Trolling, good or bad?

nyarlothothep

I recall uber Trools like Weev stating that good trolling provokes debate and actually has its roots in antiquity, like in ancient Greece in that the troll can expose inconsistency, hypocrisy, self righteousness or the inability to critically evalute of a given set of stances by posting a wildly controversial view. Is trolling a necessary annoyance on the internet?

Nevyn

It is possible to be play devil's advocate and be critcal with out being a troll.

nyarlothothep

I think the difference might lie in the fact that a troll will be provocative enough to make people reveal their true opinions.

looksee

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I think the difference might lie in the fact that a troll will be provocative enough to make people reveal their true opinions.

No, a troll will irritate some people and encourage others to follow his irrelevant bait, thus derailing the thread. Unfortunately not everyone can spot a troll. I'm tempted to ask are you still hungry, but it is a legitimate enough question I suppose.

Quentinkrisp

I'm going to say bad, because personally I don't like people who play devil's advocate, they tend to have a condescending and disrespectful manner about them; either you support something or you don't.
if you do, you stick with what you've chosen to support and don't go against it for the sake of having an argument with someone. Personally I think trolls deliberately post inflammatory material on certain forums and threads just to get a rise out of people. again, this is not what I see as being a desirable trait in a person they're usually just downright pathetic people tbh.

Quentinkrisp

Thaedydal wrote: »

It is possible to be play devil's advocate and be critcal with out being a troll.

Yes but it is very difficult, and you are constantly walking a fine line when doing so IMO.

nyarlothothep

I disagree on the devils advocate argument, one you're making a generalization about people who play the role, second playing devils advocate provides an important function in exposing weaknesses in arguments or positions which people could take for granted. In addition I've had many an enlightening and amiable conversation with others playing devils advocate, its forced me to see the flaws in my own opinions.

Quentinkrisp

ok, in fairness I was basing my post on empirical observation and my own experiences. If you can play devil's advocate and keep the discussion civilized well then more power to you:) whereas any discussion I've had where it was either myself or another person playing devil's advocate has always degenerated into an ugly shouting match :P

What I'm really trying to say is that if someone is giving a counter opinion, I'd prefer it if they 100% firmly believed in what they were saying.

nyarlothothep

I think the problem is that the vast majority of trolls are not playing devils advocate. They're seeking to get a response, and then pummel the thread into oblivion with the ensuing arguments. I'd say that a good few trolls I have seen over the years come down to two segments. Those that pop in to say something and are never seen again. And Secondly the trolls that are not seeking to improve the thread but just to derail it.

Honestly I don't see Devils advocate as being trollish behavior since playing DA would still stick to the main subject of the thread. But I can't stand those that play DA just for the sake of it, and don't have any real belief in what they're saying. Then its a waste of space, or worse, a set up to make the primary argument more acceptable because the counter (DA) arguments are so lame.

nyarlothothep wrote:

Is trolling a necessary annoyance on the internet?

Yes. People love pushing buttons, and a bulletin discussion board is an easy and fun way to do just that. But thankfully Humanities is well moderated, and we don't have to endure too much of it.

nyarlothothep

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the problem is that the vast majority of trolls are not playing devils advocate. They're seeking to get a response, and then pummel the thread into oblivion with the ensuing arguments. I'd say that a good few trolls I have seen over the years come down to two segments. Those that pop in to say something and are never seen again. And Secondly the trolls that are not seeking to improve the thread but just to derail it.

Honestly I don't see Devils advocate as being trollish behavior since playing DA would still stick to the main subject of the thread. But I can't stand those that play DA just for the sake of it, and don't have any real belief in what they're saying. Then its a waste of space, or worse, a set up to make the primary argument more acceptable because the counter (DA) arguments are so lame.



Yes. People love pushing buttons, and a bulletin discussion board is an easy and fun way to do just that. But thankfully Humanities is well moderated, and we don't have to endure too much of it.

Certain users on these boards would make me think that people are more easily fooled than they think. But then these users can make the place more entertaining by posting absolutely ridiculous opinions which sparks long threads where people get outraged or counter the users original post. I guess the argument I'm making is that a good troll if theres such a thing will get people to unwittingly reveal their true dispositions by being provocative without insulting them, they're attacking a viewpoint/attitude/cultural value rather than getting personal but in an outrageous, deliberately controversial way. That or they will make a comedy out of the forum they're posting on by saying things that others privately acknowledge but wouldn't state openly. An analogy would be Sacha Baron Cohen going into a community/group and annoying them with information about their internal states becoming apparent in the process. I agree that other types of troll are just really stupid, the successful troll will be subtle, rather than just derailing a thread the troll will appear to genuinely believe in their arguments while being exceptionally annoying to all.

nyarlothothep

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Certain users on these boards would make me think that people are more easily fooled than they think.

