Gosh, Colibri, there sure seems to be something in common with posters that you believe have a “certain manner” of expressing themselves. Could it be that you are . . . oh no, I dare not speak it’s name . . . it can’t be true!
After all, you couldn’t be . . . that thing I dare not name. In fact, you have presented us with an example in this very thread of your ability to evaluate arguments and posters without bringing . . . the bad thing . . . to bear. Let’s have a look-see, shall we?
Yep, no . . . badness . . . there. You didn’t interpret Shodan’s intent based on your own beliefs at all. You took the facts as they were. :rolleyes:
I find it somewhat amusing that, according to his own silly definition, **Shodan **is “losing the argument”, and quite badly. I hope I am not accused of trolling by pointing this out.
An “internet troll” can broadly be defined as someone who angers others. Some people become angry when their opinions are challenged, and especially when they are challenged by someone who is more knowledgeable.
Nearly every poster on The Straight Dope will probably agree with me that no one’s opinions should be considered as unchallengeable.
I would argue that if a comment could appear as a letter to the editor of a newspaper or opinion journal, it is not trolling. If a comment expresses contempt for individuals, groups, or religions, I would say it is trolling.
One should feel free to express controversial opinions, but one should show respect for those who disagree.
“Trolling” is not easy to define or identify. It is NOT simply an opinion that makes others mad; mere disagreement or anger is not the key to trolling. To the contrary, it is possible to be trolling without invoking anger at all (for example, someone asking for an explanation of something and pretending not to understand repeated clarifications.)
The origin of the term “trolling” (see: What is a troll? - The Straight Dope ) has to do with “hooking” unsuspecting fish. The essence of trolling is not the anger, but the fact that the person’s sole purpose is to entrap. This is not easy to judge from the outside. The “hooking” can be getting people to argue, to correct mistakes, to explain. But just because you’ve been whoooshed doesn’t mean the other person was deliberately trolling. So, as with most things here, there’s no clear cut definitional line, nor could there be. It’s about intentionality.
Mods can (and do) call certain posts/threads/OPs for “trolling.” We can expel persons who are only here to troll, judged based on repeated performance. But we’re never going to define it: a 17 page definition would still leave ambiguity, and none of us wants to waste time writing irrelevant definitions.
You will find that the board tolerates pretty aggressive behavior: those called out for being a troll or a jerk behave in such a way that is far outside your standards.
However. You may also find that if you keep your cool and apply the criteria you outlined (nice job, btw) that you will earn the respect and even admiration of your fellow posters. We have a variety of members here: some seek to lower the bar, others raise it.
I read both examples, and visited the threads to try to get context. In both cases the same could be said for you. In your first example regarding black women vs white women, you spend 4 paragraphs exploring reasons black men might date white women instead of black women, yet only one point is even close to on target response to what MsWhatsit said about attractiveness. Yet she’s the one not listening to you. :rolleyes:
