck, but now that I've seen it, I can't help but find it hilarious. And I don't know that that one wants more attention, but maybe.

faithfool, I would have listed the troll behavior as non-sequitur. . . not answering the questions presented. It's kinda like talking to someone with ADD. Hmm, maybe they do have ADD. But they're pretty flippant as well.

But I'm fascinated by that stuff.

What about that bugs you?

[maggenpye]

I think I fed a troll. I'm sorry.

I've stopped now and yet the thread goes on. I can't even look at it, or the concurrent pit thread on the same poster. Like someone said in the latter - I wish I'd seen that before sticking my hand in the crazy.

[FinnAgain]

Well, you have me at a disadvantage since I didn't participate in the Israel thread, but I doubt your analogy is little more than hyperbole itself since it's a pretty inflammatory topic that you chose to use as an analogy.

Zero hyperbole, at all. Actually, it's a very tight analogy, all things considered.

Dio claimed that:
"There is absolutely nothing Israel can ever do, and no line it can ever cross that Americans will ever criticize. It's the ultimate sacred cow, even in relatively liberal communities like this. Americans basically see Palestinians as evil and subhuman and deserving of extinction. Israel is never anything but a suffering martyr longing only for peace. "
Saying that Americans are genocidal racists who view Palestinians as subhuman while uncritically supporting everything Isreal does at all is actually milder than simply saying that a racial group is lazy and full of self-entitlement. At least in my view.

Likewise, the claim that anybody who says that anti-personnel rockets fired by an elected government, randomly, at civilian areas in an enemy nation is an attack is guilty of lying because it's not an attack unless you can topple a government? That is rather close to a claim that anybody who says that there is no racism today is lying because unless the racism will kill you, it's not racism.

The whole point was that Dio comes into inflammatory topics, posts over the top hyperbole designed to do nothing other than hijack the thread into asinine semantics that he admits he doesn't even believe in, and to piss off 'the other side' by producing outrageous caricatures of positions that they don't actually hold to begin with. Zero hyperbole on my part.

[jali]

DSeid
Why do you people feed the trolls?

I really hate the "you people".

A troll to one is a close personal friend to another.

Why do you (OP) read the feeding troll posts.

[faithfool]

faithfool, I would have listed the troll behavior as non-sequitur. . . not answering the questions presented. It's kinda like talking to someone with ADD. Hmm, maybe they do have ADD. But they're pretty flippant as well.

But I'm fascinated by that stuff.

What about that bugs you?

Although she may have ADD (which I'm sure if that was the case, we'd hear about it endlessly), I really don't see her as just not answering the questions. She does, with tons of purposely (in the way that she ignores the errors pointed out to her and just continues on) wrong information and then presents her arguments as a fait accompli about the whole thing.

Usually that doesn't bother me because it's easy to ignore someone that does that once you realize what's going on. It does in this case though because she's now dominated several GD threads and posters with her schtick, as well as here in the pit. All to no avail, thus wasting the time of people who could actually be helping someone who wants to learn and not clogging up the boards with her inane, ignorant drivel.

In my opinion, of course.

[Abby_Emma_Sasha]

You people have some odd definitions of "troll". Some folks who have been members since 1999, that's last century, have been accused of trolling.

Can you define "troll" for me, because I think it means someone who is here to stir up trouble or cause friction among members. LIke that isn't done on a daily basis.

Some people may call me a troll because I post when drunk and make no sense. Some people call veteran posters trolls because they have an opinion the majority disagree with. Some may call new posters trolls because they ask a question most of us think is self explanatory.

None of these examples shout "troll" to me on their own. I really am insulted by the word most of the time. I can be an asshole, and a jerk and I will own that but I am not a troll, and I would bet neither are the other jerks who post stupid shit.

So, come on, let's not attribute trollism to some people who are just assholes at the time they post.

