Troll!
- Thread starter Nitefly
- Start date
Can someone please define "Trolling" for me.
I always thought it was when someone intentionally misquotes or argues semantics to derail a thread or to provoke a reaction in a negative way.
I'm still a newbie at all this forum etiquette malarkey so forgive me if this seems obvious to you.
I always thought it was when someone intentionally misquotes or argues semantics to derail a thread or to provoke a reaction in a negative way.
I'm still a newbie at all this forum etiquette malarkey so forgive me if this seems obvious to you.
The people calling others trolls on here never seem to know what one is.
Never really seen any good trolling on here.
Angus Higgins was one of the most epic trolls to grace the forum IMO. Was very funny watching people getting mad at him and his bracketing system
.http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17793165&highlight=username_Angus-Higgins
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Generally I'd say it was intentionally posting something to achieve a reaction (usually negative) - the online equivalent of fishing for a bite or winding people up.
However a fair proportion of the time the phrase trolling will simply be applied to anything that is disagreed with, whether it's a reasonable point or not.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
It always used to be a Usenet thing - somebody who made a post with the object of starting an argument between others. This is why it was generally difficult - a 'troll' post usually only involved one post from the 'troll' himself, but this post would cause others to argue amongst themselves.
A classic example would have been crossposting something about god between an atheist and a christian group.
These days it appears to be a horribly misused word which people trot out when somebody says something they dont like.
[TW]Fox;18800658 said:
Thanks.
How does that differ though from someone posting something that is provocative with the intention of stimulating discussion.
Is it only the fact that you "post and Run" as it were that defines you as a troll, or is it the provocative post in itself?
Traditionally trolls were post and run - they had no interest in the ensueing debate. Somebody who sticks around and argues his point is, however wrong or stupid he may be, not a troll IMHO.
What do you think of drunkenmaster's replies to the simplest question? Holy wall of text!
[TW]Fox;18800698 said:
Cool.
I called someone a troll a little while ago because they were always posting what seemed to me to be silly semantic argument and part-quoting people to change the context of the debate and taking what seemed to be intentionally misconstruing what was posted to make it seem like the opposite was being said or that an extreme position was being taken when it clearly was not and so on, was this trolling or just someone being an idiot?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 28,140
- Location
- Liverpool
It's a loose, non specific definition that generally seems to be a person who annoys another. Almost like a slang term for somebody when abuse isn't tolerated on some forums.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
From my point of view it's bound to be subjective. If I saw someone posting something where it appeared they clearly weren't interested in the response and they did/would keep repeating the same fallacious point then I'd call that trolling.
Provocative topics can be fine but you've got to be willing to take part in the ensuing discussion and preferably also to consider other viewpoints and acknowledge them even if you still disagree with them. To blindly keep repeating something which has been countered would class as trolling for my money.
No idea, I scan his posts as a moderator but I used to read them until I worked out they were just a waste of time.
Last edited:
