"Trolling"

[ajb]

This is why the ideas need challenging rather then the authors.

Absolutely right and the moderators here try their best to keep the discussions in line with that.

[Phi for All]

It can be frustrating when you take the time to formulate a great response, only to realize the person you're talking to has no interest in learning, and only wants to argue without a valid point, or just to "win". I always try to remember that others are reading too. Watching the Views count on a thread will tell you that others besides those participating are reading as well, and so your great responses are seldom wasted.

 

Those who love learning outnumber the trolls by quite a bit here. It's a good community full of rational thinkers who can spot trolling a mile away. I think the vast majority respect the knowledge they come here to gain, and they pass that respect on to the members who share it.

[Stetson]

Perhaps trolling is not as bad as it seems. Maybe the people who troll are victims themselves of a social disorder that could have arose from their environment. Abuse, lack of acceptance, missing stages in Erickson's eight stages of development, these are some of the beginnings and causes of mental disorders.

 

Don't mistake my sensitivity for the troll as reason that it is okay, the act is still wrong. But perhaps in the right place at the right time it can be acceptable, perhaps as a jest or a way to prove a point. Regardless, it has little room in the scientific community except for the research on the social behavior of trolls.

[Craer]

@ Stetson I seem to have run out of up-votes for the day.

[arc]

@ Stetson I seem to have run out of up-votes for the day.

 

Here, use one of mine.

 

Seems strange though, I've been called a crackpot, a troll and last week my favorite "He needs psychological help." I may be a little odd (and Stetson's post reads like my semi-biographic ) but I try not to take anything personal. It is as sure as the sun will rise that I will misunderstand many people here and they will misunderstand me, it comes with the territory.

[swansont]

I think it can be difficult to tell sometimes. Some posters on here are just unwilling to change their opinions when faced with pertinent questions and/or evidence to the contrary. At some point this feels more like a troll than someone who is here with the intention of a meaningful exchange.

 

Indeed. Trolling carries with it a specific intent, and one's motivation is very hard to establish.

[John Cuthber]

There comes a point when their motivation stops mattering to me.

If someone acts like a troll because they don't know better and continues to do so after they have repeatedly been told not to, I'm going to lose patience with them quite quickly.

The issue is whether my human frailty in not tolerating them is worse than theirs in being unable to stop acting like a troll.

 

If it was just me and them there wouldn't be an easy answer to that, but if there are many of us, annoyed by apparent trollishness, even though the troll can't help it, but only one pseudo-troll, isn't it better to alleviate the discomfort of the majority by banning the unintentional troll?

[Craer]

The moderators try John.

This topic is more in regards to proper Etiquette as defined in http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/7813-science-forums-etiquette/

 

And the ways "trolls" apply logical fallacies in order to discredit an individual.

[Craer]

Anyone care to take a shot at why it's ethically important to use proper etiquette?

[Marshalscienceguy]

Does someone who starts fights and gets crowds riled up and blames an innocent victim count as a troll? What would that be categorized as? None of these methods seemed to have worked when I tried it. I think people become trolls out of insecurity or immaturity. We have funny trolls that just post jokes and we have the malicious trolls who egg people on for their own sick satisfaction. Everything is always easier when you are sitting behind a screen.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Marshalscienceguy

[Peter BE cimp]

Is it better to ban someone because they're being stupid then to help them be smart? Why you no help people not be trolls? Then again, dogs can barely help themselves, and as a troll myself, I strive to get banned from websites and annoy the crap out of people. But John has a good point, if majority calleth, then majority rules. If a group of kids get annoyed with how obnoxious a teacher is being, then they have the right to over throw them and start their own class.

 

░░░░░▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄░░░░░░░
░░░░░█░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░▀▀▄░░░░
░░░░█░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░▒▒▒░░█░░░
░░░█░░░░░░▄██▀▄▄░░░░░▄▄▄░░░░█░░
░▄▀▒▄▄▄▒░█▀▀▀▀▄▄█░░░██▄▄█░░░░█░
█░▒█▒▄░▀▄▄▄▀░░░░░░░░█░░░▒▒▒▒▒░█
█░▒█░█▀▄▄░░░░░█▀░░░░▀▄░░▄▀▀▀▄▒█
░█░▀▄░█▄░█▀▄▄░▀░▀▀░▄▄▀░░░░█░░█░
░░█░░░▀▄▀█▄▄░█▀▀▀▄▄▄▄▀▀█▀██░█░░
░░░█░░░░██░░▀█▄▄▄█▄▄█▄████░█░░░
░░░░█░░░░▀▀▄░█░░░█░█▀██████░█░░
░░░░░▀▄░░░░░▀▀▄▄▄█▄█▄█▄█▄▀░░█░░
░░░░░░░▀▄▄░▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░▒░░░█░
░░░░░░░░░░▀▀▄▄░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░█░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▀▄▄▄▄▄░░░░░░░░█░░

Edited March 18, 2014 by Peter BE cimp

[Marshalscienceguy]

Trolls are bullies that are too weak and cowardly to pick on a person in real life. So they go out and harass people on the internet where they know there is no way the victim can punch them in the face for being a jerk.

