We’re aware of 'em; variations have existed for ages, ranging from usenet and chat to other boards. ::shrugs:: Whatever pops yer corn. They’re little more than white noise unless and until a problem from one gets dumped here.
Your take was very realistic.
The part about trollitude which never made sense was the phrase: “somebody who is posting just to be confrontational or to raise hackles.”
Great Aunt Gertie on a pogo stick-that applies to 7/10 of the posts by the shrillest of the shrills on both sides of the political spectrum.
Bush-haters post to complain, but also to get under the skin of the Pro-Bush members. Bush supporters come back with a different message, but the same motivation. The only difference is whose ox is being gored. Or kerried.
Trolls are a Large Monster, with 6d8+36hp, AC16, and are usually Chaotic Evil. 
Wait, so this guy is collecting a bunch of threads and incidents from this place, and making a website about individual posters?
Damn. And they think I have no life. It’s kinda sad, I would say.
So, wait… all we need to guarantee a lifetime of troll free boards is to equip the mods with enough scrolls of melf’s acid arrow?
They’d already have them but you told me that acid arrow scrolls make lousy christmas gifts.
Not trying to be a smartass, but…I don’t see it. Can you explain?
A legitimate question:
Let’s say a user loudly proclaimed in a post that they disapprove of X, and think those that do X are in some way inferior. However, you’ve seen many examples of that poster doing X himself/herself, and you followup with evidence; you’re showing that the complaining poster is a hypocrite. This is all in the Pit, of course. Troll?
Possibly not. We all live for citations, after all.
On the other hand, if, in the course of several months, the only sort of posts that an individual submits are those intended to dig up dirt on another poster or criticize the actions of the staff or bemoan what a terrible place the SDMB has fallen to, then I would say that that particular poster has begun behaving like a jerk. A single instance of tracking down all the foibles of a poster with whom one has begun to feud is not reprehensible. Among a pattern of nasty shots to the exclusion of general participation in the board, that sort of post is one indicator of being a jerk.
I believe you have missed the modifier “just” in the quote you cited; “just” meaning solely or for no other purpose. I would venture to say that the majority of posters who attack Bush (or who were attacking Kerry last year or Clinton a few years ago) do so to vent their own rage, not to irritate supporters of the persons they criticize. A few of them make their points in heavy handed ways that are sure to rile up the people on the “other side” who share a lack of discernment, but a lack of wit or balance does not equal a desire to troll.
Full plate +1 is the only gift to give when you really care.
Isn’t that illegal, under the CoC? “By posting on this board you grant the Chicago Reader, Inc., and its successors and assigns a nonexclusive irrevocable right to re-use your posting in any manner it or they see fit without notice or compensation to you. No material contained in this site may be republished or reposted without express written consent of the Chicago Reader, Inc., except that message board users retain the right to republish or repost their own work.”
As long as what’s posted elsewhere is solely links and summaries of episodes here, and not actual direct-quote clumps of text, my take is it would be okay.
Thanks for the clarification.
Rules vary from message board to message board. On the message board I run, the definition of trolling is:
“… posting with the intent to incite controversy or cause offense. Polemic and devil’s advocacy are welcome, but discussions should not deteriorate into shouting matches.”
There’s also a link to the Wikipedia definition of the word.
There’s a fine line between posting about a controversial topic, and posting just to stir shit up. The line varies from site to site. I think the “posting something controversial is okay, but posting to incite controversy, and often” guideline is a good one.
I wouldn’t track down all the foibles of someone – that seems creepy and stalker-ish – but I’ve seen others make hypocritical statements in threads, and I was concerned that calling them on it would hijack the thread, make the thread even more heated, and thus be seen as trolling by some people.
Well, it would be LEGAL, yes, but that doesn’t mean the SDMB can’t ban dudes for even that. If the purpose is to stir shit or jerkery that would be outside the rules here, then maybe they should. :mad:
Well, yes, I agree with you. I think we’re getting into the sometimes iffy ground of determining intent here.
Obviously, if you link to, say, a CNN story and start a discussion about it, maybe quote chunks of the text, that’s A-OK – we do it all the time. Even when the topic of the story is controversial and the Usual Suspects get to shouting at each other, well, that’s normal around here, isn’t it? 
Now, if someone posted such links/quotes: (a) with an OP phrased as provocatively as possible; and (b) had established a pattern of posting only, or almost only, that kind of OP; and (c) replied to posts by others in such threads with sharp-stick-poking; and (d) didn’t dial back the behavior if called on it by TPTB, then, yeh, I’d say that Doper is way closer to the edge of a smackdown. Even if the link was to an innocuous site, let alone one that’s rabidly partisan or otherwise inflammatory.
So that leaves the middle ground between those extremes, which is where the mods/admins have the more or less tough judgment calls.
My questions for Trolls are:
How do they have Internet access being that they live under a bridge?
How do they have the time to post inbetween interacting with billygoats or getting their ass kicked by them?
Round these heah pahts, a troll is a pehson livin due south of the Mackinaw Bridge.
Ah nevah knew this boahd was prejudiced against southerners.
Ayuh, it’s th’suthnuhs we mahk daown as th’rea-all truble-maykuhs.
Shyeah!
Well, I agree with you ETF, but I am not sure if we are on the same page.
What I am talking about is a poster who- on another board entirely, or on his blog- posts parts of SDMB threads or links to SDMB threads. Now, my posts here can only be: “. … republished or reposted without express written consent of the Chicago Reader, Inc., except that message board users retain the right to republish or repost their own work.” In other words- The Chicago reader, Cecil and myself are the only ones who can re-post my words. Of course, there’s “fair use”. And, thus, someone could LEGALY post a link, and in some cases a small exerpt from a thread here. YMMV, IANAL.
But what I was talking about is if that someone was posting links or quotes (to SDMB stuff) in his blog (or another MB)- solely with the purpose of jerkery or to stir shit. As has been labled here “snark sites”.