[4 the newbies to the Internet] About the trolls

[Midzuki]

Xxxxxxxxx view

Some authorities consider the term "troll", when used to label a
person, as being roughly equivalent to "riff-raff" or "scum" or some
other term that dismisses a person as being unworthy of being heard
for reasons that are not directly stated. Some even consider it to be
racist.

Many - perhaps most - people labelled "trolls" are simply being called
a name by someone else in the course of a religious, political or
other ordinary type of dispute. In other words they are simply a
dissident or heretic, no better or worse than the authority they argue
with. To characterize systems administrators or moderators as "the
troll who got there first" is not entirely inaccurate: many debates
between those with and without administrative or legal powers seem
simply to resemble a heated, personal, argument. On the Internet in
particular, the holding of technological powers (such as the power to
ban users or block IP numbers) is not necessarily a sign of any
superior political, intellectual or moral judgement.

As with similar pejorative labels, a group of people who are assigned
the label can turn it around to create group identity and the power to
collectively resist: Individual outsiders using the label on someone
become targets for a collective response. Insiders may use the label
without consequence, usually in a joking or disarming way. For
instance:

Self-proclaimed "trolls" may style themselves as devil's advocates,
gadflies or "culture jammers", challenging the dominant discourse and
assumptions of forum discussions in an attempt to break the status quo
of groupthink - the belief system that prevails in their absence.
Wikipedia itself has a (quite ineffective) project to counter systemic bias.

Critics have claimed that genuine "devil's advocates" generally
identify themselves as such out of respect for etiquette and courtesy,
while trolls may dismiss etiquette and courtesy altogether.

However, the history of anonymous expression in xxxxxxxxx dissent is
long and honourable. The Federalist Papers for instance were
anonymously authored, and would certainly have been considered
"trolling" by King George III. In The Infrastructure of Democracy,
John Perry Barlow, Joichi Ito, and other US bloggers express a very
strong support for anonymous editing (though not "trolling"
necessarily) as one of the basic requirements of open politics as
conducted on the Internet.


**********************

Use as pejorative

As a pejorative, the term "troll" is very often a slander of opponents
in heated debates. People who identify as trolls and those who
vehemently deny that they are trolls will both use the term, often
making it obvious to all neutral third parties that both participants
are, in fact, trolls: one who admits it, and one who does not.
Accordingly the view has arisen in some circles that trolls, the
plural, is a valid term, but that it is not valid to refer to someone
as an Internet troll on their own. In other words, it takes two to
troll, and once they do, they're two trolls.


Vicious cycles

Many times a person will post a sincere message that they are
emotionally sensitive about. Skillful trolls know that the easiest way
to upset them is to falsely claim that the person is a troll. On other
occasions a person may not instantly understand or fit into the social
norms of a forum where most people are the same - and so acting just
slightly out of social norms, often unintentionally, for legitimate
reasons gets the poster called a troll. Whether they actually "are" a
troll depends wholly on whether one takes the political view of
trolling, in which motives are not considered.

Sometimes people who are merely attempting to be funny are accused of
trolling, when that is not their intent. Many trolls now find that the
traditional trolling tactics are so overused and commonplace that they
have to disguise their trolling to make it effective - although, quite
often, the disguising merely involves accusing others of being trolls
themselves.

*************************

Usage

Calling someone a troll makes assumptions about a writer's motives
that are impossible to determine, whereas using the verb (calling a
post "trolling") describes the reception of a post without making
assumptions about motives. Such assumptions would generally be an
example of the fundamental attribution error; i.e. inferring that
behavior results from a person's nature or personality rather than
examining behavior in the context of events surrounding the behavior.
In other words, trolling may have more to do with context than with
personality. Also, it may be possible to troll unintentionally.
Regardless, both users and posts are commonly labelled as trolls when
their content upsets people.

The term troll is highly subjective, and some posts will look like
trolling to some while seeming like meaningful contributions to
others. For example, a so-called troll may be playing Devil's advocate
by stating conservative opinions in a liberal forum. Behavior which
might be considered a simple rampage or an emotional outburst in other
environments is often tagged with the term troll in Internet
discussion.

The term is frequently used to discredit an opposing position in an
argument. This can amount to an ad hominem argument; a purported troll
of this nature may actually hold an insightful but controversial
position that is generating controversy precisely because it has
successfully challenged entrenched opinions.

Possible reasons people use more slang monikers in Internet-mediated
discussion include the feeling of anonymity and impersonal perceptions
of other conversants.

Regardless of the writer's motives, controversial posts are virtually
guaranteed, in most online forums, to earn a corrective or patronizing
or outraged response by those who do not distinguish between real
physical community where people are actually exposed to some shared
risk of bodily harm by their actions, and epistemic community based on
a mere exchange of words and ideas. Customs of discourse, or
etiquette, that originated in such physical communities are often
applied naively by newcomers to the Internet who are not used to the
range of views expressed online, especially anonymously.

************************************************** *****

{ source: http://thezionazireport.org/internet_troll.htm }

[Xylob the Destroyer]

Remember, DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!
Ignore them long enough, and they usually go away.
Just like any creature, they die if they starve.

[bendixG15]

Quiz on Monday ?

[JimmyJoeBob]

Remember, DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!
Ignore them long enough, and they usually go away.
Just like any creature, they die if they starve.

Thank You. At least I will be able to sleep tonight.

[Forum Troll]

Remember, DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!
Ignore them long enough, and they usually go away.
Just like any creature, they die if they starve.

I need a hug now.

[Midzuki]

Forum Troll is taking his nickname too seriously.

Anyway... IMHO, the most annoying trolls of today probably are
certain "article-guardians" at Wikipedia. According to themselves,
nobody else knows where to find the so-called "reliable sources",
and only the chosen Ones are able to achieve the much-desired NPOV
(New Troll Point-of-View).

[Lucifers_Ghost]

Wow.