I’ve seen the term “concern troll” on the SDMB many times in the decade I’ve been around, and never have I seen anyone interpret it as the term “troll”.
A liberal concern troll starts a thread titled, “What can Bush do to rescue his Episcopalian support?” and a conservative concern troll starts a thread titled, “How can Clinton rescue his marriage after Lewinsky?” They’re both being sly, both have intents beyond the obvious title, and obviously they are not trolls.
But they are “concern” trolls; the slyness and the hidden intent make that clear. Even so, they’re not a troll, they’re not starting a thread just to wreak havoc, they’re starting a thread for a perfectly valid discussion.
Is there a better term for this type of poster, and perhaps more relevant, is there a better term for this type of poster that would pass muster outside the Pit?
Actually, I think the “concern troll” is much more partisan and obviously so. Much more along the lines of “I am an independant voter that hasn’t made up my mind, but I’m worrried that Democrats will start to question Obama if Irene is a big disaster and it appears like he isn’t doing anything? I mean I tend to vote Republican, but Bush’s response to Katrina really soured me and I had to consider staying home or voting Democratic instead. I think this should really be a valid concern for the Democratic base right now.”
The intent, especially if you have noticed a posting trend by a poster for a long time, is to cast doubt, get people to pile on, and hopefully sway some people to note vote or switch from voting for the Democrat. I think it’s dishonest, probably violates the don’t be a jerk philosophy in obvious cases, and difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt most of the time.
Might be nice to have a SDMB term that can be thrown out without junior modding that may help in blatant cases. Not sure though in practice that a codeword for “Don’t be a jerk sympathy troll” can avoid junior modding, especially when it’s not *that *blatant.
This is an interesting point and I can see the distinction you’re making. My thought right now is that once you start using the word “troll,” it’s pretty insulting and is likely to detract from the discussion. Some commentary on a poster’s motives is allowed - we can’t demand that people be credulous and it’s fair to take a poster’s history into account when responding to him - but there are limits to that. It’s alright to wonder if a poster’s motives are what he says they are; saying he’s trolling crosses the line.
I’ve been around roughly as long as Frank and I don’t think I have noticed the term “concern troll”. Possibly because we tend to view different threads or forums.
I understand what he is saying and I think I understand the view point. The problem I see is that the poster tries to create a trainwreck by hiding behind generic terms.
I’m concerned that by using the word, “Troll”, Frank undermines his point and makes his case less persuasive. But I’m on his side! Really!
I typically try to avoid personal characterizations outside of the pit. Furthermore, “Troll” and “Jerk” have special meanings on this board, so they should be used with care.
But FTR, here are some links on concern trolling:
Urban Dictionary:
In an argument (usually a political debate), a concern troll is someone who is on one side of the discussion, but pretends to be a supporter of the other side with “concerns”. The idea behind this is that your opponents will take your arguments more seriously if they think you’re an ally. Concern trolls who use fake identities are sometimes known as sockpuppets.[sup]1[/sup]
Example: In the 2006 election, an aide to Congressman Charlie Bass (R-NH) was caught concern trolling the opposition on local blogs. While pretending to support Bass’s opponent, Paul Hodes, the aide argued that Hodes couldn’t win because Bass was an unbeatable candidate. Hodes won the election.
Rational Wiki:
A concern troll visits sites of an opposing ideology and offers advice on how they could “improve” things. The term’s popularity originated on Daily Kos[1][2][3] (though the term likely predates their usage).
The concern troll’s message is: “I have some concerns about your methods. If you did these things to make your message less effective, it would be more effective.”
I do understand the concept of concern trolling. I’ve seen it and I agree it’s a dubious debate tactic. But it’s possible to have a legitimate discussion even the OP has started the thread for disingenuous reasons, so I’d rather people discuss the topic and perhaps take note of the OP’s behavior without directly insulting him and without turning the thread into an attack on the OP.
Concern Troll is an established term, going back at least to 2008. (Though the writer of that article presents it as a well-established term, so it no doubt goes back much further.)
The Vanity Fair author presents an altered definition: concern trolling implies disingenuous presentation: the politeness advocacy is considered a sham. I suspect the meaning was more amorphous at the time, which makes me suspect the phrase indeed grew out of the Daily Kos, somewhere near 2008.
I actually was worried about this when I referred to a certain action as concern trolling in an ATMB thread. Granted, I didn’t actually call someone a concern troll, but just said that certain words were often used by concern trolls, but I would not have been surprised to have at least gotten a mod note.
I’d have no problem not being able to use the term out of the pit. There are other words to convey the concept without sounding so much like an insult.
I guess I’m not devious enough, because I fail to see any subterfuge or slyness in either of Frank’s examples, or China Guy’s. I mean, unless the guy saying “I’m an independent voter” is really a Republican or, heaven forbid, Lyndon LaRouche supporter.