Naturally. Its sometimes difficult to determine tone and actual meanings on a bulletin board. English has some rather awkward limitations in communicating ideas at times.

But then these users can make the place more entertaining by posting absolutely ridiculous opinions which sparks long threads where people get outraged or counter the users original post.

Alas I see them as being irrelevant and a waste of space. I'd much prefer to see posters stick to the topic rather than seeking to grandstand. But then I don't find the majority of Irish or British comedy funny, since its as obvious as a frying pan in your face. Perhaps it comes down a difference in appreciation.

I guess the argument I'm making is that a good troll if theres such a thing will get people to unwittingly reveal their true dispositions by being provocative without insulting them, they're attacking a viewpoint/attitude/cultural value rather than getting personal but in an outrageous, deliberately controversial way.

Personally, I figure posters on a serious forum like Humanities will already be posting their true dispositions, and don't need to be heckled by the ignorant. The posters that aren't being completely truthful will be shown up by reasonable arguments rather than the typical trollish behavior.

And honestly, I can't think of any posters that are capable of being "provocative without insulting them", with the possible exception of the moderators like TC.

That or they will make a comedy out of the forum they're posting on by saying things that others privately acknowledge but wouldn't state openly.

Its a bulletin board. We're not under observation. We can say whatever we like within the limits of the board regulations.

An analogy would be Sacha Baron Cohen going into a community/group and annoying them with information about their internal states becoming apparent in the process.

How so? Since any interaction would be off the internet, and back into the realms of reality. Otherwise, there would be no guarantee that it is indeed Sacha Baron Cohen or that they would be capable of doing what you describe effectively.

I agree that other types of troll are just really stupid, the successful troll will be subtle, rather than just derailing a thread the troll will appear to genuinely believe in their arguments while being exceptionally annoying to all.

All very well and good, but its a bit like my belief in God. I'll believe when I see him. Just as I'll believe when I see a troll capable of doing what you suggest. Frankly, I think you're going them too much credit. Subtle is not one of their talents.

nyarlothothep

Deleted User wrote: »

Naturally. Its sometimes difficult to determine tone and actual meanings on a bulletin board. English has some rather awkward limitations in communicating ideas at times.



Alas I see them as being irrelevant and a waste of space. I'd much prefer to see posters stick to the topic rather than seeking to grandstand. But then I don't find the majority of Irish or British comedy funny, since its as obvious as a frying pan in your face. Perhaps it comes down a difference in appreciation.



Personally, I figure posters on a serious forum like Humanities will already be posting their true dispositions, and don't need to be heckled by the ignorant. The posters that aren't being completely truthful will be shown up by reasonable arguments rather than the typical trollish behavior.

And honestly, I can't think of any posters that are capable of being "provocative without insulting them", with the possible exception of the moderators like TC.



Its a bulletin board. We're not under observation. We can say whatever we like within the limits of the board regulations.



How so? Since any interaction would be off the internet, and back into the realms of reality. Otherwise, there would be no guarantee that it is indeed Sacha Baron Cohen or that they would be capable of doing what you describe effectively.



All very well and good, but its a bit like my belief in God. I'll believe when I see him. Just as I'll believe when I see a troll capable of doing what you suggest. Frankly, I think you're going them too much credit. Subtle is not one of their talents.

With regards to the troll users here they do leave "easter eggs" so to speak yet people don't pick up on them.

In relation to off topicness obviously this would be pointless but I was refering to trolls who start a topic and stick to it or address an existing topic but with a very unpopular viewpoint which invites others to defend their own or highlight the logical inconsistency or, unwittingly the merits thereof of the trolls position even though it may largely be invalid.

I can't comment on users in the humanities forum or any other for that matter, but I can suggest that people can take a viewpoint for granted without considering it more deeply or are dishonest with themselves and I have seen this exposed by posting ridiculous opinions, by not posting such opinions the other users may not have been invited into reveaing the nature of their true dispositions. Of course this doesn't entail heckling, this isn't fair or constructive.

I certainly think its quite easy to be provocative without being insulting, all you do is be provocative with the topic and refrain from making personal attacks on the users. Being offended is another matter but then I think its not always a good thing to censor speech which others may find offensive.

With respect to my point on what people can say openly here or not as with most social situations there are internal social regulations, of what to say and not to say in relation to the forum hegemony, about particular popular attitudes and the groups who enforce them. I've seen an internet community fall apart due to this.