[Schneibster]

I'm with ajb; I still haven't seen a definition of "troll," either the verb or the noun, that I like.

 

Too many people think it means "someone I disagree with who is persistent."

Edited April 5, 2014 by Schneibster

[Acme]

I'm with ajb; I still haven't seen a definition of "troll," either the verb or the noun, that I like.

 

Too many people think it means "someone I disagree with who is persistent."

Try this:

What is a Troll?

 

An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people.

 

Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they are hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as they see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows trolls to flourish.

 

Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility.

 

Perhaps this sounds inconceivable. You may think, "Surely there is something I can write that will change them." But a true troll can not be changed by mere words.

 

§Why Does it Matter?

§What Can be Done about Trolls?

§What Not to Do

§Impersonation

§The Webmaster's Challenge

§What about Free Speech?

§Why Do They Do It?

§Conclusion

§Resources ...

Full article: >> http://web.archive.org/web/20060428091222/http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm

[Schneibster]

Could take a heck of a long time to identify a real troll with that list. Also, you know, I see people like that at work. This conversation could get a lot wider.

 

Meanwhile if they're really a troll, troll's getting what troll wants while we screw around deciding if they're really a troll. And if it's at work, then the problem is even worse.

 

I didn't mean by my statement to say that there are no trolls. I just think real trolls are far rarer than they're made out to be. In companies that do sophisticated work, my experience is they're few and far between. Either you can do effective things and contribute to the work product or you're a slacker and no one will talk to you, and pretty soon they move you to the office in the middle of the downstairs floor next to the bathrooms.

 

I remember the guy they got me to supposedly "train" about our security protocols and their implementation, who had been out drinking all night and playing FRP games, whose breath smelled like an outhouse, and who fell asleep several times while I was "training" him. Losers like this wind up shuffled off into clerical jobs where they can't do any damage.

 

Was this guy a troll? Well, before that he had been, because he had access to the VP. After my boss finished reporting to the VP, they didn't ask him to get involved in our security protocols any more.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Schneibster

[Acme]

Could take a heck of a long time to identify a real troll with that list. Also, you know, I see people like that at work. This conversation could get a lot wider.

 

snip...

We're talking here about internet trolls. Contrary to your time estimate, I find them pretty easy to spot. If I were a mod -which of course I'm not and have no desire to be- I would just boot/suspend 'em at the first tingle of my troley sense. They could then appeal off-scene without further disruption to the board, and if they fail in that then banishment.

[swansont]

We're talking here about internet trolls. Contrary to your time estimate, I find them pretty easy to spot. If I were a mod -which of course I'm not and have no desire to be- I would just boot/suspend 'em at the first tingle of my troley sense. They could then appeal off-scene without further disruption to the board, and if they fail in that then banishment.

 

The problem, as I said before, is intent, and the difficulty lies in the idea behind Poe's law: it is difficult to tell the difference between deliberate pot-stirring and sincere disagreement, because (sadly) there are people out there that hold some pretty extreme views. If someone were to show up here and declare that (for example, it's not intended to become an actual debating point) a women's place is be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, are they trolling? Because immediately labeling them a troll implies that one thinks that nobody sincerely holds such a view, and there's a lot of evidence out there that many people hold such a view.

 

As a secondary point, the problem with ban-on-sight is that you start to filter opinions rather than the expression of them. If someone can offer up a, shall we say unenlightened opinion, but can do so without running afoul of the rules on civility, then they aren't going to be sanctioned by the staff. Most may decide that they are a loathsome human being, but as long as the discussion remains civil (including not calling them loathsome) and does not become simply soapboxing, then it can proceed. It's really not any different than someone offering up a crackpot theory — they will be heard as long as they follow the rules. Many get tossed because there's a strong correlation with such behavior and rule-breaking, but it's the rule-breaking that gets them invited to see the egress.

[Acme]

The problem, as I said before, is intent, and the difficulty lies in the idea behind <a data-ipb="nomediaparse" s_law"="" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe" data-cke-saved-href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe">Poe's law: it is difficult to tell the difference between deliberate pot-stirring and sincere disagreement, because (sadly) there are people out there that hold some pretty extreme views. ...

Well, it's really only a problem if you're an admin/moderator. For the rest of us pions it's just an annoyance. Hats off to y'all for your taking on the role.

 

PS I have no idea what happened to your link in the quote, or what Poe's biography means in this context. Guess I better read back to what you earlier said.

 

Edit: ROTFLMAO (You guys could seriously use more smilies.) While a clever fall-back position, I find Poe's Law no more substantiated than Murphy's. Let's apply Hofstadter's Law to vanquishing trolls. It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Acme

[Schneibster]

I think there is a tendency to confuse resolution to present an unpopular view with being impolite. Furthermore, I think presenting an unpopular view gets treated as trolling. And I think that's a bad idea.

 

I'm trying to remain within the rules here, but I admit to an agenda.