[raindrop]

I've always found it interesting that trolls seldom will troll each other. It’s odd how often they bypass each other, never seeming to notice each others’ glaring errors and flaws. Some people look at trolls and say something like "Oh they're not so bad, it’s just a personality thing, that's not really trollish behavior." They just don’t get what everybody is complaining about. They can’t see the problem. Or sometimes they do notice, but just make excuses for each other, or legitimize each other. Or sometimes they even post in support of each other, almost like tag-team wrestling. Even when troll A is so blatantly wrong, troll B will step up to agree with the troll A. But if a well-meaning sincere person is just a wee bit wrong, multiple trolls pile on picking apart every little tiny nit, mischaracterizing and dismissing that person’s entire group of posts and POV, all because of a tiny error. Heck, they might even try to dismiss a person from the thread for not crossing every single "t" or dotting every "i." (Yes, it's been known to happen.)

Trolls will also disagree with the most basic and obvious truth, saying the EXACT opposite of what is most true. It seems they like hearing all the imaginary jaws drop open. They like knowing that countless folks all over the world are sitting at their PC screens gasping aloud. But while we are gasping, the troll is laughing, and getting a buzz. (Some of them call it "lulz.") Yes, the bottom-line goal for the troll is to wind you up, to watch you crash and burn, to watch you fall from grace and descend into the muck with them. They enjoy your emotional pain, and the drama it creates. They like knowing that you hurt, and they like knowing that they caused it. I happen to be well-acquainted with a few trolls IRL. They poke and prick people just for the fun of it, and then feel happy and satisfied when that someone cries in agony.

I say it doesn’t matter how long a person has been a member of any board. That proves nothing except they know how to push right up to the threshold without going over. And besides, some admins think a few trolls keeps things lively and interesting. Just look at how long the threads are where the trolls participate. Lots and lots of people posting, and also lurking. Lots of mouse-clicking to catch up on the latest fiery episode. A certain amount of trolling, in just the right balance, creates drama, and increases traffic to the site. It's similar to how drivers will slow down to gawk at a car wreck, and the bottleneck of traffic ensues... a captive audience. What if someone found a way to make a dollar from that. They could count the mouse-clicks and tell the advertisers how many people are stopping by who are likely to see their advertised product.

So there's no need to complain about people feeding trolls, and no need to feel bad that you fed a troll; because you really just helped create a little more traffic for the board. It's all good.

Abby:... "last century"...
haha, that's really funny, and clever... and overly dramatic...
sorta like saying that last week was last year. :rolleyes:

[Heffalump and Roo]

Although she may have ADD (which I'm sure if that was the case, we'd hear about it endlessly), I really don't see her as just not answering the questions. She does, with tons of purposely (in the way that she ignores the errors pointed out to her and just continues on) wrong information and then presents her arguments as a fait accompli about the whole thing.
Maybe it's just my weird sense of humor, but I find that last part really funny. Like if several people are saying 2 + 2 = 4, and the other person says, well, yeah, it's raining outside and the answer is 5, you moron!
That just cracks me up! And the more outrageous the claim, the funnier it is.

Usually that doesn't bother me because it's easy to ignore someone that does that once you realize what's going on. It does in this case though because she's now dominated several GD threads and posters with her schtick, as well as here in the pit. All to no avail, thus wasting the time of people who could actually be helping someone who wants to learn and not clogging up the boards with her inane, ignorant drivel.
I disagree with the OP about this. I think we should feed these people more, all at once. It's really hard to keep up with having to respond to so many people simultaneously. Most people either give it up or stop responding. Either way, that seems to be the desired result you seem to want to see. The only part I get concerned about is when I think other people don't realize what's happening and they get hurt. That's a bummer.

[eleanorigby]

Huh. Still cracks me up.

And I'm still craving Buckeyes. Must make them this weekend...


I think trolls are different from trolling. All trolls er, troll, but not all who troll are trolls. Trolling can be very close to fishing. Is it fishing or trolling to enter a thread and skew the attention to you with a picture or a personal anecdote? Probably not, if pic and story are germane to the convo at hand. But they could be seen as such, if said poster does so over time.