The Sacha Baron Cohen analogy is just that, an analogy not a direct comparison but something which is analogous to trolling. He poses as a member of a community and proceedes to wind them up.

Subtlety is a prime factor in the art of trolling, an obvious troll will be identified and dealt with thus preventing them from wreaking massive troll mayhem.

gbee

The modern definition of a troll is a little different than in ancient Greece.

Today the ONLY purpose of a troll is to aggravate and or lead on people for the troll's ultimate joy in catching another fool.

Trolling can be great fun, but the phrase is bandied about too much when people just don't have an answer and don't accept the opposing point of view.

nyarlothothep

nyarlothothep wrote: »

With regards to the troll users here they do leave "easter eggs" so to speak yet people don't pick up on them.

Because they're obvious trolls, and if we really wanted to interact with trolls, we'd spend out time on After Hours.

In relation to off topicness obviously this would be pointless but I was refering to trolls who start a topic and stick to it or address an existing topic but with a very unpopular viewpoint which invites others to defend their own or highlight the logical inconsistency or, unwittingly the merits thereof of the trolls position even though it may largely be invalid.

A "troll" that starts a topic and sticks to it is a normal poster. By sticking to the topic they've removed themselves from trollish behavior. Unless you're seeking to include posters with poor ability to support their stance/opinions as being trolls?

I can't comment on users in the humanities forum or any other for that matter, but I can suggest that people can take a viewpoint for granted without considering it more deeply or are dishonest with themselves and I have seen this exposed by posting ridiculous opinions, by not posting such opinions the other users may not have been invited into reveaing the nature of their true dispositions. Of course this doesn't entail heckling, this isn't fair or constructive.

Huh? Frankly I don't get that at all.

I certainly think its quite easy to be provocative without being insulting, all you do is be provocative with the topic and refrain from making personal attacks on the users. Being offended is another matter but then I think its not always a good thing to censor speech which others may find offensive.

Attack the post not the poster. Very easy regulations on a bulletin board. And its very obvious when posters step beyond that. And honestly, I've seen very few posters capable of doing that without appearing hostile.

With respect to my point on what people can say openly here or not as with most social situations there are internal social regulations, of what to say and not to say in relation to the forum hegemony, about particular popular attitudes and the groups who enforce them. I've seen an internet community fall apart due to this.

Grand, but the fact remains that there are vast differences between what can happen (or should be allowed to happen) on a internet forum versus what happens in the real world (i.e. face to face interactions).

The Sacha Baron Cohen analogy is just that, an analogy not a direct comparison but something which is analogous to trolling. He poses as a member of a community and proceedes to wind them up.

An analogy that is removed from the internet and the limitations contained therein. IMO not a very useful analogy.

Subtlety is a prime factor in the art of trolling, an obvious troll will be identified and dealt with thus preventing them from wreaking massive troll mayhem.

And who decides whether the poster is just being normal (in posting their actual stance/opinions) versus that of a troll being subtle? Frankly, I don't think anyone would be able to tell the difference.

nyarlothothep

Deleted User wrote: »

Because they're obvious trolls, and if we really wanted to interact with trolls, we'd spend out time on After Hours.



A "troll" that starts a topic and sticks to it is a normal poster. By sticking to the topic they've removed themselves from trollish behavior. Unless you're seeking to include posters with poor ability to support their stance/opinions as being trolls?



Huh? Frankly I don't get that at all.



Attack the post not the poster. Very easy regulations on a bulletin board. And its very obvious when posters step beyond that. And honestly, I've seen very few posters capable of doing that without appearing hostile.



Grand, but the fact remains that there are vast differences between what can happen (or should be allowed to happen) on a internet forum versus what happens in the real world (i.e. face to face interactions).



An analogy that is removed from the internet and the limitations contained therein. IMO not a very useful analogy.



And who decides whether the poster is just being normal (in posting their actual stance/opinions) versus that of a troll being subtle? Frankly, I don't think anyone would be able to tell the difference.

Before I begin, where do you get the patience to add multiple quote tags? Unless theres a magic multiquote button I'm missing.

In relation to point 1 there is a troll on this board that people took seriously enough to debate with him/her over the course of a month. So a troll can have indications that they are in fact trolls that people seemingly don't pick up on.

In relation to point 2 now we're differing on what defines a troll, I would take it to encompass not merely derailing threads but including actions which I've already listed, eg posting deliberately provocative controversial unpopular opinions on topics designed to wind up users and to get them to reveal their possible hypocrisy or to get them to defend their arguments or expose weaknesses in those arguments. Moreover to mock the status quo in forums and thereby expose issues which would otherwise be left unsaid due to power groups.

