I think this is a good idea. The term 'troll should reserved for those that are intentionally causing trouble by making inflammatory statements or starting ‘hot’ threads just for the fun of it.
But what should we call those with post counts in the single digits that seem to clear out at the first sign of debate? In some ways, their more deserving of a pet name than the trolls are.
My first thought is to call them ‘bozos.’ But that’s just off the top of my head. Anyone have a better idea?
“If you prick me, do I not…leak?” --Lt. Commander Data
Late on the third day, at the very moment when, at sunset, we were making our way through a herd of hippopotamuses, there flashed upon my mind, unforeseen and unsought, the phrase, “Reverence for Life.”
Wow! A thread inspired by me! I’m flattered.
I was thinking maybe “weasel”, but that seems a bit too deragoratory, especially for forums other than GD; after all, if someone else challenges the post, we don’t know whether the original poster is still around to see the challenge; they aren’t necessarily “clearing out at the first sign of debate”, they’re clearing out before the first sign of debate. A good term I saw once was “drive-by poster”, but that doesn’t have quite the same ring as “troll” or “weasel”.
2 [from the belief that the ostrich when pursued hides its head in the sand and believes itself to be unseen] : ** one who attempts to avoid danger or difficulty by refusing to face it
**
–Kalél TheHungerSite.com
“If ignorance is bliss, you must be orgasmic.”
“Well, there was that thing with the Cheese-Wiz…but I’m feeling much better now!” – John Astin, Night Court
I love how everyone on this board assumes we all have instant mystic knowledge of all posts in all threads at all times. (Or maybe we are assumed to spend our entire waking existence here.) There are those of us who don’t check threads every half-hour; some of us wander through the board roughly once a day (I know I do), dropping what we hope are pearls of wisdom along the way.
So my alternative formulation is: “People with Lives.”
(Of course, now I have to go away and never look at this thread again, for maximum effect.)
…but when you get blue, and you’ve lost all your dreams, there’s nothing like a campfire and a can of beans!
Well Da Ace, that would be appropos, except when it’s their thread. If the OP runs off and never checks his thread again, I think he deserves some title.
Of course I had it happen to me a couple times. I posted a question, got busy, and upon return couldn’t find my thread. Even now that the search is back up, I still can’t find them.
I need to have something clarified. When you are talking about “drive-by posters”, are you talking about people who just start a thread and then abandon it? Because if I had known that I was going to have to do regular preventive maintenance on all my topics, I sure wouldn’t have started that many. Of course, I check back to see if anybody’s posted a reply, but I didn’t expect to get married to all of them, till death do us part. (I guess I assumed that when it appears obvious that a topic is moribund, the moderator will do the humane thing and send it over the Rainbow to the Archives. “Go towards the light…”)
Also, I just read a caution somewhere about “bumping” your own topic, which I take to mean posting to your own thread solely in order to bump it up to the top of the list. Tacky, but not criminal, in my opinion.
Or are you talking about people who start a seemingly innocuous thread which quickly escalates into a brisk discussion, but never participate themselves? If I post a topic about Graceland which suddenly turns into an “Elvis rocks/Elvis sucks” flame war, I really think I’d prefer to be out of range, over in ATMB or something.
Or are you, as I suspect, talking about people who start what seems to be a deliberately inflammatory thread, and then never participate in the resultant discussion?
If the latter, I would like to suggest the term “doorbell ringer”, as in one who rings a doorbell and then runs away. “Drive-by poster” has a rather violent, gang-related connotation, and I don’t think most doorbell ringers are really violent people, just mischievous–or clueless.
I don’t think every OP needs to participate in all their threads.
Sometimes, one starts a thread because you want to hear from experts in a subject you know nothing about. All the participation you can offer is, “Thank you, gang.”
The ones that are irritating are those that post their own opinion, clearly expect people to refute them, and then don’t join the discussion. It’s just no fun to argue against a single post.
Along the same lines are those that put up a complex OP and don’t show up to answer the clarifying questions asked by later posts. Again, it’s hard to continue the thread when no one understands the genesis of it well enough.
Basically, I think every OP does need to look at his/her threads every once in a while. It’s hard to know what explanation or continuation might be needed unless you read it. You don’t necessarily need to post to your own threads, but you need to read them and post if needed.
Comments?
“If you prick me, do I not…leak?” --Lt. Commander Data