I have no clue who said poster is, btw, just using an example.

[curlcoat]

Ooooh. Well, now I know who you're talking about. I wasn't paying attention to that trainwreck, but now that I've seen it, I can't help but find it hilarious. And I don't know that that one wants more attention, but maybe.

Nah, just bored at times. And amazed that Faithfool is still whining about me. Next will come the accusation of cyberstalking...

Troll - word used on the internet for someone who doesn't agree with you.

[faithfool]

Nope. Are you really so immature and insecure that you can't handle someone having spoken your name somewhere? Or like here, when it hasn't even been invoked?? That's a whole new level of self-involved that I've never encountered before.

But you go ahead and work it though. You seem to do that really well.



ETA: I see that my decision not to mention you by name couldn't possibly have precluded your ability to ferret out a desire for attention anyway. Glad to know I was spot on in my interpretation. Now feed on if you must, but just like last time, I can walk away and you can rattle on by yourself.

[FinnAgain]

I have to say, I do like the perennial troll-defense of "you're just saying he is/she is/I am a troll because you disagree! "

Part of why it's so awesome is because, much of the time, that pity little phrase is, in and of itself, trolling. People will spend pages and pages in a thread tearing their hair out, pointing out cites, facts, figures, logic, methodology, epistemology, and a troll will come in and just start making shit up in order to fuck with people. When people point out that the troll has ignored all the cites, facts, figures, logic, methodology, epistemology and has simply been making shit up to annoy people, while you were having a perfectly reasonable discussion with all the other people in the thread who disagreed but who didn't adopt troll-tactics, the troll responds "Ah-hah! You just can't deal with people who disagree with you."

[curlcoat]

Nope. Are you really so immature and insecure that you can't handle someone having spoken your name somewhere? Or like here, when it hasn't even been invoked?? That's a whole new level of self-involved that I've never encountered before.

No, but apparently you are so immature and insecure that you have to whine about me in I have no idea how many places, simply because I didn't agree with you. I have time to read maybe 10 threads (actually skim) and already I find you in two pissing and moaning about how awful I was to you.


ETA: I see that my decision not to mention you by name couldn't possibly have precluded your ability to ferret out a desire for attention anyway. Glad to know I was spot on in my interpretation. Now feed on if you must, but just like last time, I can walk away and you can rattle on by yourself.

Hopefully when you walk off to some other thread to whine, it won't be one that looks interesting to me.

[curlcoat]

I have to say, I do like the perennial troll-defense of "you're just saying he is/she is/I am a troll because you disagree! "

Part of why it's so awesome is because, much of the time, that pity little phrase is, in and of itself, trolling. People will spend pages and pages in a thread tearing their hair out, pointing out cites, facts, figures, logic, methodology, epistemology, and a troll will come in and just start making shit up in order to fuck with people. When people point out that the troll has ignored all the cites, facts, figures, logic, methodology, epistemology and has simply been making shit up to annoy people, while you were having a perfectly reasonable discussion with all the other people in the thread who disagreed but who didn't adopt troll-tactics, the troll responds "Ah-hah! You just can't deal with people who disagree with you."

Threads like that are not even close to the only time that you all invoke the troll word in here. Look at "people you hate" thread (or whatever it's called), as well as the fact that I am not the only person that has been described but not named in this thread. The lack of maturity in here at times is staggering considering the name of the board.

And of course that doesn't address the idea of calling things you don't know about and/or haven't experienced "made up".

[Shodan]

Threads like that are not even close to the only time that you all invoke the troll word in here. Look at "people you hate" thread (or whatever it's called), as well as the fact that I am not the only person that has been described but not named in this thread. The lack of maturity in here at times is staggering considering the name of the board.

And of course that doesn't address the idea of calling things you don't know about and/or haven't experienced "made up".

It was a pile on. They want to get a reaction. You're new, and not politically correct. So...

By reacting,you are actually feeding the trolls. Which is fine if you get some kind of amusement out of the process, which is why I sometimes do it, but I wouldn't expect people to change their behavior towards you if you reinforce it. They are hoping to bait you into doing something that will get you banned.