It is certainly possible to take a bombastic stance on a topic in order to provoke other users without attacking them, though I agree that many would forget the boundary.

With regards to social situations and the analogy, one can look at patterns and how they work in both situations, internet and real life. Essentially if I'm to use a tablet and pen to sculpt a model in Z Brush on a computer screen, many of the techniques that I'm using would be the same as a sculptors even though they use a hammer and chisel and work on a solid object in real life. Similarly if I'm playing a musical instrument I'm probably using the same areas of the brain used for language processing that I also use for music. I don't discount that contextual factors alter how processes work, but I also think that those processes/patterns can be identified across contexts. Hence the techniques of Cohen are akin to the techniques of a troll. The behaviour of online groups is akin to that of real life ones, you bring to the medium what you've learned or incorporated from real life.

In relation to subtlety being integral to the trolling artform, thats part of the fun, the amazing troll will blend in enough not to get banned so that they can carry out their aims. However I'm distinguishing between good trolling and bad trolling which is just intended to derail threads and mess up internet communities. Good trolling performs an important service to humanity.

nyarlothothep

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Before I begin, where do you get the patience to add multiple quote tags? Unless theres a magic multiquote button I'm missing.

I've been a member here for a long time. You get used to typing the quotes very quickly once you start using it regularly. I also tend to post long replies.

I

n relation to point 1 there is a troll on this board that people took seriously enough to debate with him/her over the course of a month. So a troll can have indications that they are in fact trolls that people seemingly don't pick up on.

Link to thread? Otherwise its of no use since I can't reference it.

In relation to point 2 now we're differing on what defines a troll, I would take it to encompass not merely derailing threads but including actions which I've already listed, eg posting deliberately provocative controversial unpopular opinions on topics designed to wind up users and to get them to reveal their possible hypocrisy or to get them to defend their arguments or expose weaknesses in those arguments. Moreover to mock the status quo in forums and thereby expose issues which would otherwise be left unsaid due to power groups.

Aye we are differing in our interpretation of what a troll is. I like to keep things simple. You're overly complicating things. I regularly post responses on these boards which are the total opposite of most other posters. Simply because I actually believe this way. I can be convinced otherwise to my previous opinion, and this is why I continue to come back to these boards. But generally, especially in terms of politics and morality issues I tend to be more extreme than others. Does that make me a troll since I don't hold to the common belief and may post opinions that others might find offensive?

It is certainly possible to take a bombastic stance on a topic in order to provoke other users without attacking them, though I agree that many would forget the boundary.

Whereas I think that these people when they take such a stance don't recognise any boundaries.... they're only interested in their own opinions, moral values, and personal rules. When other posters oppose those aspects, they lash out. Some may be premeditated.. but I find the vast majority incapable to of lashing out in a subtle manner. Instead it comes down to the traditional insults on these boards.

With regards to social situations and the analogy, one can look at patterns and how they work in both situations, internet and real life.

Only when you take into account the limitations in drawing conclusions based on such vastly different environments. Its like comparing TV and Radio (although the voice does carry more meaning than typing). The image of the TV in addition to the sound from the radio often has more impact on an audience than radio on its own. Its why TV continues to gain more advertising revenue than any other medium except for the internet, and that's only due to its accessibility.

Essentially if I'm to use a tablet and pen to sculpt a model in Z Brush on a computer screen, many of the techniques that I'm using would be the same as a sculptors even though they use a hammer and chisel and work on a solid object in real life. Similarly if I'm playing a musical instrument I'm probably using the same areas of the brain used for language processing that I also use for music. I don't discount that contextual factors alter how processes work, but I also think that those processes/patterns can be identified across contexts. Hence the techniques of Cohen are akin to the techniques of a troll. The behaviour of online groups is akin to that of real life ones, you bring to the medium what you've learned or incorporated from real life.

And you're using examples which have no place in a message board system. We don't use images here in these threads. We don't draw pictures. We don't include sound clips. We type words, and rely on the reader to have the ability to understand both the actual meaning of the words, and also the opinion we're trying to get across.

Which is why using examples which have more power than a internet forum is, well, flawed.

In relation to subtlety being integral to the trolling artform, thats part of the fun, the amazing troll will blend in enough not to get banned so that they can carry out their aims.

Can you do it?

However I'm distinguishing between good trolling and bad trolling which is just intended to derail threads and mess up internet communities.
Good trolling performs an important service to humanity.

