So just what defines a troll?

Sure, we’ve got that on my side, too. I can only think of one or two posters who are similar in both the amount of threads started and in the small differences between the threads. But I can’t argue that he’s the only one of that type, nor that it only comes from the conservatives here. So I won’t.

It’s like pornography, you’ll know it when you see it. You’ll always watch a little porn before you change the channel …

Can we divide this into “Garden Variety Trolls”, many fine example of which you will find in the Omnibus Trolls R Us Thread, and others? Some of the folks in the Omnibus thread are longer term posters, but most of them are short term posters who pop up, drop some threads to get a specific response, and are only around as long as it takes to determine that are not sincerely interested in a real dialogue. They are “trolling” for a response in the more classic sense.

“Others”, I think, is where we find the heated name calling, and where we find lists like “Republitrolls”. I’m of two minds on a lot of this. It’s a response to the break down of civil dialogue. I sympathize, but I think we need to cool it.

This quote here, from the Clothahump snowflake thread summarize what these exchanges feel like, to both sides I imagine.

So, now, everyone’s pissed off. No one has had a discussion, and someone has been called a liar or a troll. (With thanks to Bryan Ekers, I thought this was a really good capturing of how conversations go here recently.)

Now, as a group, we are all trigger-happy on the aggression and the name calling, because we’ve all been down that exact slope for months, maybe years, through this entire ridiculous election. We don’t proceed A-B-C and get to you’re a troll because you said X, we say you’re a troll because you said C or even B, or we start getting negative ourselves.

Not all posters, but that’s how it happens, I think.

A certain extra level of restraint on everyone’s part is needed before we’ll return to any level of civility. Everyone’s. Delete a few posts. Leave them sit in draft. Go back and edit and make sure you’re saying what you want to say without getting more inflammatory than you mean to. Bring evidence.

If you’re in the Pit, on the other hand, expect to get lit up.

This is precisely my point. You’re equating insults with trolling. If that is your definition, fine, but it’s not the one in the rules. Yes, I’ve been angered by posts aimed at me and I’ve perhaps gone overboard with my replies. But I repeat, how is that trolling? Should I think of you as a troll because of your insults in that post? Of course I don’t. Disliking a poster is not grounds for calling them a troll. Nor is stupidity on their part, although anyone who has read my posts with attention will realize that is not one of my failings. Being a conservative does not automatically qualify a person as having no education. It’s a point of view, one you may disagree with and one which you may well argue is based on a misapprehension of the facts. That’s certainly possible, as an English conservative, as one poster rightly pointed out, I may be unfamiliar with some aspects of American conservatism. I aim to work on that. What I do not aim to do is accept your judgment over that of the moderators of this board. I’m sure you can understand that. But thank you for contributing.

As someone who has been called a troll simply because I don’t agree with many of the deeply held beliefs here, I’d say that 99% of the posts that are labeled trolling are merely saying something the board doesn’t like. And the other accusation of being stupid, well when a group decides X is truth, anyone who doesn’t believe that must be stupid, right?

This board may be a unique place on the internet in that despite being mostly liberal, there are many conservative members and some others who are like me, a combo of both. It’s an interesting insight to how people think and react.

As Shodan points out I’m hardly alone in this. But I take your point. Although highly critical of Trump during the campaign (I considered and consider him an ill-mannered oaf) I did see his unexpected victory as a triumph for conservative values I hold dear and a coming together again of the UK and US. This led me to become perhaps a little too enthusiastic in my postings on politics and I do accept that I may have conflated too readily English and American conservatism. I’m working on that.

Thank you for your belief that I am not a troll. Coming from a poster I respect it means a lot.

There might be something about prior relationships with Billy Goats.

Trolls are composed of metamorphorical rock.

Really, when you insult someone like this, only you can tell **your **intent. Was it your intent to convey information? To convince others? To advance an argument? Or was your intent to disrupt normal, on-topic discussion, and perhaps to get a chuckle out of someone’s irritation?

If the latter, then you’re in danger of crossing the line. But unless it’s really egregious and repetitive, you’ll probably get away with it. Again, in many cases, only YOU will know your intent, which is the important part.

Clothahump’s gleeful reveal that he trolls (and I seriously doubt that was the first time) puts a crack in my assumption that all the long-time conservative Dopers are always sincere about their beliefs in their posts (aside from when they’re being snarky). I still will give the benefit of the doubt, and IMO have no reason to believe that the OP, Shodan, F-P, or Starving Artist, for example, are trolls, but I’ll try to remember Clothy’s example when I see posts that seem particularly inflammatory to me.

Andy, you’re getting a little drunk with power bro. You got one guy suspended and now you’ve got your eye on a few others.

And my advice was ignored, as expected. The Internets wants the drama.

I certainly didn’t mean it as a threat! In any case, none of the posters I mentioned would be dumb enough to openly admit to trolling as Clothy did. And I love them all, of course. :wink:

I think what makes a person a troll is their motive - if their primary motive is to irritate and incite anger. If someone sincerely makes an argument to try to advance their cause, for the purpose of advancing their cause - even be it Nazism or Islamic terrorism or some horrific cause - but sincerely does so in “good faith,” I wouldn’t generally consider them a troll, if their primary motive isn’t inciting anger. They may well be something worse than a troll, but, still, not quite troll-ish.

A closely related 2nd criterion is sincerity, if someone says something irritating or provoking that they themselves don’t really believe, but are doing so for laughs and giggles, that is trollish.

As am example of a non-troll, I’m reminded of Umbridge, a poster who came under a lot of fire a while ago for posting a lot of questions related to sexual intercourse and the specific mechanics of the birds and bees - sex positions, etc… It appears that she was genuinely asking such questions out of sincere curiosity since she hadn’t been taught much about the birds and bees while growing up, but some Dopers, who were irritated by her threads, considered her a troll. I think she got banned.

Proper trolling takes talent. A real troll blends in. They posses a keen understanding of how to push people’s buttons and get them to fight each other and upend discussions. You’re not an artist just because you fingerpaint.

FWIW, I think it’s more than 50% likely that Clothahump was not actually trolling in his original post, but thought it would work better if he pretended to have done so when you made a Pit thread about it.

Not sure, of course. But his initial post made no sense as a trolling post. As an explanation of his prior behavior, it was less inflammatory than likely alternative explanations, rather than more so. So I think it’s more likely that he really meant it, but then thought posturing as the clever guy who fooled everyone and scoffs at them all was the better approach rather than trying to defend his position.

Didn’t work, obviously. (And not that this gets him off the hook, of course. He said what he said.)

I was told in another forum that a troll is someone that insults other members hoping that will get a person banned. But this never happen in that forum, the trolls
never get banned the people that been insulted get banned !

I think this is very possible (I could only guess if it’s 50%, or more/less). I don’t think anyone could know for sure, though, unless they had a close personal relationship with him.

It was very strange – how could he possibly have come to the conclusion that the admission of trolling would make him look better? Essentially he abandoned an explanation for using the slur that, at least, some Dopers were defending (if perhaps only half-heartedly, without really excusing his particular usage), in favor of no explanation at all.

The BBQ pit exists for the sole purpose of insulting other members.

I assume he didn’t intend to explain it at all and/or wasn’t thinking that far ahead.

A lot of people go for the “I’m so smart, you’re so dumb, you really believed that? Hahahaha” approach. You see it all the time.

I haven’t seen anything like that before, except perhaps for a few posters that subsequently were banned (Construct comes to mind). But nothing like that from a long-time poster.