But yes, you're correct - to a degree, "troll" means "someone who disagrees with you". And this board has a very solid groupthink on the subject of race.

Regards,
Shodan

[FinnAgain]

It was a pile on.

Yah, but it was a well deserved one. And it's not about political correctness. When a new poster leads off by saying that they have an internal negative reaction to an entire racial group, and then makes clear that they're not here to discuss or even argue, but yank chains...

To wit, for how many days did this troll maintain that by using the nomenclature "African American", people evinced a "slave mentality"? I mean, you're talking about a poster who came to the board claiming to be ignorant of of the fact that the majority of blacks in the nation are descended from slaves, and yet began making claims about how blacks in the country have a 'slave mentality' because they're stuck in the past where their ancestors were slaves. And all the while blaming her 'ignorance' on the fact that three decades ago (according to her), her high school wasn't too hot.

You can also notice, for instance, the number of topics on which she's quickly adopted the deliberately inflammatory rhetoric, and about which it was clear she was totally ignorant. For instance, her raving about the state of education today while it was painfully obvious that she didn't have even a basic knowledge of what the curriculum actually consisted of. But she made it clear that a lack of knowledge wasn't going to get in the way of starting an argument. And after her juvenile whining, deliberate provocations, willful ignorance and sheer stupidity for her to talk about "immaturity" takes the cake.

You are right that many posters here simply shout down dissent, but the person you're defending really is a racist troll. Or, hell, maybe she just plays one on this board.

[DSeid]

Shodan-

Clearly "troll" does not mean "someone who disagrees with you."

It includes posting with the intent of provoking a certain response not for the purpose of expressing a particular POV but for the sake of the entertainment of the reaction to the pushing of the buttons and implies that the poster does not really hold the belief. Obviously in some cases it is just that someone has such a different POV that it is hard to believe they can hold the belief in truth yet they do. Those people are usually not so bad so long as the disagreements are not expressed with arrogance. Sometimes someone really is just really dumb and thickheaded and frustrating to deal with. Obviously none of us know who these people really are other than that sliver of them we see here. We can only deduce intent.

Sometimes it at least seems clear that someone is using deliberately inflammatory rhetoric and trying hard to push buttons. That much is often easier to deduce with some confidence than whether or not someone actually holds the beliefs expressed. Sometimes those posters keep pushing the buttons and clearly appear to be looking for more buttons to push, relishing the attention they receive in return. Maybe this is the only power they have in life, I don't know and don't care. What I do know is that I find it annoying that such behaviors can totally derail other discussions and I think that the fault for that derailment lies in both the button pusher and those who allow their buttons to be pushed.

Attention whores and trolls use supernormal stimuli (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O8-supernormalstimulus.html) as bait. And true to our animal nature other posters respond with predictable fixed action patterns. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_action_pattern)

The question of this thread is not if any particular poster is a troll or an attention whore, but rather whether or not we try to control our fixed action patterns once we have, to our own satisfaction at least, determined that the posts are indeed that sort of bait. Or if we behave like some fish that see the damn hook attached to the lure, but just can't stop ourselves .. it's so shiny and colorful!

[Shodan]

Shodan-

Clearly "troll" does not mean "someone who disagrees with you." On this board, it often does. I've been called a troll any number of times, mostly for my opinions.

Same here. curlcoat has unpopular opinions, and is new. Posters thus take the opportunity to pile on and demonstrate their solidarity with the "correct" side.

:shrugs:

Regards,
Shodan

[faithfool]

On this board, it often does. I've been called a troll any number of times, mostly for my opinions.

Same here. curlcoat has unpopular opinions, and is new. Posters thus take the opportunity to pile on and demonstrate their solidarity with the "correct" side.