As I have said previously, I have to wonder how someone detects a good troll... How are they different from a serious, regular & experienced poster on these forums? Because as far as I can tell a good troll is simply a description of the better posters on these forums like TC. (not that I'm calling you a troll, TC )

Denerick

In a world so overcome by self obsession and smugness, trolling is more than a necessary evil, it is a necessary virtue in this modern world.*

*Part time troll.

Earthhorse

Much like hackers, I think there can be "white-hat" and "black-hat" trolls. What we're talking about largely here, is intent. A "good" troll pretends to hold opinions he knows to be wrong or flawed but, by his means of expressing them, which is seemingly sincere, highlights inconsistencies and contradictions in the logic underlying them. His intent is to ridicule the position; a good example of a real life troll is Stephen Colbert. He presents himself as someone with Republican, right-wing beliefs but deliberately expresses himself in ways that show that make such beliefs seem, well, unbelievable.

On the other hand, you have trolls who seek only to goad and upset. Their intent is not to provoke thought or debate. They make no attempt to subtley mock the position they seemingly hold. Not only do they get a kick out of the reactions they provoke they may also seek to disrupt and destroy communities; their actions are engaged in solely for their own entertainment. Nevertheless, they may often spark other members of the community into thought provoking discussion, whereas, a more muted but genuinely sincere poster would have his thread or posts ignored.

Really, all this comes down to is terminology. Some people regard trolls solely as troublemakers and it follows that the former group described in my post can never be labelled as such. If you want to call them fake-posters, satirists or devil's advocates, it doesn't really matter, the end result is the same.

gbee

Earthhorse wrote: »

it doesn't really matter, the end result is the same.

Oh! I was with you up to this point? What's the end result in each case?

looksee

Denerick wrote: »

In a world so overcome by self obsession and smugness, trolling is more than a necessary evil, it is a necessary virtue in this modern world.*

*Part time troll.

You wouldn't think that trolling is an example of self obsession and smugness?

Earthhorse

gbee wrote: »

Oh! I was with you up to this point? What's the end result in each case?

For the good troll; the undermining of the position he supposedly represents. Obviously, his success is contingent on a number of factors, primarily his own intelligence and that of his audience, I would say. But it doesn't matter whether people label him as a troll, fake-poster etc.

I guess that the whole "Troll" issue is too subtle for me. I tend to post what I think on any given subject regardless of the trend in the thread. I always figured trolls were like those muppets you meet in life who just can't resist stirring things up for no good reason.

And honestly I've seen nothing in this thread so far to remove or alter such an opinion. These good or effective trolls still sound like normal posters to me, and nobody has mentioned any definite way of identifying them as being otherwise.

nyarlothothep

Deleted User wrote: »

I've been a member here for a long time. You get used to typing the quotes very quickly once you start using it regularly. I also tend to post long replies.

I

Link to thread? Otherwise its of no use since I can't reference it.



Aye we are differing in our interpretation of what a troll is. I like to keep things simple. You're overly complicating things. I regularly post responses on these boards which are the total opposite of most other posters. Simply because I actually believe this way. I can be convinced otherwise to my previous opinion, and this is why I continue to come back to these boards. But generally, especially in terms of politics and morality issues I tend to be more extreme than others. Does that make me a troll since I don't hold to the common belief and may post opinions that others might find offensive?



Whereas I think that these people when they take such a stance don't recognise any boundaries.... they're only interested in their own opinions, moral values, and personal rules. When other posters oppose those aspects, they lash out. Some may be premeditated.. but I find the vast majority incapable to of lashing out in a subtle manner. Instead it comes down to the traditional insults on these boards.



Only when you take into account the limitations in drawing conclusions based on such vastly different environments. Its like comparing TV and Radio (although the voice does carry more meaning than typing). The image of the TV in addition to the sound from the radio often has more impact on an audience than radio on its own. Its why TV continues to gain more advertising revenue than any other medium except for the internet, and that's only due to its accessibility.



And you're using examples which have no place in a message board system. We don't use images here in these threads. We don't draw pictures. We don't include sound clips. We type words, and rely on the reader to have the ability to understand both the actual meaning of the words, and also the opinion we're trying to get across.

Which is why using examples which have more power than a internet forum is, well, flawed.



Can you do it?



As I have said previously, I have to wonder how someone detects a good troll... How are they different from a serious, regular & experienced poster on these forums? Because as far as I can tell a good troll is simply a description of the better posters on these forums like TC. (not that I'm calling you a troll, TC )

If you pm me I can give you the link, I don't feel like stirring up sh1t here. Trolling as I've said is an artform, white trolling I would suggest is a style of comedic polemic where the poster is pretending to argue for a particular viewpoint in order to showcase the inconsistencies in the opinions held by a group, to show up their hypocrisy, self aggrandizement etc.

