I meant that to be a PM.
Definition of a troll....
- Thread starter amber
- Start date
Haha ,I meant that to be a PM.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I think that definition is unnecessarily narrow.
I think it is person who either gets a kick out of annoying people and starting fights, or who is some kind of monomaniac with a one-track agenda that is constantly being pushed. For example, as this is a science forum, we get creationists here and others who have an agenda of attacking science, or who have crank ideas to promote. And we have had people who just enjoy escalating arguments so they can indulge in personal abuse.
Bans can result from this behaviour in the end, but usually it is the troll who is banned. Eventually.
*ahem* Some of us are crazy OR nasty.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
♫Hello, Nasty♫
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Not anyone here if they were either they would be banned.
Alex
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Amber is being-tongue-in-cheek. S/he is pulling our leg.
1] This thread is troll bait (def'n: designed primarily to incite strong reactions),
and is laced with
2] carefully crafted trolling ploys, such as:
Amber's thread is meant to be ironic ("I made a post criticizing people as being trollers ... AS A TROLL!")
1] This thread is troll bait (def'n: designed primarily to incite strong reactions),
and is laced with
2] carefully crafted trolling ploys, such as:
Amber's thread is meant to be ironic ("I made a post criticizing people as being trollers ... AS A TROLL!
")
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I just* saw this last week!
*(for the 18h time in 4 decades)
"Wait officers. I'm a legal alien!"
*(for the 18h time in 4 decades)
"Wait officers. I'm a legal alien!"
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Yes, Carlin made some observations about our use of language.
"Legally Drunk".. :" officer leave my friend alone, he is legally drunk"
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
You are quite right, but I think we now know who we are dealing with, thanks to Dywyddyr (see "light" thread). Hope this sock will be gone before too long.Amber is being-tongue-in-cheek. S/he is pulling our leg.
1] This thread is troll bait (def'n: designed primarily to incite strong reactions),
and is laced with
2] carefully crafted trolling ploys, such as:
Amber's thread is meant to be ironic ("I made a post criticizing people as being trollers ... AS A TROLL!
Are all trolls dishonest? Someone who is genuinely obtuse is not a troll?
Are all trolls fishing for replies in order to catch respondents out ahead of reading their reply ?(or of just using their replies in a cynical way to paint them -and the troll -in a predetermined way)
Can a troll be a good thing (the same as winding someone up) but too much of a good thing is a bad thing?
Must a troll exhibit emotional behaviour or can s/he exhibit equananimity? (I know of someone who talks back to the television -is this ,in my mind slightly unhinged behaviour we might also expect from a troll?)
Or is a troll just determined by his or her troll like activity without motive being a factor?
Are there good examples of troll like behaviour in pre internet (or even pre mass media) times?
Are all trolls fishing for replies in order to catch respondents out ahead of reading their reply ?(or of just using their replies in a cynical way to paint them -and the troll -in a predetermined way)
Can a troll be a good thing (the same as winding someone up) but too much of a good thing is a bad thing?
Must a troll exhibit emotional behaviour or can s/he exhibit equananimity? (I know of someone who talks back to the television -is this ,in my mind slightly unhinged behaviour we might also expect from a troll?)
Or is a troll just determined by his or her troll like activity without motive being a factor?
Are there good examples of troll like behaviour in pre internet (or even pre mass media) times?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I think I stick to what I said in post 23. That would mean that a crank obsessively pushing a one-track agenda could be classed as a troll if it becomes a real nuisance by disrupting other discussions. But mostly they are people acting in bad faith, for one reason or another, to cause trouble. The key feature, I think, is deliberate disruption.
As for talking back to the TV or radio, I thought we all did that when something annoyed us enough [Oh what a giveaway!].
Would a real troll bother with such boring places as a science forum ?
Religion forums bite much better believe me.
"Real troll" is an unscientific term if you haven't defined "troll"
Apparently (see earlier posts) you may be a sockpuppet and so "troll" may be redundant in your case.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
I notice that people who are uncertain whether or not their posts could be considered trolling are rather urgent in their demands for a definition, most likely so they can say, "See? That's not me!"
A real troll on a science forum are the ones who start the lynch mob, they have a choice to ignore posts , but can't help themselves looking for a ban. They thrive in getting people banned, look around how they try to gloat , try to guess the individual instead of focusing on the subject.
For all they know I could be a well established politician who is on a quest to sort these forums and real trolls out , once and for all.
You may be right but ,if you are a sockpuppet you are ill placed to comment.
On this forum I am not too impressed with the standard of moderation ,although it is a thankless task.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
My old statement "Nobody can piss you off unless you give them permission" would be modified to read "Nobody can get you banned unless you give them permission." If you don't want to get banned, don't do bannable offenses. Nobody can make you post, except those voices in your head.