iswydt
Trump was the only candidate this last election. Funny how that works.
~Max
Which last election was Trump the only candidate?
I was referring to the primary election, silly. By the time my state held the primary, a couple weeks ago, the only person on the ballot who was still an active candidate was Trump.
Heck, the Democrats didn’t even hold a primary this cycle.
~Max
It’s almost as if you clearly understand the difference between the primaries and the election and you’re just playing stupid word games.
I give thorny_locust enough credit to assume when she wrote “voting”, she intended both primary elections and general elections. (But ironically, not the most recent one in Florida.)
~Max
I just voted in the Democratic primary. Biden had three opponents.
Not in Florida, he didn’t.
~Max
Register a protest vote for a candidate no longer running.
They did here. Williamson and I-forget-who were also on the ballot.
I meant in general: whatever election’s going on. People who say ‘they’re all crooks anyway’ often don’t ever show up to vote.
I do think that a vote already decided is a decent excuse; but I generally show up anyway (and early-voted for Biden a couple of days ago). News reports have been noting how many people voted for Biden, already settled or not.
And yet again a hockey game has broken out during a perfectly good brawl. 
Never mind.
Agreed, and sometimes trolls even post their sincere beliefs, a troll doesn’t need to be pretending. They just know that what they’re doing is going to rile people up and that’s why they’re doing it.
For a mild example, I don’t like pineapple on pizza. It’s a sincerely held belief. Let’s say there is a thread about how much people love pineapple on pizza. Reading the thread, it’s full of anecdotes regarding people’s favorite restaurants that serve pizza with pineapple, stories about how that pizza topping evokes fond memories of childhood or reminds them of loved ones who passed on who they shared that pizza with. Tricks and recipes are given as to ways to really feature pineapple. Is it a cliche to just put it with ham, or are there better combinations of toppings? What sauce is best? And so on.
Then I break in with a post about my disgust for pineapple or any other sweet fruit as a pizza topping. I cite multiple articles where others share my hatred. I don’t go so far as to insult anyone in the thread but I very much make it clear that I just don’t understand how anyone can stand it.
Cue the inevitable backlash, the thread suddenly gets contentious, and what was a charming and fun thread turns controversial. I even inspire a couple on insults that draw notes. My work is done as I view the results of tossing a literary grenade into the discussion.
To me that’s straight up trolling. Even though I shared what’s not an uncommon belief and one I sincerely feel, I knew very well what would happen if I did that and gladly stirred up some shit. Now, that’s not an egregious example of trolling but still. If I showed a pattern of doing such things I’d expect sanctions.
(For the record, my wife loves pineapple as a topping and I have no problem with her eating it, I just don’t like it myself. I’m sure I enjoy a lot of foods that many don’t like either so no judgment from me if you like it.)
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your news letter.
I like a copy of that newsletter, myself. (For the pineapple on pizza thing I care not, if you don’t like it pick it off😊)
But really, trolls do a thing, I think. (My troll radar is not as much fine tuned as it could be. I’m not on any other messages boards or social media. Except 
)
Tell me if I’m dreaming or right…they come in with a big ol’ hijack. A safe one. No surprise or far extreme ideas. Then as time goes along they ramp it up. Then they’re ranting and screaming at anyone who tries to relieve them of their false or wrong ideas.
Am I getting this?
That is one way it could be done, though I think most of the time it’s not a safe hijack. Trolls want the satisfaction of inspiring people to react and a safe hijack won’t do it. If you’re trolling there really isn’t any benefit in slowly cranking up the heat. They usually come in hot.
Honestly I can’t remember an example where a person takes an uncontroversial hijack and slowly cranks it up to trolling. Not in the same discussion. Maybe they wait for a while before trolling people on the board (or don’t decide right away to be a troll) but generally if you’re going to troll a conversation you just do it.
What you’re describing sounds more like a person who is slowly getting frustrated in a conversation because nobody is agreeing with them and they resort to ranting as the argument slips away from them. That’s not trolling, that’s just immature behavior.
Ahh. Thanks.
I agree, with one add: I believe some of this cohort does delude themselves into thinking themselves simple truth tellers, not shit stirrers. I am equally certain that they get a cheap thrill by stirring shit.
Hence my troll definition: Someone who accomplishes anything and everything that a committed troll would. I don’t care what their motivations are.
I know we’re talking almost completely in context of social media, message boards, and mostly Here but I want to step back and say something slightly more general. If someone comes in to stir of shit with verifiable facts and not just assumptions, even if their motivation is to stir up shit, I have a grudging respect and acceptance for them. Heck, it’s a trait found in a number of irritating but valuable reporters and crusaders. And for society on the whole, it’s probably beneficial - speaking truth to power is a good thing regardless of the motivation.
The problem is, it takes a lot of work to do it factually - and if all you want is the attention, it’s just so much easier to create the "facts* you want for your big splash: see all the “in depth recordings” of the anti-abortion crusaders who manipulated their information to create the narrative.
In the case of a message board though, especially one of the size of the SDMB, you’re not going to change the world with even a truthful revelation, so if you speak irritating facts to stir up shit, I’d grudgingly not consider you the worst sort of troll (still a troll by motivation) but still probably fall under our “more trouble than they’re worth” rule.
I’d probably still give them a half-hearted defense in ATMB when the various earned warnings come due. 
We had one of those a long time ago.
Agree, 100%, though I find that’s pretty rare. The shit stirrers tend to have unsupported “facts” and assertions that they tie to verifiable facts, but their logic is goofy.
That’s one of the advantages of boards like this. When one of the troublemakers comes in with an argument that on the surface seems credible, the truth piranhas swarm and tear the meat from his bones.
And then said troublemaker refuses to acknowledge the debunking and…well, you know the rest.