With regard to patterns and mediums, basically the point is that say with z brush and real life sculpting, its the technique, the abstract set of methods which one employs through conscious agency which is the locus for analogy. In the same way the techniques that people employ in real life in terms of social interaction often find their expression here in an interactive medium. These techniques are transcendent across media though I agree that they can evolve into different variants dependent on the medium. This doesn't prohibit the drawing of meaningful comparisons. For example recent references to Vincent Browne in AH as a "king troll" would indicate this.

As to subtlety and good trolling, this is a question of individual judgement. Some posters may be regarded as trolls when they are in fact not. Furthermore what may not have seemed like trolling may be obvious in retrospect to most people. On the other hand what is apparent as trolling to some is lost on others who take the bait and allow the trolling to continue. This is the wonderous paradox of trolling, its Achilles heal and the source of its strength.

tawnyowl

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I think the difference might lie in the fact that a troll will be provocative enough to make people reveal their true opinions.

What if the provoker keeps going "You're an asshole" so much to someone that they lose their temper and snap at them? Does that prove the provoker right or merely shown they've successfully wound up their victim to the point of annoyance?

tawnyowl

nyarlothothep wrote: »

With regards to the troll users here they do leave "easter eggs" so to speak yet people don't pick up on them.

Not neccessarily the case: many years ago, probably in the late 1980, I came across someone on Usenet posting quite racist comments - I objected to the comments, only to be told that I had been taken in by the original posters' "sophisticated humor" and that "nobody thinks like that nowadays".

A few years later the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda suffered from genocide. Clearly the perpetrators hadn't got the memo about nobody thinking like that anymore.

I tend to regard trolls as somewhat smug, as they, like the above example, can be oblivious to what the world is really like.

In relation to off topicness obviously this would be pointless but I was refering to trolls who start a topic and stick to it or address an existing topic but with a very unpopular viewpoint which invites others to defend their own or highlight the logical inconsistency or, unwittingly the merits thereof of the trolls position even though it may largely be invalid.

See above experience.

tawnyowl

nyarlothothep wrote: »

In relation to point 1 there is a troll on this board that people took seriously enough to debate with him/her over the course of a month. So a troll can have indications that they are in fact trolls that people seemingly don't pick up on.

Sorry, I don't see how that follows.

In relation to point 2 now we're differing on what defines a troll, I would take it to encompass not merely derailing threads but including actions which I've already listed, eg posting deliberately provocative controversial unpopular opinions on topics designed to wind up users and to get them to reveal their possible hypocrisy or to get them to defend their arguments or expose weaknesses in those arguments. Moreover to mock the status quo in forums and thereby expose issues which would otherwise be left unsaid due to power groups.

It's nigh on impossible to tell if someone's expressing controversial though sincerely-held views or if they're just trying to wind someone up a lot of the time. If you know the persons' real views, then it's possible, but otherwise it's just guessing.

Acting as a devils' advocate is a more formal role, where it's known that they're not neccessarily expressing their own views.

In relation to subtlety being integral to the trolling artform, thats part of the fun, the amazing troll will blend in enough not to get banned so that they can carry out their aims. However I'm distinguishing between good trolling and bad trolling which is just intended to derail threads and mess up internet communities. Good trolling performs an important service to humanity.

This alleged "sublety" only proves my point.

tawnyowl

looksee wrote: »

You wouldn't think that trolling is an example of self obsession and smugness?

+1

nyarlothothep

tawnyowl wrote: »

Sorry, I don't see how that follows.
It's nigh on impossible to tell if someone's expressing controversial though sincerely-held views or if they're just trying to wind someone up a lot of the time. If you know the persons' real views, then it's possible, but otherwise it's just guessing.

Acting as a devils' advocate is a more formal role, where it's known that they're not neccessarily expressing their own views.
This alleged "sublety" only proves my point.

I'll address a few of these points, but I'm not interested in having a big debate on this again.

Basically some people are going to be suckered into responding seriously to the troll, or maybe a lot of people, it can either be apparent to most or some during the trolling or obvious afterwards. Example, a thread about renouncing ones citizenship last month was more than likely the work of a troll, the name of the user was the easter egg so to speak, a good few people, judging by their reactions fell hook line and sinker for the rouse. The thread was interesting just to see how defensive people can get over the issue of national identity.

