My $0.02 - I lurked for the discussions in GQ. I joined for the personalities in other fora.
As a lurker, I was motivated by intellectual curiousity, and barely remembered who was whom. Once I started realizing that I was reading about an hour a day, and that I was remembering whose posts I enjoyed more than others, I decided to throw in my $15.
As a member, I’m motivated by the gossip and the flame wars. The jucier the morsels, the better I remember the personalities. I sometimes go for weeks without reading GQ.
I took the other approach. I became a member pretty early on, but then went through a long period of time in which I almost never posted, and fairly irregularily even read the boards. And then stuff happened, and I started posting more, and the board went pay to post, and I paid up and have increased my posting even more.
But I tend to agree with tomndebb’s analysis. Knowledge is one thing, use of that knowledge in an insulting manner, is either a sign of a sock, a troll, or a jerk–maybe all three.
I lurked for years before I joined, and that was years ago! I was a lurker on the AOL boards, if you can believe it. I think I only joined to ask what the hell some sport was I saw on TV - it was hurling, I believe. Hot Irish guys in short shorts.
Yup, I’m not finding anything through the search engine, either.
Tried “Satan” user name, both posts started and threads started, and tried “Satan” in the thread title, both through all the boards and in “about this message board” specifically. Nothin’.
Now I’ve gotta go find out what Liberal’s name used to be.
Thank’s everyone for your answers. However, I want those other guys to show up too! Where are all the folks I’m talkin’ about, huh? Y’all normally don’t seem shy to me, so step up to the plate and let the whole world know how you come to your conclusions of sockitis.
tom, I really appreciate the depth of your reply, and although the thread that you refer to is what reminded me to ask about this, it wasn’t the ‘model’ I had in mind. See, I perceive there to be roving gangs of half-mad savages out there just waiting to pounce on some unsuspecting guest and accuse them of sockitude. Of course, I’m sure that’s just me. But I’m not talking about what you rightly are describing (which to me could be called the Unholy Trinity), I’m saying that any time someone new brings up board history in a situation that might be considered as contentious, those claims fly. Now it may indeed just be the occasional bump here or there and really is viewed with a cyber shrug, but I don’t see it as fair and I think all the people agreeing here back up that theory.
Does that better describe my stance? If not, perhaps I need to go back to Cubis. Now.
I was a long time lurker before I decided to join and was pretty aware of board history. My recollection about the history of posters before I joined had more to do with who held political views that I agreed or disagreed with rather than personal information they may have posted unless it was especially noteworthy.
I agree with Tomndebb. Even though I was aware of the history of some posters there would be very little reason to become involved in any of these past conversations the way a sock would. The intent of a sock or troll seems to be to provoke and it’s fairly obvious. Maybe because I’ve been involved in forums they’re pretty easy to spot. The best way to ID a sock is to ignore them. When that happens they usually begin to escalate their attacks or remarks and then it’s pretty obvious what they are.
If I were new and Liberal acted all snotty, and I had read any of the history, I would know that he throws a fit when he’s called by his old username. Therefore, I would call him by his old username to piss him off.
I’d been reading the boards since the dark ages of AOL, but never posted much until something annoyed me enough in December that I finally got a guest account. At that point, I was quite aware of all of the big name personalities and past dramas, since I’d been lurking for years. But, I’d have absolutely no reason to try to stir up old controversies or make reference to things from years ago.
That’s just bizarre and trollish behavior, really.
I think that this observation is valid. It is (one way or another) pretty close to what we saw the other day):
a contentious thread with a newbie dragging up history in an insulting way.
That is pretty sure to wave all sorts of red flags for a number of posters. (And if those posters happen to have a certain mixture of curiosity, a desire to play detective, and a tiny dash of Schadenfreude, they are going to leap at the chance to exercise those traits.)
I’m not a troll or a sock but I am still fairly new here. I can’t be the only one that saw the humor in someone posting as dnooman complaining about “yanno” though can I?
Even though I don’t really like “yanno” either.
