Troll Threshold

POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Thursday, October 2, 2025 14:14
VIEWED: 10983
PAGE 1 of 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 2:54 AM

Troll Threshold

Hello all,

I have noticed a disturbing tendency to label people as Trolls on this board.

Unfortunately, such labeling immediately puts the breaks on any discussion. Now, if the person posting is saying things like, "Bush is a c*cks*cker and he's s*cking your c*ck right now, you f*ggot," then I admit that this is 'trollish' behavior, which can best be defined as: 'posting for the singular purpose of being disruptive and/or insulting.'

But frequently the person posting is not saying things merely to be disruptive or insulting.

I often see
1) someone posting their mind on a subject.
2) their position or sentiment is unpopular with the majority.
3) They are labeled a troll (an insult, surely.)
4) They respond with insults towards the person who labeled them a troll.
5) The accuser stamps 'verified' on the accused person's troll title.
6) Any further comment from the accused is met with. "Shut up Troll, or "Don't feed the trolls."

And to make things worse, once this accused troll posts anywhere about anything, they are re-labeled troll and ignored or insulted. Even when they haven't done anything disruptive or insulting yet.

Just what is the 'Troll threshold' here where someone is labeled a troll? What are the criteria used, exactly?

I have been thinking lately that some supposed 'trolls' are just members of the community who have espoused unpopular opinions for a long time.

That worries me.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

CAUSAL

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 3:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
2) their position or sentiment is unpopular with the majority.

Well, I think we could stand to bandy about words like "moron," "idiot," "stupid," and so forth a great deal less frequently when disagreeing with people. "Illogical," and "irrational" would definitely go on that list to. (For God's sake, I'm a philosopher--just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are being illogical).

No idea on what the troll threshold is. On the other hand there is at least one person I can think of that seems to have split personalities. He claims his little brother gets on the computer, and that may be; but how are we to know? He could always log off when he's done...

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

YINYANG

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 3:36 AM

According to this definition

Quote:
2. n. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, “Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll.” Emphasis mine

there is some legitimacy to the claim(s) that I think you're responding to. That's not to say I agree/disagree with the people who are making said claims, merely that their reasons for calling "troll" aren't without merit.

From http://www.answers.com/troll&r=67

Edited for clarity.

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 3:49 AM

Damn.....I read "threshold" and thought it was soomething we could throw trolls over.......*FMF slinks away muttering about bonfires, pyres and TRSdogs*

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 5:08 AM

"regularly posts specious arguments"

So apparently, if you find no merit in someone's arguments, they are a troll.

I don't think it's a good definition. It allows you to label and disregard people you don't agree with. It's the opposite of discussion, and the enemy of argument.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

OLDENGLANDDRY

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 8:07 AM

I think at least part of the problem is a growing trend to start threads concerning dubious or even vacuous subjects, which are troll bait in themselves.
Personally, I respond to threads that I think are inflamatory or nonsensicle in a sarcastic or mocking way because I think they deserve it. If that in itself is trollish I apologise but I think that certain people should consider more carefully about the "discussions" they are trying to start.

SOUPCATCHER

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 8:47 AM

I personally think that what makes someone a troll is not their behavior but the motivation behind that behavior. For example, and this kind of goes back a ways to when threads on the front page of the site tended to stick around for a while , every so often someone would post a thread that needed to be Troll Country'ed. If Haken (or, later, Shiny or 'Tash) wasn't around FFFn'ers would start bumping other threads or starting new threads just to move that off the front page. Sometimes this would turn into epic battles. If you just look at the actions involved, there really is no difference between that and spamming. But the intent is completely opposite. Since intent is often hard to determine, I'm really not sure who is or is not engaging in trolling. I have a sneaking suspicion that some RWED regulars aren't interested in discourse but rather muddying the waters and preventing substantive discussion (my personal definition of a troll). I just make sure that I try to maintain focus if I ever hook up with one of those people in a thread.

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 9:58 AM

Quote:
I have a sneaking suspicion that some RWED regulars aren't interested in discourse but rather muddying the waters and preventing substantive discussion

And therein lies my exact criteria.

By topic change, ad hominem, nitpicking, or causing a he-said-she-said furball that drives everyone else out of the topic, some folks seem damned well intent on preventing ANY substantive discussion of certain topics around here, and even some of the decent folk have stooped to it on certain particular topics.

While certain other posters have made heroic efforts to get a straight answer, which, let's be honest here, ain't ever gonna be forthcoming, mostly such activity in both directions serves naught more that to drive away posters and effectively wreck substantive, intelligent discussion here - there's no point to debating or explaining or even replying to such attempts as it simply feeds the process.

I generally refrain from even using the term at all, myself, and pay no mind save when such folks leave themselves wide open to irresistably humorous potshots... guilty as charged in that respect.

But overall, if you look at it very carefully, you'll see in many cases intent to derail or demolish any reasonable, rational discussion, and subtle that it might be, it's pointedly obvious when it's the same folk over and over - and was more so when certain of them used sock puppetry to make one voice sound like several, but thankfully the use of that tactic has declined, probably because it was so painfully obvious when it was used.

What rooks me the worst about it is that between that and the singleminded nastiness, and seeming inability to do the wise, polite thing and simple agree to disagree, folks around here seem to feel the need to ram their opinions down each other throat, something all of us are to some degree guilty of... RWED has fallen to a very small community of extremely thick skinned people making the same arguments over and over, resulting in an unwelcoming stagnant pool of hostility that doesn't exactly attract folks to reasonable, rational discussion here.

So I would say.. these days, the threshold is prolly pretty durned low.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

SOUPCATCHER

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 10:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
By topic change, ad hominem, nitpicking, or causing a he-said-she-said furball that drives everyone else out of the topic, some folks seem damned well intent on preventing ANY substantive discussion of certain topics around here, and even some of the decent folk have stooped to it on certain particular topics.

There are times when I've caught myself doing this and stopped, and times when I've gone ahead and done it anyway. Hell, looked at a certain way, my snarky comments on the WTC-7 thread could be seen as an attempt to silence debate by mocking those who hold a particular viewpoint. And, if I am brutally honest, that was partially my intent in writing them. So there's that.

But I also agree with you that there are serial offenders who really don't bring much to the table otherwise. That's kind of one of my criterion. I'll gloss over a lot of anti-social behavior if the poster brings the goods. It's funny because we've got a decent level of expertise in a number of different disciplines/philosophies/backgrounds. We've just also got the friction that comes with that diversity.

And I think it definitely helps if you've been called a stupid-ass sheep-fucking inbred no-good cocksucker at least once before in your life.

HERO

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 2:59 PM

Perhaps most everyone of the regulars around here are guilty of trollish behaivor at some point. But that does not make folk trolls, just human.

I've found that with one or two exceptions most people here are capable of enlightened social dialogue, occaisonal fits of humor, and trolliatic musing. It makes for good and contentious debate.

The real trolls are usually easily identified...they put "Pirate" in some part of their screename.

H

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE