WillFarnaby’s problem isn’t that he has an “outrageous ideology” so much as that everything he posts is incredibly stupid and wrong.
Well, as CaptMurdock noted, that guy appears to be a hardcore AnnЯandian and cannot shut up about it or moderate himself. All he does is alienate people and make us groan and scroll faster when we see his name at the top of a post. Troll – by habit, if not by design.
ISWYDT
Yes, he’s definitely a True Believer of some very odd things. Mind you, so was Clothahump and that didn’t save him from the chop in the end. Sincere jerkitude is still jerkitude.
Your own post seems to contradict what you say. What sets apart a troll from a legitimate poster is that the troll is being a jerk, according to your first paragraph. If so, then the concept of sincerity doesn’t capture anything at all.
You could mean everything you say but be a total jerk about it, and that would be trolling. You can also be lying your ass off but be polite and accommodating, and it wouldn’t be trolling.
What matters is how you engage, not the exact content. It can be the wrong thing in a particular time or place, as you indicated. But it can also be using provocative language to get a rise out of people. It can be responding to anger with amusement. And so on.
Annoyance can be a part of it, but that’s when you’d have to try and determine intent. Are they trying to annoy, or is that just who they are? What doesn’t matter is whether they really believe what they are saying or not.
At least, this is the pure theory. In actual practice, sometimes inconsistency is your first clue that the person’s intent is piss people off. People can be polite in a way that you can’t quite tell if they’re trying to piss you off or not. Like most social interactions, there’s a degree of “I know it when I see it.”
But that doesn’t mean that a completely sincere person can’t troll, even in a “thread on that topic.” All it requires is, as you say, that they “be a total jerk.”
Or, at least, that’s my take on it. My post was my general view on trolling, not the rules on this board–though I admit the latter helped inform the former.
As for the other guy: just a normal spammer, or do you think this app has a referrer bonus?
Either way, he’s clearly shilling. He sounds exactly like those old friends who contact you out of the blue only because they are interested in selling their pyramid scheme.
Looks like his ability to keep threads open has not increased infinitely.
He is a condescending apphole.
Not really, my point was that there’s a requirement for sincerity combined with saying things in the appropriate time and place. I don’t think we differ much on that based on the rest of your post.
Take Charlie Hebdo. Freedom of the press and the free exchange of ideas are fundamental principles in our society. If I sincerely believe that there are important social and political points to be made from publishing cartoons featuring Mohamed, then publishing cartoons like Charlie Hebdo does not make me troll - nobody has a right not to be offended by ideas expressed in the press. But if I stuck those cartoons provocatively and deliberately in the face of Muslims by (say) walking up and down outside a mosque with a banner, that would be trollish behavior - whatever the sincerity of my views. It could also be trollish behavior if I constantly published them in the press, solely to annoy people, even if it’s legal to do so.
I think the case of Will Farnaby should be assessed on similar principles. If he’s posting his Randian views in a thread where that perspective is relevant to the debate, then I think the only test should be whether he’s sincere. The fact that we may regard his views as annoying fuckwittery is just something we have to deal with if we want a free exchange of ideas.
However, if he’s constantly insisting on putting those views in our face in threads where they are of little relevance, then the fact that the views are sincerely held is irrelevant - it’s trollery.
Which is not how this board works.
You’ll have to explain that. This board doesn’t allow sincerely-held unpopular views even when they are relevant to a debate?
“Trolling does not necessarily require that the position taken must be insincere. The principle requirement is that the post is for the principle intention of making people angry or upset.” - Colibri, quoted in post 9027.
On the SDMB, a sincere troll is still a troll.
I think you need to be quite cautious, however, on where you set the bar for what constitutes jerkishness. It can’t just derive from whether a bunch of people say they are upset or annoyed by what someone says - otherwise you’re into the Charlie Hebdo problem. We don’t have a right not to be offended by what Will Farnaby says. It’s a difficult judgment call for the mods, and if we value the free exchange of ideas you can’t be too quick to condemn someone as a trollish if they persistently express sincerely-held views.
But that also doesn’t say that people getting angry or upset is sufficient to deem someone a troll. It’s obviously a difficult judgment call whether someone’s principal intent is to make people angry or upset. And if we value the free exchange of ideas, when somebody is sincere about the ideas themselves (as I’m pretty sure Will Farnaby is) I just think we need to be quite cautious about making the call that he’s expressing those ideas inappropriately.
“App! App app! App!”
I’ve drop-kicked a Pomeranian for less.
It’s really quite simple: don’t express sincerely held ideas in a jerkish (or trollish) manner.
You really think that’s a simple judgment call? When the mod might personally find those views annoying or even abhorrent? I think it’s extremely difficult for the mods to make that call fairly and objectively, and I don’t envy them. It’s a fair bet that however Will Farnaby were to express his views they would still annoy a bunch of people (myself included, fwiw).
No, I mean if one doesn’t want to be called a troll (or a jerk), don’t act like one. Even when presenting sincerely held views.
Remember that sincere troll Clothahump? He’d likely still be here if he’d have managed to stay the hell away from politics, or at least quit trying to bait people.
FTR: I argued for him to be placed on a board-wide political topic ban.
Which begs the question.
You’re arguing that implementing the principles of free speech is “simple” by making the usual error of considering only ideas you disagree with.
I’m not advocating tolerating jerks without limit. I’m saying that it’s a challenging problem for the mods to judge what constitutes jerkish presentation of ideas when they are sincerely held. The fact that some (or even many) people may be annoyed is not the only metric.
I think it’s much easier when you have a dickwad like UrbanRedneck, where I think it’s pretty obvious by now that nothing is remotely sincere.
ETA: By contrast, I think (say) Will Farnaby and Huey Freeman both have some fucked up ideas. But I don’t think anyone can say conclusively that they are not sincere. If they spew their nonsense all over the board, I certainly hope mods take some action to limit that. But I don’t think it’s appropriate to try to silence them altogether.