:shrugs:

Regards,
Shodan

And see, although I strongly disagree with your opinions, I've never thought you were a troll. Also, I've never (to my knowledge) participated in a pile-on in my life, nor used the term "troll" except once, so I can at least honestly attest that my issue here isn't what you've described above or the fact that anyone is new. However, after having stated more than once why I feel the way I do in this case, I now realize that my emotions are getting the best of me and that I need to step away from the issue or else behave in a way I see as disreputable.

So, I'm going to take a hiatus from all of the Dope except the one long-running game room thread I'm in and then hopefully when I return, I'll be able to take the advice of others and not let my own personal perceptions continue to influence my outlook here and to simply not be bothered by such things.

Peace.

[DSeid]

On this board, it often does. I've been called a troll any number of times, mostly for my opinions.

If you want to claim that "often" people on this board make the accusation incorrectly fine, but you are smart enough to know that being inaccurate with an accusation does not mean that word changes its meaning.

My question however remains: "whether or not we try to control our fixed action patterns once we have, to our own satisfaction at least, determined that the posts are indeed that sort of bait. Or if we behave like some fish that see the damn hook attached to the lure, but just can't stop ourselves .. it's so shiny and colorful!"

I readily concede that one poster's (included yours and mine) determination of another poster's motivations may indeed be off-base. Heck the entire MB may be wrong and the alleged attention whore the only sane intelligent one around in reality. But this is for when you as a poster are throughly convinced that it is not so. The alleged attention whore's behavior is not the issue of this thread. How we respond when we are convinced that that is what they are is.

So anyone who sees themselves in the descriptions given is free to see themselves if they want. But this thread is not about you, and/or whether you are an attention whore, a troll, an idiot, a misunderstood genius, or just of a different POV. It is about how we respond to to those who we in our heart of hearts is trying intentionally to push buttons and to sidetrack a thread into being all about them. Keep any defense of your behavior and about how our conclusions are mistaken in threads that are built for that purpose.

[Heffalump and Roo]

Attention whores and trolls use supernormal stimuli (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O8-supernormalstimulus.html) as bait. And true to our animal nature other posters respond with predictable fixed action patterns. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_action_pattern)
In the link you provided, the supernormal stimuli is more like a force of nature. It's the person/thing that gets reactive to the stimuli that is in question, not the stimulus itself.

It is about how we respond to to those who we in our heart of hearts is trying intentionally to push buttons and to sidetrack a thread into being all about them.
So are you asking to have a discussion about why people do things repeatedly when they're not working? Your comments remind me of Pema Chodron's teachings on shenpa. Continuing to argue with someone when it's clear that it's not working is a type of shenpa for some people. You can read more about that here (http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1610):
How We Get Hooked and How We Get Unhooked

By Pema Chödrön

Shenpa is the urge, the hook, that triggers our habitual tendency to close down. We get hooked in that moment of tightening when we reach for relief. To get unhooked we begin by recognizing that moment of unease and learn to relax in that moment.

You're trying to make a point with a coworker or your partner. At one moment her face is open and she's listening, and at the next, her eyes cloud over or her jaw tenses. What is it that you're seeing?

Someone criticizes you. They criticize your work or your appearance or your child. At moments like that, what is it you feel? It has a familiar taste in your mouth, it has a familiar smell. Once you begin to notice it, you feel like this experience has been happening forever.

The Tibetan word for this is shenpa. It is usually translated "attachment," but a more descriptive translation might be "hooked." When shenpa hooks us, we're likely to get stuck. We could call shenpa "that sticky feeling." It's an everyday experience. Even a spot on your new sweater can take you there. At the subtlest level, we feel a tightening, a tensing, a sense of closing down. Then we feel a sense of withdrawing, not wanting to be where we are. That's the hooked quality. That tight feeling has the power to hook us into self-denigration, blame, anger, jealousy and other emotions which lead to words and actions that end up poisoning us.
Are you asking why this happens or what people can do about it? Or both? Or neither?

[Guinastasia]

Why? Because it's FUN, dammit! (Well, not always...but sometimes, it's a blast!)

[curlcoat]

It was a pile on. They want to get a reaction. You're new, and not politically correct. So...

