The science of trolling

tcmtech

Joined Nov 4, 2013
2,867
People see what they want to see.... I am, like you, one of the "moral majority"...
I'm more of the moral minority. Things have to make logical sense to me before I can agree with them.

Now as trolls go I rather enjoy hunting them.:D
 

#12

Joined Nov 30, 2010
18,224
This just really makes me feel old. "Sociology and the validity of trolling." I don't fit that mold in the first place. Sociology is as much black art to me as electronics is to most people. The hours that must have been spent on that speech! The brain cells, the energy! And it all makes as much sense to me as drilling for oil in a maple tree. I'm still not sure she wasn't trolling us!

Maybe I should crawl back under my rock. I am just not keeping up today.
 

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
If she was dressed in a mini-skirt, you wouldn't have wanted that podium.

We are all trolls on an issue near and dear to or hearts. The "in" group is different for every forum. "In" just describes those who choose to follow the forum rules and "out" choose not to follow them.

On a societal scale, her presentation is spot on. The "moral majority" can and does change, by venue. There are opposition forces (trolls) on political forums trouncing on the "party's talking points." There are "overunity" true believers popping in here. There are "active duty" trolls on some military oriented forms, and some of the active duty types think there are "retired" trolls.

If one spent "thousands of hours" investigating differing sites with differing visions, the trolls value to society would reflect the opinion presented.

The History Channel is showing the "Nazi Titanic" where the spin doctors (propagandists) in the 1940s attempt to illustrate the evil few put so many lives at risk in the construction and operation of the Titanic.
 

bountyhunter

Joined Sep 7, 2009
2,512
We are all trolls on an issue near and dear to or hearts. The "in" group is different for every forum. "In" just describes those who choose to follow the forum rules and "out" choose not to follow them.
Except that has definitely not been what "troll" was in my experience. There certainly is (or was) an "in" group at a number of forums where the troll label was slapped on me, and in every case they were the people who held the generally accepted views of the majority of the members there. It had nothing to do with following rules.

Especially in the cases of forums with political sections, a troll was anybody who voiced a viewpoint counter to the generally accepted one on the forum. And God help you if you backed it up with proof and embarrassed any of the local thugs who were blowing smoke. In those cases, it was they who ignored the rules and engaged in personal attacks etc..... but they were not the trolls?

That's my point: the definition of the word troll never seems to be static, it's many times used as a slap on anybody who is annoying the locals for whatever reason. If somebody is breaking the rules, then they should be warned or banned but what's really annoying is when you get a ban notice and all it says is:

Banned
Reason: Trolling

That seriously happened to me, it was done in error (I never broke any rules), and it kind of proves my point. If a mod is going to drop a lifetime ban on somebody, do they have to be so lazy that they don't even give a factual reason? Nope, just "trolling" whatever that is.

hence my less than enthusiastic affection for the word.
 

MrChips

Joined Oct 2, 2009
30,701
I didn't know what trolling was until I joined this forum but then again I've never been active on any forum before.

I suppose trolling means being argumentative just for the sake of having an argument.

You don't have to break any rules to be deemed a troll, unless there is a rule that says "No trolling allowed" which means they can book you for anything.

Banned
Reason: Trolling
What rule did I break?
There it says in the rule book: "No trolling allowed".
But I wasn't trolling. There, you just did!
 

Sparky49

Joined Jul 16, 2011
833
I don't think trolling is just being argumentative though.

Personally, I think it is more about the end goal, rather than how it is achieved.

So it is more about getting an angry/cross/lengthy reply/ban than actually being involved in any argument, which is why troll posts tend to be one or two lines designed to provoke, rather than paragraphs - the long post tending to be the desired 'butthurt' from the target.

In my opinion, trolling is just the word we have given to a certain form of psychological manipulation which has been happening throughout history. Could we consider the horse of Troy a troll? :p

Often, it is convenient for one's trolling to remain undetected, yet provoke a similar 'butthurt' as a more obvious example. Perhaps on some forums with 'switched on' users, an obvious troll is ignored (obvious troll is obvious). Is there much difference between the 'art' of subtle trolling to provoke butthurt and the 'art' of subtle propaganda to provoke a desired reaction?

Perhaps I should be studying psychology? :p :D

Sparky

P.S. Never have I used 'butthurt' in a post so often. :rolleyes:
 

THE_RB

Joined Feb 11, 2008
5,438
Trolling has to imply malicious intent, not just an argument or unpopular opinion.

A troll "lurks" under the bridge, waiting for an innocent naive person (or goat! ;)) to cross the bridge then jumps out and causes trouble.

To be classed as a "troll" the person should obviously have the PRIMARY INTENT of causing trouble, the intent of upsetting people and causing a ruckus, ie malicious behaviour.

I'll sometimes take on an unpopular side of an argument to encourage debate, because if people all just agree at the start there is little to learn and the topic might remain only partially covered.

It should be obvious if someone is trolling (and their main intent is to cause trouble) or if they are expanding and encouraging debate.

Subtle (expert?) trolls might be hard to spot at first, but it soon becomes obvious that their main reason for being on a forum is to cause trouble. That's the payoff for them, and they usually don't waste much time learning or helping others or enjoying the core activity the forum promotes.
 

bountyhunter

Joined Sep 7, 2009
2,512
Trolling has to imply malicious intent, not just an argument or unpopular opinion.
My point was, which has been borne out by my experience, is that "malicious intent" (like the definition of "troll") is very much in the eye of the beholder.

Hence, the definition of "troll" is a transcendental thing and very much subject to a wide range of interpretation (which is to say misuse).

That is why I said earlier that it seems that very few people agree on exactly what the definition of troll is, but nearly everybody is sure they know one when they think they see one.

In my personal experience the term has been MIS used far more times than correctly used... at least in my opinion.
 

bountyhunter

Joined Sep 7, 2009
2,512
I didn't know what trolling was until I joined this forum but then again I've never been active on any forum before.

I suppose trolling means being argumentative just for the sake of having an argument.

You don't have to break any rules to be deemed a troll, unless there is a rule that says "No trolling allowed" which means they can book you for anything.
California Vehicle Code 22350:

VC 22350 states:
No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.


Reasonable or prudent?
:p
 

THE_RB

Joined Feb 11, 2008
5,438
My point was, which has been borne out by my experience, is that "malicious intent" (like the definition of "troll") is very much in the eye of the beholder.
I think malicious intent is a much more concrete thing than pure inference (the eye of the beholder).

Someone's ability to spot malicious intent is much more fuzzy, which might be a big part of the problem.

To simplify what I said before;
Normal people are there because they like the bridge and like to cross the bridge. The TROLL lurks around the bridge, because he likes to mess people up. He's not there to use the bridge.

It's a standard psychopathic indicator; someone who gains satisfaction or pleasure from messing other people up.

Have you seen some of the fuss over "RIP trolls"? Now that's nasty.
 

bountyhunter

Joined Sep 7, 2009
2,512
I think malicious intent is a much more concrete thing than pure inference (the eye of the beholder).
As I said, in my experience that is simply not accurate. The word "troll" is so widely misused, I honestly don't think it has an actual meaning.

And, as I said, especially on the forums I was on that had a political section, "malicious intent" was believed to be demonstrated by anyone who continuously voiced opinions against the "norm" there.

I could write a series of (probably boring) renditions of true accounts that demonstrate this, but I will just add again my experience has been:

1) The perception of what is "flaming", "trolling", or posting "malicious" text is very much in the eye of the beholder and influenced by a person's own beliefs.

2) People who do not support or defend the "norm"... especially when the argument is about war or military action.... is even more likely to warp perception because it then involves "patriotism" and most people leap to respond when somebody posts something they think is "unpatriotic".

3) One forum's "troll" might very well be the "norm" somewhere else. Think about that. If rules are NOT used to regulate a forum, and just "perception" about content, how can that ever be fair?

My original statement is still exactly what my experience proves (to me):

the word "troll" has been thrown around so much, including in my direction, that I no longer even hear the insult because it has no actual meaning.
 

Metalmann

Joined Dec 8, 2012
703
"And, as I said, especially on the forums I was on that had a political section, "malicious intent" was believed to be demonstrated by anyone who continuously voiced opinions against the "norm" there."


It's also pretty bad on any type of religious forum.

You tell them the truth, and they'll try to shoot you down.
I think it's funny to watch their "religious gangs", get all flustered over such obvious, Fantasy Creatures.

Just like people who believe that their votes do count, and that "Their Guy", is going to make things better...or really cares about their feelings/situations....:D
 

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
23,415
Moderators have to judge in the end. How we do it can make/break a forum. My personal goal is to keep it friendly, barring that, keep it from being nasty.
 

bountyhunter

Joined Sep 7, 2009
2,512
Moderators have to judge in the end. How we do it can make/break a forum. My personal goal is to keep it friendly, barring that, keep it from being nasty.
I agree it ultimately falls on good moderators and that reflects directly into what the forum will end up being.

And to state the obvious: good moderators are very valuable and based on my personal experience, not in abundant supply at all forums. So we need to appreciate the good ones.
 

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
I agree good moderation is the key. A good membership will assist the moderators as they can not possibly read every thread every day. A good membership typically accepts criticism from one another without too much heartburn, especially in the germane topics of the forum. Sometimes a word of caution from someone you trust is all it takes, and is worth more to forum decorum than just about any moderator's talk.

Fortunately for us, the moderators are trusted by most of the membership, if not the vast majority. Their cautionary words word works well in almost every situation.

I always support the moderators decisions, except the one time one accidentally banned me ... but that was corrected a couple of days later. :) I thought it was a slip of the finger or something. LOL
 
Top