As for the other thread I was referring to, this happened at the start of the year, you probably missed it. As for racist incident, a lot of this is contextual. You may have just not picked up on it and they did, on the other hand it may have genuinely been difficult to detect and not funny or insightful. I might add people often mix up criticism of a cultural aspect criticism of the race to which it belongs. The subtlety dimension doesn't negate the fact that there have been instances where a troll is taken seriously and only later is it clear when one stands back from whats happening and takes a calm view of the situation that its a wind up. I guess the best way to figure out if someones a troll or not is to use your intuitive judgement.

With regards the your an asshole case, obviously. This is why I distinguish between good and bad trolling. Trolls serve an important function within the internet ecosystem.

tawnyowl

Earthhorse wrote: »

For the good troll; the undermining of the position he supposedly represents. Obviously, his success is contingent on a number of factors, primarily his own intelligence and that of his audience, I would say. But it doesn't matter whether people label him as a troll, fake-poster etc.

How do you tell a troll from someone expressing their own views?

donfers

if a troll falls in the woods, does anybody hear the troll fall and more importantly are they annoyed that the troll does/doesn't make a sound?

Ickle Magoo

tawnyowl wrote: »

How do you tell a troll from someone expressing their own views?

Generally trolls don't post to get genuine discussion nor have they any interest in broadening their knowledge by considering points made, they post to get a reaction. It's not the topic that is of interest to them, it's the reaction of other posters - and tends to show up fairly quickly in most instances, even when they are given the benefit of the doubt or just humoured...most also exhibit the internet equivalent of "small man syndrome".

krd

How do you know someone you think is trolling does not actually sincerely hold those beliefs.

Accusations of trolling are more commonly used to shutdown or frame the discourse in such a way as to avoid cosy consensuses from being disturbed.

Genuine trolling is rare. If you believe everyone who disagrees with you is trolling, you have your head firmly stuck in the sand. You're also probably one of these people who thinks anyone who doesn't agree with your opinions or views of the world is either autistic, lacking in social skills, or evil.

There just isn't that much real trolling there. There's lots of dishonesty and concealment - but people are consistent in their mendacity.

crazym02

Trolls are just really annoying. I am guessing that trolls are just really lonely, sad people who are very insecure about themselves so feel the need to try to bully others in order to make themselves feel better.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Generally trolls don't post to get genuine discussion nor have they any interest in broadening their knowledge by considering points made, they post to get a reaction. It's not the topic that is of interest to them, it's the reaction of other posters - and tends to show up fairly quickly in most instances, even when they are given the benefit of the doubt or just humoured...most also exhibit the internet equivalent of "small man syndrome".

Except by that logic you wouldn't recognise a good troll now would you?

the_syco

An example of trolling:
Myeself and other people are condemning the senseless bombing of the PSNI officer. One of the lads comes in with:

**** them. If you're gonna occupy a foreign country you should be aware of the risks.

This is said to get a response. This is what is called trolling.

Bottle_of_Smoke

the_syco wrote: »

An example of trolling:
Myeself and other people are condemning the senseless bombing of the PSNI officer. One of the lads comes in with:

This is said to get a response. This is what is called trolling.

I honestly don't think that's neccesarily trolling. There's a fair amount of people with that view.

This is trolling:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=65493307

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=58202030#post58202030

Now these aren't the types of trolling the OP is talking about; Sheeps and I were taking the piss and basically being dicks. The OP basically means playing devils advocate without letting people know that's what you're doing. I think that's fine to be honest because you may get better responses.

the_syco

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I honestly don't think that's neccesarily trolling. There's a fair amount of people with that view.

All people on the Facebook page were condemning the attack. Someone comes along saying that they deserve it. I see this as trolling. Fun fact for the day: said person has been banned from at least 5 forums here for trolling

Ickle Magoo

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Except by that logic you wouldn't recognise a good troll now would you?

I did say it shows up pretty quickly so I'm going to have to disagree that trolls aren't easily recognised...by virtue of not wanting discussion, instead getting far more enjoyment from the rise they get out of other posters they tend not to be able to resist upping the ante and showing their true colours sooner or later - there are also the dire death by a thousand cut types but they are more universal annoyances than good trolls.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I did say it shows up pretty quickly so I'm going to have to disagree that trolls aren't easily recognised...by virtue of not wanting discussion, instead getting far more enjoyment from the rise they get out of other posters they tend not to be able to resist upping the ante and showing their true colours sooner or later - there are also the dire death by a thousand cut types but they are more universal annoyances than good trolls.

Again, you wouldn't realise who's 'good trolling' - all the ones you've caught out have been the typical getting a rise types by definition.

Though say someone genuinely wanted to see how people felt about an issue, you can get better responses by claiming you are affected by the issue rather than saying 'how would you feel if....'

