Sorry if I missed it, but has management ever defined trolling?

[well named]

Groups sound potentially pretty interesting...

 

[Dogmaphobe]

They don't know what trolling even is. What they call trolling is actually the angry response to a troll.

A troll is an attention who're first and foremost. They are like the kid unable to receive positive feedback from their parents and so act out because that is the only way they receive any attention at all

Trolls enjoy riling people up . It's not a one on one thing at all with a troll, it's getting as many people worked up as possible. They say outrageous things .They follow people around saying serious posts are funny. They side with absolutely horrible things like the rape of children or killing whites and they do this CONTINUALLY.

It's not a one time thing at all. Trolling involves an entire pattern of posts and when moderators who don't know what trolling is punish those who respond to it, they aren't combating trolling at all. They are enabling it.

I'm not a kid and my parents gave me positive feedback........ Explain that one......

You are also not a troll.

Heck, you are one of the people here I actually like.

 

[Ringel05]

They don't know what trolling even is. What they call trolling is actually the angry response to a troll.

A troll is an attention who're first and foremost. They are like the kid unable to receive positive feedback from their parents and so act out because that is the only way they receive any attention at all

Trolls enjoy riling people up . It's not a one on one thing at all with a troll, it's getting as many people worked up as possible. They say outrageous things .They follow people around saying serious posts are funny. They side with absolutely horrible things like the rape of children or killing whites and they do this CONTINUALLY.

It's not a one time thing at all. Trolling involves an entire pattern of posts and when moderators who don't know what trolling is punish those who respond to it, they aren't combating trolling at all. They are enabling it.

I'm not a kid and my parents gave me positive feedback........ Explain that one......

You are also not a troll.

Heck, you are one of the people here I actually like.

Shit!!!! Plan B.........

 

[saveliberty]

Thread OP is trolling. The better question is, how much trolling do they tolerate?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Groups sound potentially pretty interesting...

Yes. Exactly. I'm gonna call the group "The Fort", all refusenik types with good threads, none of that made for cable news entertainment stuff.

And we're gonna have guard towers. Nobody getting in unless we give em the once over.

 

[saveliberty]

No, I'd rather bring groups back. That way there's a semblance of good critical discussion about real stuff with people who undersand sht instead of just responding to television talking points all the time on here like we do on the general board. Ever notice that almost every topic on here originates from some undereducated half-wit pundit on television? I mean, really, you may as well just turn on the tv. I don't like ignoring people, I only have one person on ignore. Not because I disagree with him, he's just annoying. Like a gnat. And dumb. Total waste of time and keystrokes.

I don't get it. If you are talking to others with the same viewpoint and general knowledge base, it is simply a reenforcement exercise.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I don't get it. If you are talking to others with the same viewpoint and general knowledge base, it is simply a reenforcement exercise.

You know, I've never really liked you. Many of your postings completely contradict the screen name you've assigned yourself.

You're not allowed in the fort.

 

[saveliberty]

I don't get it. If you are talking to others with the same viewpoint and general knowledge base, it is simply a reenforcement exercise.

You know, I've never really liked you. Many of your postings completely contradict the screen name you've assigned yourself.

You're not allowed in the fort.

I was not asking to be in the fort. Last time I was asked, I left quickly. A bunch of drones. Fly off and let the queen bee know what I said.

 

[longknife]

From Internet troll - Wikipedia

About as good an example as there is:

In Internet slang, a troll (/troʊl, trɒl/) is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.

Both the noun and the verb form of "troll" is associated with Internet discourse. However, the word has also been used more widely. Media attention in recent years has equated trolling with online harassment. For example, the mass media have used "troll" to mean "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families".[4][5] In addition, depictions of trolling have been included in popular fictional works, such as the HBO television program The Newsroom, in which a main character encounters harassing persons online and tries to infiltrate their circles by posting negative sexual comments.

 

[strollingbones]

there is no consistency in the trolling rule....mods just seem to use it when they have nothing else....

 

[OldLady]

If so, I'd be curious to see it. If not, you might consider defining it. Thanks.

Joe explained it and now you're "curious?" Not liking the answer doesn't mean you didn't get one.

Is that management's official definition of trolling or is that just one moderator's off-the-cuff remarks?

I think his comments were too well thought out to be considered "off the cuff," but you are right that every moderator interprets the rules differently, and what is acceptable.

 

[OldLady]

While that poster didn't troll on the particular example...

It would be easy to get side-tracked as to whether or not that example constituted trolling so, I'll refrain from commenting on that point. There are numerous definitions for trolling that I have seen, none of which, incidentally, I necessarily agree with 100%. I thought it might be helpful for management to define it.

Management defines it ignorantly and incorrectly, though. They have trolling and flaming all confused. They do not understand what differentiates the two nor how one is the cause and the other the effect.

All anybody needs to do is take a look at the image that Ringel posted and have the intelligence necessary to understanding how the term got its name through the direct imagery. To troll is to cast a wide net in hopes of catching something. The motivation is to disrupt by issuing flame bait so as to get people agitated.

To give an example, we used to have private groups to discuss certain issues by invitation only. I was a member and moderator of one discussing terrorism. I had the power to remove most trolling posts, but one very determined Islamist showed up with the express purpose of undermining the proceedings. I was not able to remove the trolling postings of this person as the very minute I attempted such, it was overridden and the poster continued with the agitation.

Now, THAT is the very definition of a troll, as this one was trying quite intentionally to piss off all the people who opposed Islamic terrorism and was bound and determined to do so. The very intent was to disrupt EVERYBODY there rather than just flaming a particular poster..

It doesn't sound to me as if it was off topic and meant to deflect the conversation though. It sounds as if the poster was actually discussing terrorism and you just didn't agree with him/her. You call that flame bait. I call that defending another position.

Dog, you don't get to invent your own definition of "troll." It has a meaning already. Learn to use it correctly, why don't you?

 

[OldLady]

I don't get it. If you are talking to others with the same viewpoint and general knowledge base, it is simply a reenforcement exercise.

You know, I've never really liked you. Many of your postings completely contradict the screen name you've assigned yourself.

You're not allowed in the fort.

I was not asking to be in the fort. Last time I was asked, I left quickly. A bunch of drones. Fly off and let the queen bee know what I said.

He's not one of Lucy's is he?

 

[Windparadox]

No, I'd rather bring groups back. That way there's a semblance of good critical discussion about real stuff with people who undersand sht instead of just responding to television talking points all the time on here like we do on the general board. Ever notice that almost every topic on here originates from some undereducated half-wit pundit on television? I mean, really, you may as well just turn on the tv. I don't like ignoring people, I only have one person on ignore. Not because I disagree with him, he's just annoying. Like a gnat. And dumb. Total waste of time and keystrokes.

`
I enjoy groups too. However, I'm not sure XenForo supports them.
`

 

[Natural Citizen]

I enjoy groups too. However, I'm not sure XenForo supports them.

I thought there were groups when I first joined this board. I think so. But then after I joined I posted for a couple weeks and left for like a year, then came back and groups were gone.

Ironically, I noticed the board postings weren't as crude as it was when I came back than it was when I left. So, the mods must have donesoem house cleaning, I did notice a different atmosphere. Dunno what they did but I did notice something different.

But yeah. Agree.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

While that poster didn't troll on the particular example...

It would be easy to get side-tracked as to whether or not that example constituted trolling so, I'll refrain from commenting on that point. There are numerous definitions for trolling that I have seen, none of which, incidentally, I necessarily agree with 100%. I thought it might be helpful for management to define it.

Management defines it ignorantly and incorrectly, though. They have trolling and flaming all confused. They do not understand what differentiates the two nor how one is the cause and the other the effect.

All anybody needs to do is take a look at the image that Ringel posted and have the intelligence necessary to understanding how the term got its name through the direct imagery. To troll is to cast a wide net in hopes of catching something. The motivation is to disrupt by issuing flame bait so as to get people agitated.

To give an example, we used to have private groups to discuss certain issues by invitation only. I was a member and moderator of one discussing terrorism. I had the power to remove most trolling posts, but one very determined Islamist showed up with the express purpose of undermining the proceedings. I was not able to remove the trolling postings of this person as the very minute I attempted such, it was overridden and the poster continued with the agitation.

Now, THAT is the very definition of a troll, as this one was trying quite intentionally to piss off all the people who opposed Islamic terrorism and was bound and determined to do so. The very intent was to disrupt EVERYBODY there rather than just flaming a particular poster..

It doesn't sound to me as if it was off topic and meant to deflect the conversation though. It sounds as if the poster was actually discussing terrorism and you just didn't agree with him/her. You call that flame bait. I call that defending another position.

Dog, you don't get to invent your own definition of "troll." It has a meaning already. Learn to use it correctly, why don't you?

What part of "invitation only" do you not understand and why do you have the temerity to lecture me about an incident you were not a part of? I realize you are just indulging in the mindless defense of one of your tribe, but really now.

I'm not making up a definition at all. I am clarifying the definition as it has always been.

 

[Marion Morrison]

You really should stop posting questions like this in this section.

 

[well named]

I don't get it. If you are talking to others with the same viewpoint and general knowledge base, it is simply a reenforcement exercise.