By reacting,you are actually feeding the trolls. Which is fine if you get some kind of amusement out of the process, which is why I sometimes do it, but I wouldn't expect people to change their behavior towards you if you reinforce it. They are hoping to bait you into doing something that will get you banned.

Gosh, that's mature! :rolleyes: Eh, sometimes I like to feed the trolls and other times it's too boring and/or I don't have the time. I'm not interested in changing anyones behavior, but I did sort of expect more intelligence and maturity from a board that claims to be fighting ignorance! :dubious:

But yes, you're correct - to a degree, "troll" means "someone who disagrees with you". And this board has a very solid groupthink on the subject of race.

Regards,
Shodan

Kinda sad, especially since they accuse me of not being able to learn....

[curlcoat]

Yah, but it was a well deserved one. And it's not about political correctness. When a new poster leads off by saying that they have an internal negative reaction to an entire racial group, and then makes clear that they're not here to discuss or even argue, but yank chains...

Except, I wasn't a new poster, just one that doesn't bother you all that often.

To wit, for how many days did this troll maintain that by using the nomenclature "African American", people evinced a "slave mentality"?

Probably a lot less than you would prefer to believe.


You can also notice, for instance, the number of topics on which she's quickly adopted the deliberately inflammatory rhetoric, and about which it was clear she was totally ignorant.

I think I've had more than one post in two whole topics, other than the pit thread about me. As for "deliberately inflammatory rhetoric" and "totally ignorant", simply because you believe something doesn't make it true. You are aware that there are valid opinions and beliefs out there that don't agree with your own, right?

For instance, her raving about the state of education today while it was painfully obvious that she didn't have even a basic knowledge of what the curriculum actually consisted of.

OK, then, explain to me how it is that you have even a basic knowledge of the curriculum in the schools in my city? I did find it really amazing the number of people that told me that I was completely wrong in my opinions on my public schools who had zero idea where I live. And amusing.

Besides, I clearly stated that I was basing my opinion on the product that our schools were kicking out into the workforce. Knowing what the curriculum is would be rather immaterial if the schools aren't getting it taught, eh?

But she made it clear that a lack of knowledge wasn't going to get in the way of starting an argument. And after her juvenile whining, deliberate provocations, willful ignorance and sheer stupidity for her to talk about "immaturity" takes the cake.

You are right that many posters here simply shout down dissent, but the person you're defending really is a racist troll. Or, hell, maybe she just plays one on this board.

You are certainly doing a good job at playing an idiot - you are playing, right? If you aren't, start by going and looking up racist.

[DSeid]

In the link you provided, the supernormal stimuli is more like a force of nature. It's the person/thing that gets reactive to the stimuli that is in question, not the stimulus itself.Not quite sure how you got that from the link or maybe I do not understand what you mean.

Supernormal stimuli are artificial stimuli that are even more powerful at eliciting fixed action behaviors than the natural stimuli are. The analogy to board behaviors is the poster who posts in ways that are more likely to elicit reactions than that which a normal real poster would produce with the intent of producing a particular result - the diversion of a thread from whatever the subject was into making it mostly all about her or him. The analogy to the fixed action pattern are the posters who almost instinctively respond in various and predictable ways.

A poster devoted to making as many conversations focus around themselves as possible may create a situation where as many as a third of recent posts in a thread are their posts as they throw more bait out, and the op gets diverted by both those posts and those giving said poster exactly what (s)he wants - attention, any attention at all.

Now I am not sure if that behavior is trolling or attention whoring or what it should be called. But it is destructive to the process of having conversations that actually address a particular op. More so than most of what gets called trolling.

Of course any individual can ignore them, but unless everyone ignores them they succeed in destroying other discussions. Like a bratty kid who comes into his or her parents' dinner party and "shows off" - and whose parents decide not to discipline effectively by removing them from the party - all the brat needs is a few adult guests to respond by noticing them and they will keep it going and the party is no longer much fun.

Is it trolling? Is it being a jerk? I don't know what you call it but I think that such behavior is destructive and the brats who do it need to be given a time-out. But that choice is up to the mods, not me. Meanwhile those who directly encourage the behavior by feeding into the attention seeking behavior share some of the blame for the train wrecks of multiple discussions, although they are free to complete their fixed action patterns if they wish.

[Heffalump and Roo]

Not quite sure how you got that from the link or maybe I do not understand what you mean.
For your definition of the term, you used a passage from the dictionary of zoology. The example was about a bird and an egg was the stimulus. The stimulus is a force of nature. That takes your definition a bit away from this context since you're claiming that these stimuli are intentional and can be stopped.

A poster devoted to making as many conversations focus around themselves as possible may create a situation where as many as a third of recent posts in a thread are their posts as they throw more bait out, and the op gets diverted by both those posts and those giving said poster exactly what (s)he wants - attention, any attention at all.

Now I am not sure if that behavior is trolling or attention whoring or what it should be called. But it is destructive to the process of having conversations that actually address a particular op. More so than most of what gets called trolling.
I think you're talking here about people who frustrate people with their responses.

But how about people who literally do the "look at me" routine. Their responses are so overly-dramatic that people will stop the conversation to ask about what's going on with them. Are you talking about these people also? There are a number of very popular posters that have either done this or do this frequently. Would you consider this trolling as well?

Is it trolling? Is it being a jerk? I don't know what you call it but I think that such behavior is destructive and the brats who do it need to be given a time-out. But that choice is up to the mods, not me. Meanwhile those who directly encourage the behavior by feeding into the attention seeking behavior share some of the blame for the train wrecks of multiple discussions, although they are free to complete their fixed action patterns if they wish.
So what's the solution? Your call for people to stop feeding the trolls seems to have been ineffective since some people are enjoying their fixed action pattern. How would the mods stop this? Should they?

[DSeid]

It is a bit of an aside but Heffalump here is the text of the link with bolding mineAn artificial stimulus that produces in an animal a response that is stronger than would be evoked by the natural stimulus it resembles. ... a very large artificial egg may be incubated in preference to a much smaller real egg.An artificial egg being incubated in preference to the real one.

It is not just the people who frustrate other posters but that they destroy any possibility a thread had, transmorgifying it into a show all about them. I am not sure what the "look at me" routine that you are referring to is, but guessing I think the issue might be what the response is to the question of "what's going on".

I am not a mod but I think that such behavior is more destructive than plain vanilla trolling or many other bannable offenses. I would warn once and then ban their sorry asses if I was a mod and made that determination. But I am not a mod.

[raindrop]

I think attention whoring is clearly trolling if that person never does anything else except derail threads while whoring for attention. I've seen lots of people whore for attention, but many have found ways to do it so it doesn't derail threads. Some will participate in the thread in a relevant way without derailing it. Some start their own threads about things that concern them. Some garner sympathy. Some write about their circumstances in witty and entertaining ways. Some are natural comedians who like to be up on stage with an audience. People have lots of ways of getting attention while making sure those who give them that attention are also having fun at the same time. But some attention whores do it in ways that annoy or harass other posters. Some do it while clearly intending to inflict pain on others. When the goal is to be center stage while also wielding a flamethrower, baiting and then gleefully singeing someone(everyone?) who nibbles at the bait, that's clearly a troll.

I also think it's worth mentioning that the mods take their guidance and instruction from the board owners. What the mods do or don't do about trolls, including how much is allowed and where to draw the line, ALL of that is determined by the owners of the board, not the mods. In the end the trolls are here because the board owners allow them to be here.

As to "shenpa," the troll is predatory and is keenly focused on the target's shenpa. That means the troll knows where the target's buttons are even better than the targeted person. Most of us have overwhelming triggers like that. I have plenty of my own so I know how strong is the pull when a button is pushed. It's just that not all our buttons can be triggered by trolls. If you have a self-harming habit, and tried to stop it, but couldn't, that would be a good example of why some people compulsively and irrationally continue to respond to trolls.