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

[OldLady]

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

Why?

 

[Natural Citizen]

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

Marion my brother, you ain't lived til you've trolled a general election. lol.

 

[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?

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

Go torture your cat some more, Marion. More your speed than trolling.

 

[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.

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.

No, the Islamist supporter who showed up was about the LAST person in this forum who would have been invited to a forum made up of those who oppose terrorism.

It was impossible to kick out this specific troll because as I said, every attempt to deal with the taunting and contempt shown for those opposing Islamic terrorism went for naught as the messages kept reappearing after they were removed. It was probably at least 20 times, so determined was the troll to disrupt.

 

[OldLady]

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.

No, the Islamist supporter who showed up was about the LAST person in this forum who would have been invited to a forum made up of those who oppose terrorism.

It was impossible to kick out this specific troll because as I said, every attempt to deal with the taunting and contempt shown for those opposing Islamic terrorism went for naught as the messages kept reappearing after they were removed. It was probably at least 20 times, so determined was the troll to disrupt.

Oh. I thought only people who were invited could get in to a group. Otherwise, I would have gone in and harassed you too.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Oh. I thought only people who were invited could get in to a group. Otherwise, I would have gone in and harassed you too.

Wouldn't your time be better spent on some introspection by asking yourself WHY you would want to harass people for opposing Islamist terrorism?

 

[OldLady]

Oh. I thought only people who were invited could get in to a group. Otherwise, I would have gone in and harassed you too.

Wouldn't your time be better spent on some introspection by asking yourself WHY you would want to harass people for opposing Islamist terrorism?

Oh, lighten up. I probably wouldn't have harassed you. I'm not a troll. But I've seen some of your "anti-terrorist" posts and I'd give it another name than "opposing terrorism."

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Oh. I thought only people who were invited could get in to a group. Otherwise, I would have gone in and harassed you too.

Wouldn't your time be better spent on some introspection by asking yourself WHY you would want to harass people for opposing Islamist terrorism?

Oh, lighten up. I probably wouldn't have harassed you. I'm not a troll. But I've seen some of your "anti-terrorist" posts and I'd give it another name than "opposing terrorism."

So, what name would you give to statements that oppose Islamist terrorism as well as the ideology that drives it?

 

[OldLady]

Oh. I thought only people who were invited could get in to a group. Otherwise, I would have gone in and harassed you too.

Wouldn't your time be better spent on some introspection by asking yourself WHY you would want to harass people for opposing Islamist terrorism?

Oh, lighten up. I probably wouldn't have harassed you. I'm not a troll. But I've seen some of your "anti-terrorist" posts and I'd give it another name than "opposing terrorism."

So, what name would you give to statements that oppose Islamist terrorism as well as the ideology that drives it?

Dog, we're in announcements, in a thread about trolling. Just to remind you.

 

[deannalw]

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

Read my posts.

Question answered.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Oh. I thought only people who were invited could get in to a group. Otherwise, I would have gone in and harassed you too.

Wouldn't your time be better spent on some introspection by asking yourself WHY you would want to harass people for opposing Islamist terrorism?

Oh, lighten up. I probably wouldn't have harassed you. I'm not a troll. But I've seen some of your "anti-terrorist" posts and I'd give it another name than "opposing terrorism."

So, what name would you give to statements that oppose Islamist terrorism as well as the ideology that drives it?

Dog, we're in announcements, in a thread about trolling. Just to remind you.

You are the one who has been coming after me in this thread, dearie. I am simply responding.

Just a reminder.

 

[saveliberty]

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

Most likely, short leash too.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Go torture your cat some more, Marion. More your speed than trolling.

You were saying, my dearie?

 

[rightwinger]

It’s whatever the mod thinks it is