Yeah, they could become echo chambers, but they also have the potential to be more interesting than that. Smaller conversations with participants who are willing to engage a bit more thoughtfully. Much like everything else on a forum, it depends a lot on the posters and the mods.

there is no consistency in the trolling rule....mods just seem to use it when they have nothing else....

I've modded forums, including a politics forum, and AFAICT it's inevitable that people will think the rules are applied inconsistently. I think there's an inescapably subjective component to concepts like trolling, to wit:

You call that flame bait. I call that defending another position.

Part of it, at least in my view, is Poe's Law.

That said, I do think it's possible to construct at least mostly objective rules about what constitutes an actual contribution to a discussion, but it might be easier to think in terms of moderating low/no-content posting and derailing than moderating for intent. As far as I can tell the biggest difference between this forum and the others I regularly frequent is that this one is much closer to being unmoderated, which has both some benefits and some obvious drawbacks. It seems like you would need a much larger number of mods to effectively mod this board if you wanted more enforcement of rules against trolling and the like.

 

[Marion Morrison]

While that poster didn't troll on the particular example...

It would be easy to get side-tracked as to whether or not that example constituted trolling so, I'll refrain from commenting on that point. There are numerous definitions for trolling that I have seen, none of which, incidentally, I necessarily agree with 100%. I thought it might be helpful for management to define it.

Management defines it ignorantly and incorrectly, though. They have trolling and flaming all confused. They do not understand what differentiates the two nor how one is the cause and the other the effect.

All anybody needs to do is take a look at the image that Ringel posted and have the intelligence necessary to understanding how the term got its name through the direct imagery. To troll is to cast a wide net in hopes of catching something. The motivation is to disrupt by issuing flame bait so as to get people agitated.

To give an example, we used to have private groups to discuss certain issues by invitation only. I was a member and moderator of one discussing terrorism. I had the power to remove most trolling posts, but one very determined Islamist showed up with the express purpose of undermining the proceedings. I was not able to remove the trolling postings of this person as the very minute I attempted such, it was overridden and the poster continued with the agitation.

Now, THAT is the very definition of a troll, as this one was trying quite intentionally to piss off all the people who opposed Islamic terrorism and was bound and determined to do so. The very intent was to disrupt EVERYBODY there rather than just flaming a particular poster..

It doesn't sound to me as if it was off topic and meant to deflect the conversation though. It sounds as if the poster was actually discussing terrorism and you just didn't agree with him/her. You call that flame bait. I call that defending another position.

Dog, you don't get to invent your own definition of "troll." It has a meaning already. Learn to use it correctly, why don't you?

Someday when OldLady isn't cramping, I might teach her some of the more subtle nuances of proper trollerizing.

 

[OldLady]

While that poster didn't troll on the particular example...

It would be easy to get side-tracked as to whether or not that example constituted trolling so, I'll refrain from commenting on that point. There are numerous definitions for trolling that I have seen, none of which, incidentally, I necessarily agree with 100%. I thought it might be helpful for management to define it.

Management defines it ignorantly and incorrectly, though. They have trolling and flaming all confused. They do not understand what differentiates the two nor how one is the cause and the other the effect.

All anybody needs to do is take a look at the image that Ringel posted and have the intelligence necessary to understanding how the term got its name through the direct imagery. To troll is to cast a wide net in hopes of catching something. The motivation is to disrupt by issuing flame bait so as to get people agitated.

To give an example, we used to have private groups to discuss certain issues by invitation only. I was a member and moderator of one discussing terrorism. I had the power to remove most trolling posts, but one very determined Islamist showed up with the express purpose of undermining the proceedings. I was not able to remove the trolling postings of this person as the very minute I attempted such, it was overridden and the poster continued with the agitation.

Now, THAT is the very definition of a troll, as this one was trying quite intentionally to piss off all the people who opposed Islamic terrorism and was bound and determined to do so. The very intent was to disrupt EVERYBODY there rather than just flaming a particular poster..

It doesn't sound to me as if it was off topic and meant to deflect the conversation though. It sounds as if the poster was actually discussing terrorism and you just didn't agree with him/her. You call that flame bait. I call that defending another position.

Dog, you don't get to invent your own definition of "troll." It has a meaning already. Learn to use it correctly, why don't you?

What part of "invitation only" do you not understand and why do you have the temerity to lecture me about an incident you were not a part of? I realize you are just indulging in the mindless defense of one of your tribe, but really now.

I'm not making up a definition at all. I am clarifying the definition as it has always been.

When a group is invitation only, can't you kick out someone you don't want there? I was in a group but it was totally inactive and we disbanded it. So I don't know much about them. I assumed this person was someone you had invited.