 

I'd furthermore like to point out that there is also a marked tendency to blame the messenger, when there is no evidence that the view being presented is that of the presenter. I find it extremely impolite for people to assume I hold a given view simply because I ask how they would react to it. Not asking me is the worst kind of discourtesy.

 

And now let me say all that in another way:

 

I don't really believe in trolling, so if I troll you it will be brief and I will kid you about it; and if I don't like you I'm unlikely to troll you, since I do it only in play. If you're not absolutely sure then ask; I never push trolling so far as to deny I'm trolling. But I might kid you, so ask if you're not sure; I might laugh at you but I'll tell the truth. I'm not one of those people who likes to mess with peoples' minds. Finding out what they think is hard enough without complicating it with that crap. It's not worth a moment's amusement to pollute all future information from a source.

PS I have no idea what happened to your link in the quote, or what Poe's biography means in this context. Guess I better read back to what you earlier said.

 

The quote function is a bit freaky here.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Schneibster

[davidivad]

fallacies are an ugliness that often give that feeling of talking to a troll.

many will argue their point in a way that just stops short of kicking you in the knee or calling you a name.

i enjoy debating things as much as the next guy, but some readers are not listening to how they project themselves to the reader.

in fact, what you get quite often is "spanking" the new or less educated members with the rules.

this is a forum for all who like science and you can easily make the tone of your thread less offensive.

if, as members of this community (that's what it is), use constructive feedback most of the time we will end up with threads

that contribute to the knowledge of this collection. spanking each other has ended up in a pointless circular thread every time i have seen it.

ADD TO THE BODY OF KNOWLEDGE!

 

and have a great day

Edited April 5, 2014 by davidivad

[Schneibster]

+1 for your good attitude.

[Marshalscienceguy]

I'm with ajb; I still haven't seen a definition of "troll," either the verb or the noun, that I like.

 

Too many people think it means "someone I disagree with who is persistent."

A lot of people do try to win an argument by saying "Hes a troll I win" when really they just think so since they are being challenged. This is an example of a sore loser. Some people don't like when you disagree with them and will try anything to discredit you.This however is not really trolling.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Marshalscienceguy

[swansont]

Well, it's really only a problem if you're an admin/moderator. For the rest of us pions it's just an annoyance. Hats off to y'all for your taking on the role.

 

PS I have no idea what happened to your link in the quote, or what Poe's biography means in this context. Guess I better read back to what you earlier said.

 

Edit: ROTFLMAO (You guys could seriously use more smilies.) While a clever fall-back position, I find Poe's Law no more substantiated than Murphy's. Let's apply Hofstadter's Law to vanquishing trolls. It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.

 

I've seen Poe's law in action. Back in the day, when "the internets" was USENET, it was a fun sport on talk.origins on occasion for one of the regulars to pose as a creationist and see how long s/he could keep the gang going. It was easy to do, because of all of the zombie arguments that exist, and all you had to do was repeat them. They all sound alike. It got a big laugh the first few times, but then the consensus quickly became that it was not cool, because it was easy and a waste of everyone's effort. But the reason it was easy is that there are so many creationists out there that fervently believe really wacky things.

 

My point is that it's true in the sense that the phrase "Nobody is that bigoted/clueless" is almost never a valid statement.

[tar]

Thread,

 

Although intent is hard to verify, it is usually communicated. I am not exactly sure how to verify this statement either, but I do believe we communicate, even on the internet, and boards such as this, on a personal level.

 

While I am a lousy banterer, being very gulible and literal, I do, try on occasion to banter. Bantering, as in the above mentioned "posing as a creationist", is understood by the in crowd as having no malicious intent. However, if a person reading the exchange WAS a creationist, the banter would be offensive. And there is an implication, within the banter, that any creationist has to be a complete idiot, and any thought one might have along the creationist line, should be discarded to remain within the in crowd.

 

With this general thought in mind, in regards to the definition of troll and the ethical requirement to not be a troll, I would say that a troll is anyone who seeks to attend a club meeting, without any interest in joining the club, or paying any dues. This shows disrespect for the club members, and is rude and inappropriate, and unethical in that you are speaking out of turn, without being recognized, and you don't give a hoot about the club, the members, or the rules by which they go.

 

Regards, TAR

[Acme]

I've seen Poe's law in action. Back in the day, when "the internets" was USENET, it was a fun sport on talk.origins on occasion for one of the regulars to pose as a creationist and see how long s/he could keep the gang going. It was easy to do, because of all of the zombie arguments that exist, and all you had to do was repeat them. They all sound alike. It got a big laugh the first few times, but then the consensus quickly became that it was not cool, because it was easy and a waste of everyone's effort. But the reason it was easy is that there are so many creationists out there that fervently believe really wacky things.

 

My point is that it's true in the sense that the phrase "Nobody is that bigoted/clueless" is almost never a valid statement.

Well, that was then and this is now. What was lacking then was a history of internet use by which to judge trolling. We now have such a history and that context provides the types of cues that Poe says require smilies and the like. The internet has its own disem-body language every bit as nuanced as body language.