Ickle Magoo

It's not even a case of ones I've "caught out"...some think they are too smart to show up on radar but heavy handed or death by a thousand cuts, they do stand out from your average poster. :cool:

Bottle_of_Smoke

Are you refusing to see my point or just not getting it?

Ickle Magoo

I was just thinking the same.

Edited to add:

Let's face it, it's a pejorative term and your point comes down to how the nuances of trolling are being subjectively defined..by you. For instance, there may be a greyer area around people who enjoy colourful debate on emotive issues but I wouldn't necessarily define them as trolls unless it was a common MO; whether just on that topic or even just in a particular forum/s and I'd usually consider playing devil's advocate a legitimate position in a discussion.

tawnyowl

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I honestly don't think that's neccesarily trolling. There's a fair amount of people with that view.

Sadly, this is true.

This is trolling:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=65493307

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=58202030#post58202030

Now these aren't the types of trolling the OP is talking about; Sheeps and I were taking the piss and basically being dicks. The OP basically means playing devils advocate without letting people know that's what you're doing. I think that's fine to be honest because you may get better responses.

The first example is plausible because there are people out there who are that confused!

tawnyowl

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I did say it shows up pretty quickly so I'm going to have to disagree that trolls aren't easily recognised...by virtue of not wanting discussion, instead getting far more enjoyment from the rise they get out of other posters they tend not to be able to resist upping the ante and showing their true colours sooner or later - there are also the dire death by a thousand cut types but they are more universal annoyances than good trolls.

Not always the case - the above could describe someone who has a bee in their bonnet about a particular topic. Some years ago someone joined a web forum I was involved in at the time and they got quite obsessed with quantum mechanics, saying that although quantum phenomena existed, that quantum theory was wrong. They didn't come up with any scientific arguments against it or any thought experiments that might shed light on the topic (pun unintended).

Their objection was never coherently expressed, though at a guess it might have been philosophically unpalatable. (Said person claimed to be an Objectivist.)

Now other people have had philosophical objections to quantum mechanics - Einstein famously did, though at least he took a scientific approach, such as proposing the EPR thought experiment instead of just repeatedly saying it was wrong.

In the end, the contributor left, leaving behind the opinion that they were, at the very least, a crank.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I was just thinking the same.

Edited to add:

Let's face it, it's a pejorative term and your point comes down to how the nuances of trolling are being subjectively defined..by you. For instance, there may be a greyer area around people who enjoy colourful debate on emotive issues but I wouldn't necessarily define them as trolls unless it was a common MO; whether just on that topic or even just in a particular forum/s and I'd usually consider playing devil's advocate a legitimate position in a discussion.

Well yes of course, that's what the thread is about, that's why I said "good troll"

So I even though I have no issue with someone posting up a fake OP to get insight on how people react, they are still trolls by virtue of posting something that isn't true.

mcmoustache

I think that there can be positive uses of trolling. For example you might want to assume a contrary position and then follow it to its daft conclusion (reductio ad absurdum) to illustrate the daftness of a particular view without being insulting or hostile.

A while back I made a post in the paranormal forum. In it, I adopted the point of view of an expert on ouija boards and channeling (link here). It was trolling in the sense that it ripped the piss out of proponents of ouija boards in a satirical way but the thread at that point was the usual skeptic versus believer debate with one side asking for evidence and the other providing anecdotes.

The troll post was a good natured way of looking at the phenomenon from another angle without seeing the same tired arguments from the two entrenched sides. The post had plenty of hints that it wasn't to be taken too seriously but at the same time, I tried not to be disrespectful to beliefs that I consider to be retarded.

My intent with the post was that it would be read by both sides because sceptic v believer threads have a tendency to end in hostile sniping and people not really considering each other's positions. I think that the post had enough meat on it to give believers food for thought while at the same time providing a giggle to anyone who spotted the satirical nature of it.

Admittedly, there was also an element of piss-taking which isn't really allowed there but I suppose that's also part of being a troll post. I did have to point out to a poster that it was satirical and he/she got a little upset but I think that this person was in the minority. In all I think that the troll post made a positive contribution to the debate.

What I'm getting at is that there are forms of trolling that don't make people restless or offend anyone and despite being funny to some, offer something useful. Most trolling is fairly crap but when done right, it can be quite positive.

For what it's worth, Sheeps's astrology trolling in the astronomy forum gave ma a laugh but I don't think it raised any good points or contributed anything to anything other than the fun of seeing the natives get restless. That kind of trolling, while funny, doesn't have any positive value for a forum.

wellboytoo

How would a board for Trolls go? imagine that,