Troll!

Op =
1080065830042hr7.jpg
 
kalvindeane said:
Op =http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/6597/1080065830042hr7.jpg/IMG][/QUOTE]

Munchkin = Awesome.

Fox is right however. Most of what is defined as 'trolling' on here is far from what would be defined as proper troll material. If you've been around on the Internet as long as me you'd know this.
Click to expand...
 
I've been accused of trolling a lot here. It's only, in fact, just a difference of opinion. It annoys me when people shout 'troll' because my opinion or view doesn't tally with theirs.
 
GD thread quality goes down, therefore trolling increases = more "Trollolol" posts.

In many cases it's a very accurate term to use, but it is getting overused too much I agree.
 
Lysander said:
I've been accused of trolling a lot here. It's only, in fact, just a difference of opinion. It annoys me when people shout 'troll' because my opinion or view doesn't tally with theirs.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Posters use the term as an easy way out instead of constructively engaging with the argument. I also don't like the term "Obvious troll is obvious" and all the similar ones, is that another saddo internet meme?
 
uvarvu said:
I also don't like the term "Obvious troll is obvious" and all the similar ones, is that another saddo internet meme?
Click to expand...
Indeedy. Along with repeated posts of the gurning face you can see dotted about this thread.

I enjoy memes, to an extent.
 
Castiel 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?
Click to expand...

It differs in the sense that the person who is trolling does not believe the controversial point of view they expressed in their OP, but did it on purpose to cause a reaction. A "post and run" has nothing to do with it. In the Usenet days of old you'd have groups of trolls that would restoke the trolling in the thread to get even more replies from people who were arguing sincerely about something while the trolls would sit back and laugh at their accomplishment of how they've fooled the others into such a debate.

[TW]Fox;18800698 said:
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.
Click to expand...

That would be wrong, traditionally they would put together very smart and elaborate posts that would imply a controversial view without openly admitting to it (the 'subject to interpretation' trick was quite strong in stirring up emotional replies). Many trolls will stick around and occasionally add a post to push more people into even more heated arguments while they are enjoying the havoc they are creating.
 
There's a lot of contrived definitions of a "Troll" in this thread. A troll is simply someone that is out to cause nuisance to others. None of this "If they aren't doing it slyly, they aren't a troll" nor "If they are replying to their own thread, they aren't a troll" etc. It really is as simple as: If someone is deliberately annoying other users, they are a troll.
 
kgi said:
It differs in the sense that the person who is trolling does not believe the controversial point of view they expressed in their OP, but did it on purpose to cause a reaction. A "post and run" has nothing to do with it. In the Usenet days of old you'd have groups of trolls that would restoke the trolling in the thread to get even more replies from people who were arguing sincerely about something while the trolls would sit back and laugh at their accomplishment of how they've fooled the others into such a debate.



That would be wrong, traditionally they would put together very smart and elaborate posts that would imply a controversial view without openly admitting to it (the 'subject to interpretation' trick was quite strong in stirring up emotional replies). Many trolls will stick around and occasionally add a post to push more people into even more heated arguments while they are enjoying the havoc they are creating.
Click to expand...



To me that is not trolling but polemics. Polemics is a valid form of debate, I use contrary positions all the time to stimulate and encourage debate and discussion. Technically you are saying that I am a Troll....
 
Castiel said:
To me that is not trolling but polemics. Polemics is a valid form of debate, I use contrary positions all the time to stimulate and encourage debate and discussion.
Click to expand...

It is only polemics if you take a contrarian view to stir up debate that you are interested in (even if you are taking a devil's advocate position) in order to learn from it and understand people's viewpoints.

Trolls will take a controversial view in order to stir up argument for trivial (or highly emotional) issues such as nvidia vs. amd, intel vs. amd, microsoft vs. apple, abortion vs. non-abortion, atheism vs. religion. The purpose differs. For example, posting a thread on 'is there a god' in SC may constitute a polemics-posting technique, doing it on GD would be trolling. See what I mean?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom