Abuse of the "troll" label

I’ve bitched about this before in a different thread, but please think before labeling a person as a troll. If you find someone’s post to be inflamatory, then the best thing to do is ask yourself, “Does this person have a history of trolling?” The latest example is Carl’s “Quidimity” thread in GQ. He asks a perfectly objective question (IMHO), and he’s attacked by two different people. The poor guy’s recovering from a stroke right now, and has stated that this MB has been an excellent source of entertainment for him during his recovery. Now he’s being subject to personal attacks!? Sheesh!! Check his history. He’s never trolled before; it’s highly unlikely he’s going to start. The same holds true for Omniscient and handy, who have both been attacked as trolls recently. Think before you label!

I thought TROLL was an acronym for Totally Righteous On Line Lady so I wasn’t offended! But seriously, I’ve noticed this too. I haven’t called anyone a troll and if I really thought they were I just wouldn’t respond to their posts. If someone really is a troll that’s exactly what they want you to do anyway so I don’t waste my time with them.


The moon looks on many flowers, the flowers on but one moon.

Your absolutely right. Labeling should not be thrown out so easily and quickly.

However…

  1. Carl’s question was not objective. He admits he screwed up his question. If he asked if a group in the RCC was trying to elevate Mary’s position, then we’d all see that as a reasonable question. But since he got his info skewed a bit, he asked if a group in the RCC was trying to make Mary divine – a highly suspicious question reminiscent of Jack Chick’s Catholic-bashing tracts. That’s why the accusation of trolling. Yes, it was hasty to label the person, but the ones who called the question into question were right, since the question was posed wrongly, by Carl’s admission. And given the history of Christian and Catholic bashing and trolling here (and in general, all over the net) – it certainly smelled fishy.

  2. After evolution v. creation has been beaten past death into nine other lives here, someone posts a list of untenable creationist claims and asks if they can be refuted. Well, duh, yeah they can. The author claimed it was not a troll – but just maybe we do things we don’t realize what we’re doing. It smelled fishy to me.

  3. After the loverock scandal, it should be understandable that we all are a bit troll shy. (A further reason for administration to give the perpetrators an actual punishment rather than their brainless winks.)
    So, in conclusion, your honor, :wink: your guilty verdict of hasty labeling is fair, but given the extenuating circumstances, please be lenient in the sentencing.

Peace.

Proper punishment-Change his user name to loverock and see if anyone EVER takes him seriously again. ;).

Actually, moriah, even after he tried to clear himself (I saw something about it on TV!), the “troll” epithet was tossed about. I still think asking “if a group in the RCC was trying to make Mary divine” was a pretty objective, benign statement, especially since, as I stated earlier, Carl isn’t one to troll. Let’s save our energy for the real trolls!!

Trolls you say? Trolls are best left under bridges with the other homeless people. How can you spot the troll amidst the teeming homeless people you ask? The troll is the one that tries to get you to give him/her money as you pass by, the more agressively this happens the more troll-like the offending person becomes.

That in essence is a bonafide 100% true troll.

SC

No, that’s a toll…


Contestant #3

For those of you who say that ‘regular posters’ who have a history don’t troll, I say:

  1. There’s always the first time.

  2. loverock

Peace.

…not to mention 3. GOD…


Contestant #3

im curious, troll seems to have a different meaning here than what it really means.
would somebody please spell it out for me, without the words “loverock” and “god” being included.

bj0rn

Ok…Bj0rn is a troll…understand now?


Contestant #3

A trolling post is one that is designed to get people to ‘bite.’ The troller really doesn’t care much about the topic, but by the response he or she can elicit. This can be done through shock, insincerity, or posting under false pretenses.

Even someone who ‘just wants to get a good argument going’ is trolling – they’re arguing for the sake of arguing. (Which is not a bad thing if you’re trying to polish your debating skills, but you should let people know up front that’s what you’re doing.)

Peace.