I trolled one time and it was fun, I think the power thing is what it was. It started out innocently enough but at one point the discussion took a funny turn and I rode it from that point on. I was entertained as I posted new comments with the success I was having at getting a reaction. However, I did not enjoy it when the mood of the other posters crossed the line from confusion to anger.
It takes two to argue. Like obvious spam threads that just want to lure people to gambling or porn, a troll thead is one that should collect no comments, except perhaps from the naive.
When there is “a stir”, it’s caused not by the OP but by those who like to argue with trolls.
They are two of a kind, as far as I can tell, and I leave the one to taunt the othe and ignore those threads.
Trolling is fundamentally about pretending to be something you are not. Playing the devil’s advocate is arguing an unpopular or irregular position but within the accepted conventions of argument. It really is not trolling to argue postions the person is not fully committed to. It could be interesting to test the rational limits of a minority argument. Go outside the conventions or argument and its trolling though.
Whereas trolling is pretending to be something you are not. Take our recent bloom of fundamentalist christians trying to slither under the radar with innocent questions about evolution. The surface looks like someone engaged in rational debate and open to rational persuasion. People of integrity are thereby engaged, when debate and rational persuasion are not the goals at all.
So trolling really is any argument where the person presents as amenable to evidence-based persuasion but isn’t. Hence the steady flight of the right-wing/pro-war posters from this board. Trolls every one of them. Equivalently, there are posters who present left wing views, as though they were arrrived at by pure reason and could be abandoned the same way, when it is not so. They are in the minority at the moment, however, because recently the right wing, aka ‘faith-based policy,’ has moved to the position that evidence based reasoning is anathema.
Other examples of pretending to be something you are not. Tragic experiences; professionially qualified; a first-hand witness; disinterested. I’m sure there are more but I wouldn’t wish to identify individuals.
I don’t care as much about trolls as a I do about albatrosses. Taking a provocative stance to rile people up is one thing. Doing it and then completely bowing out of the discussion is pathetic and truly, the definition of being a jerk.
NB: The comments below that deal with various policies refer not specifically to the SDMB but to message boards in general.
The hidden assumption at work here is that anything you can label “trolling” is bad. Trolling is too vague a term to be really useful as a critical label.
So what behaviors does “trolling” comprise, and how disagreeable are each of them? That, I think, is the pertinent question. I’d like to go through the types of person typically labeled “troll,” addressing what motivates them and what I think of them and what I personally think of them.
The Nasty, Gramatically Challenged Spammer
They go on message boards and post retarded racist/neo-Nazi/etc. rants, knowing that they will get a violent reaction. They are often albatrosses, too.
Motivation: Some might really believe in their causes. Most, probably, are just trying to be destructive, plain and simple.
What I think: Their value-add is nil, their value-subtract measurable. They should banned from any message board and their posts erased.
The Retarded, Gramatically Challenged Spammers
Like the above except they post creationist/evangelical Christian/conspiracy-oriented/etc. rants. Same motivation, same solution.
The Trouble-Maker
This type of person constantly shits in other people’s threads and makes him- or herself the center of attention. Preferably, this person divides the board into those who love him or her and those who hate. I can think of a classic example that I will not name here.
Motivation: The motivation is attention and the game of getting a rise out of people.
What I think: See “the peformer” below for my analysis.
The Performer
This person loves to play tricks, whoosh the board, get a rise out of people, etc.
Motivation: He or she loves to be on stage, and the board is the stage. Attention is part of it, the desire to entertain a part as well.
What I think: There is a fine line between the Trouble-Maker and the Performer. In their pure state, the former is destructive, unpleasant, and gives the board a bad vibe, while the latter may cause some frustration, may shake things up a bit, but leaves behind a good vibe.
The thing is, people are going to perceive trouble-makers/performers differently. To some, Robin Williams is a comic genius. I recognize his talent but think he’s mostly unfunny and extremely self-congratulatory in vibe. How would Robin seem on a message board without his cloak of fame and mass-media sheen? My guess is he’d be no big deal and would seem like a trouble-maker to many, a performer to others.
There has really been only one poster on this board that I wished to be banned (the above-mentioned unnamed) because he was so successful at derailing perfectly decent threads begun by others. Such a poster needs to be controlled, but I am not in favor of banning them in general if they have any value-add to begin with (and that’s my general perspective on banning at any message board).
The Rebel
This person loves to set him- or herself up as a martyr, the only voice of reason on the board, the purifier of the forum, the scourge of the mods, etc.
Motivation: It’s usually attention-whoredom on the X axis and outrage at injustice on the Y. Sometimes Rebels are full of shit; other times they serve a beneficial political purpose.
What I think: If they are not thread-shitters, I’m not in favor of banning them. They can indeed be tiresome, but the TPTB are likely to perceive any rebel, no matter how accurate in criticism, to be a trouble-maker, so it’s best to put up with them so that the good ones can do their work when they appear.
The Devil’s Advocate
This person argues positions in which he or she does not agree. The degree of variance from his or her true opinion can be small or large.
Motivation: This person may love the game of debate without particular regard to absolute truth. If he or she later says, “Hah! I don’t really believe that, but isn’t it something how I debated you on that?” there is trouble-maker vibe at work.
What I think: I’m not a fan of this behavior. In a debate, it is natural to desire a sincere opponent. Trying to police the behavior, however, is tricky: the whole thoughtcrime issue arises. So long as the poster avoids the “Hah hah hah, I fooled you!” part, I don’t think much can be done.
Like “millet” or “sardine,” “troll” includes several unrelated species. The sincere, nutso ranter who spams a board is a creature entirely different from the sophisticated, self-aware shit-starter. The former may lack malice or deceit entirely. The latter has both.
Humans prefer simple labels and criticisms, but I think the term “troll” obfuscates the issues that must be dealt with in maintaining message board hygeine. Identifying and counteracting individual negative behaviors or related sets of behaviors is the proper way, I believe.
So Aeschines … what you are saying is that you really care about grammar, right? (You know some leftists and atheists are grammatically challenged too.)
Really, I think that the issue you (and to some extent I) raised is that “troll” is being used as a synonym for being a jerk, instead of how many of us thought of it in the past, as someone who intentionally causes online disturbances, and who does so by posting insulting, inflamatory, off-topic and/or disingenuous content. My hypothetical master-debater is different from that sort of jerk-off in that the motivation is very different, even if the technique is the same. And even if the less than forthrightness is percieved by some as being a bit of a jerk as (s)he undermines any hope for developing trust in a discussion board environment. Your rebel is no troll; (s)he is honest in their goals, even if they are misguided and jerky in the process. Likewise the Nazi and the witnessing fundamentalist are honestly trying to preach their worldviews. The goal is not to disrupt. Sure, they are jerks for not being willing to really debate and even moreso if they are albatrosses, but not per se trolls.
Trolls are needy people who are so impotant in real life matters that even the delusion of power that shit-stirring imparts is a trip and a half. No cite though. But it would be a cool study.
I’m not sure about that. If you play devil’s advocate while saying that the position you’re defending is not your own, you’re entirely in the clear, and you might even be all right even if you don’t. Bricker has been known to play this kind of stunt, and I don’t believe he’s ever been warned for it. The only example I can find right now is [thread=348431]this thread[/thread] (even though it’s not exactly “playing devil’s advocate”), and [post=6875420]this is the comment[/post] MEBuckner had about that thread.
Of course, the fact that Bricker has proven his worth to the board might make the moderators less likely to imagine the worst about him. A new guest would probably not be treated the same way.