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.