26 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Red NightAre Aitch Pee is brought to you by Soylent red and Soylent yellow, high energy vegetable concentrates, and new, delicious, Soylent green. The miracle food of high-energy plankton gathered from the oceans of the world.
To the trolling stones:
Carry on.
26 Jun 08
As a relative newcomer to the world of internet forums, I've been trying to figure out unfamiliar word usage by context. I gave up on "troll" and went to Urban Dictionary, only to find that there are 27 assorted, mostly contradictory, meanings.
Would someone care to give me a precise definition of *trolling* activity? Preferably one at a time ...
26 Jun 08
3 edits
Originally posted by MissOleumTrolling is deliberate violation of the implicit rules of Internet social spaces. It necessarily involves a value judgment made by one user about the value of another's contribution. (Because of this it is considered not to be any more useful than the judgment 'I don't agree with you' by many users, who prefer to focus on behaviors instead of on presumed intent.)
As a relative newcomer to the world of internet forums, I've been trying to figure out unfamiliar word usage by context. I gave up on "troll" and went to Urban Dictionary, only to find that there are 27 assorted, mostly contradictory, meanings.
Would someone care to give me a precise definition of *trolling* activity? Preferably one at a time ...
Trolling is not necessarily the same as vandalism (although vandalism may be used to troll). A vandal may just enjoy defacing a webpage, insulting random users, or spreading some personal views in an inappropriate way. A troll deliberately exploits tendencies of human nature or of an online community to upset people.
There are many types of disruptive users that are not trolls. Reversion warriors, POV warriors, cranks, impolite users, and vocal critics of Wikipedia structures and processes are not necessarily trolls.
The basic mindset of a troll is that they are far more interested in how others react to their edits than in the usual concerns of Wikipedians: accuracy, veracity, comprehensiveness, and overall quality. If a troll gets no response to their spurious edits, then they can hardly be considered a troll at all.
Of course as you have said, there are many more meanings, the aforementioned are only a few. I picked Wikipedia for a specific reason. It seems to be the one used on this site!
I hope this has been of some value to you.
It appears anyone who posts could be considered a troll.
- Joined
- 09 Nov 06
- Moves
- 0
26 Jun 08
The Wikipedia article gives an accurate description of a forum troll: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
So, for our purposes here, a troll is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in a thread with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
Sure, this is a little subjective, but continued off-topic posting or ad hominem arguments are considered trolling and will result in forum bans.
26 Jun 08
Originally posted by Very RustyThanks for the info, Rusty - now a few questions:
Trolling is deliberate violation of the implicit rules of Internet social spaces. It necessarily involves a value judgment made by one user about the value of another's contribution. (Because of this it is considered not to be any more useful than the judgment 'I don't agree with you' by many users, who prefer to focus on behaviors instead of on presumed ...[text shortened]... s has been of some value to you.
It appears anyone who posts could be considered a troll.
How can the reader know the poster's violation is deliberate, if the rules are implicit only? Further, how can the poster know how to avoid making the violation?
Is it necessary for the post to upset all *people* or just one or two? Frequently I am not disturbed by reading a post which other users then label a trolling post. On the other hand, I am often disturbed by posts which other users seem to think appropriate.
Who makes the judgment? Can I call anyone a troll who posts something which I don't consider adds to the content of the thread?
Is calling someone a troll a vicious personal insult, or just playground namecalling with no significance?
{and an apology to the original poster, I should have asked my question in a new thread. I guess I'm a troll too. 😕 }
- Joined
- 09 Nov 06
- Moves
- 0
26 Jun 08
Originally posted by MissOleumRusty's 'definition' is not quite correct in the RHP forum context. Pleas refer to the simple explanation I gave.
Thanks for the info, Rusty - now a few questions:
How can the reader know the poster's violation is deliberate, if the rules are implicit only? Further, how can the poster know how to avoid making the violation?
Is it necessary for the post to upset all *people* or just one or two? Frequently I am not disturbed by reading a post which other users t ...[text shortened]... nal poster, I should have asked my question in a new thread. I guess I'm a troll too. 😕 }
People who disrupt threads on-purpose with off-topic posts or ad hominem attacks are considered trolls and the moderators will try to make the correct subjective decision.
