|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:20 pm
I posted this in another guild and it was well received there and because of the high volume of people who think they are good trolls, I am going to post it here too for everyone to see. If you disagree, then feel free to comment.
What the heck is a troll? Many people level this claim at users who consistently challenge them for proof or consistently make their arguments look like whiny fallacy ridden arguments.
A true or good troll should consist of three things. Knowledge, wit, and the ability to draw strong emotion out, not just anger. Anyone can draw anger out of someone.
Knowledge - A troll should at least have a basic understanding of the topic involved, other wise their posts are just foolish. A troll who consistently tries to troll anyone who attacks the so-called seekers barely has knowledge in any subject except what they have fed him/her. A troll who is constantly going on and on about how smart he is with failed poetry barely has any knowledge in any of the subjects he tries to speak in.
This also helps trolls who call people out on their plagiarism or repeated copy/paste.
Good trolls will rarely break the TOS line. They may skirt the edge a lot, but rarely do any reports made against them actually ******** stick. Saying your posts look like they were written by an emo b***h is skirting the line. Saying you are an emo b***h is crossing the TOS.
There was a huge argument about this very topic in the SNF a number of years ago. One user tried to explain that calling your argument a piece of s**t and backing it up is different then calling piece of s**t. An ex mod and a few of the other people tried to say that there is no difference until an Omni mod stepped in and told them they were wrong.
Wit- A troll should actually be able to make you laugh. Not just only those who automatically agree with him, but even those he is arguing against. Not a pity laugh either. Good trolls will also be able to use that wit to get other users into flaming them or sending them death threats or sending them pm's about how said user doesnt know what its like to be a young person or some other nonsense. They can bait people without actually using threats or flames of their own. Trolls who resort to open name calling really aren't being witty at that point.
Emotions: Like Wit and Knowledge, this requires an understanding of many different things. It definitely requires an ability to read people to some degree or another. A troll asks themselves, "How far can I push this mother ******** until they either give up or they do something that breaks the TOS?" It may seem like a horrible tactic to pull on someone, but if the person is violating the TOS or the rules of the forum, then sometimes, actual Trolls are a necessary evil.
Before I end though, I would like to point out that if you see someone leveling the term troll at any user in a guild or open thread and you do your research of this supposed troll's actions, you can and should report the one leveling the claim. Just like if you see a user trying to say that someone else is harassing them or would show up at their house to kill them. That is a clearly against the TOS whether some of the nice moderators want to admit it or not.
Disclaimer: I am in no way supporting the use of said debate tactics nor am I endorsing or saying names of certain users who engage in troll like activities.
- by Jaden Kendam
Edit: I know I have leveled this claim at certain users, but I suppose I should start calling these other users for what they really are. jerks.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:49 pm
Yeah I'd agree, though you're argument seems to paint a troll as a satirist and seems to make the two appear interchangeable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:55 pm
rmcdra Yeah I'd agree, though you're argument seems to paint a troll as a satirist and seems to make the two appear interchangeable. I think that really good trolls are not far off from being satirists if not really satirists. They tend to last longer than those who just go into a thread and flame or threaten the hell out of everyone. If you remember Barraketh, when he wasn't doing the racist thing, some of his points and "ideas" seemed logical enough and he lasted a while until he got to the point where it was ban on sight. Some of these new people don't have the staying power nor the maturity to handle a discussion before they jump into the mud slinging as some of both of our current dealings can attest to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:02 pm
Here is the big reason why I defined it the way I did. I keep getting called a troll by people who flame and make death threats against everyone who challenges them. i also went back through a number of posts by people who could be considered really good trolls and saw the same patterns in them. EE, Barry, ID, and a number of others. When they did not flame, there was a satire about it. Like a game of fish and they didn't have to resort to flames or threatening people with sledge hammers to get their point across.
In my time in the SNF, I had more accusations of trolling and death threats leveled against me then I had ever seen. These people were labeled as trolls but all they really did was use appeals to popularty and threats and calling everyone who disagreed with them trolls.
One of the now ex-Mods tried to defend their actions by saying that anyone who made these people upset was indeed a troll. That person's definition of troll was anyone who intentionally upsets another person in any way. Considering that this person included challenging someone on their misinformation was a form of trolling bugged me, so I looked for a better definition by researching the better trolls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:05 pm
jaden kendam rmcdra Yeah I'd agree, though you're argument seems to paint a troll as a satirist and seems to make the two appear interchangeable. I think that really good trolls are not far off from being satirists if not really satirists. They tend to last longer than those who just go into a thread and flame or threaten the hell out of everyone. If you remember Barraketh, when he wasn't doing the racist thing, some of his points and "ideas" seemed logical enough and he lasted a while until he got to the point where it was ban on sight. Some of these new people don't have the staying power nor the maturity to handle a discussion before they jump into the mud slinging as some of both of our current dealings can attest to. I know right. I'm an apologist since I disagree with that guy. LOL. But yeah I remember Barry and his multiple forms. He even trolled Noora for a while. I disagreed with him but still found him to be quite funny. In the case of M&R, it's a bit more difficult to satire/troll since the popular thought is that religion is something that requires no thought and just passive knowledge in order to know something about it. That the surface is all that there is. Just a little fun tie in to the theme of this guild, you know that there are some scholars who are arguing that the "Gospel of Judas" is a satire against the developing catholic movement and the sects that used sacramental worshiped. Basically the gist of the satire is that the developing church has become so corrupt that the only person that Jesus could trust is Judas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:15 pm
rmcdra jaden kendam rmcdra Yeah I'd agree, though you're argument seems to paint a troll as a satirist and seems to make the two appear interchangeable. I think that really good trolls are not far off from being satirists if not really satirists. They tend to last longer than those who just go into a thread and flame or threaten the hell out of everyone. If you remember Barraketh, when he wasn't doing the racist thing, some of his points and "ideas" seemed logical enough and he lasted a while until he got to the point where it was ban on sight. Some of these new people don't have the staying power nor the maturity to handle a discussion before they jump into the mud slinging as some of both of our current dealings can attest to. I know right. I'm an apologist since I disagree with that guy. LOL. But yeah I remember Barry and his multiple forms. He even trolled Noora for a while. I could name a few more, but not sure if they would report me. But to be clear, i do not actually miss Barry, because he gave me a headache, but I think that he was good at what he did. rmcdra I disagreed with him but still found him to be quite funny. In the case of M&R, it's a bit more difficult to satire/troll since the popular thought is that religion is something that requires no thought and just passive knowledge in order to know something about it. That the surface is all that there is. Sadly, MR is a land full of troll wanna be's who think they are being clever when they suck. Not to mention all the self proclaimed atheists who see it and agree with it, all because it attacks religion, which is actuall Christianity. rmcdra Just a little fun tie in to the theme of this guild, you know that there are some scholars who are arguing that the "Gospel of Judas" is a satire against the developing catholic movement and the sects that used sacramental worshiped. Basically the gist of the satire is that the developing church has become so corrupt that the only person that Jesus could trust is Judas. That is kind of funny, in a way. If there was so much infighting, that the most trustworthy person was the person who pretty much openly betrayed Jesus, not the unseen betrayers to the word/teachings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:24 pm
jaden kendam I could name a few more, but not sure if they would report me. But to be clear, i do not actually miss Barry, because he gave me a headache, but I think that he was good at what he did. I don't think many miss him. Quote: Sadly, MR is a land full of troll wanna be's who think they are being clever when they suck. Not to mention all the self proclaimed atheists who see it and agree with it, all because it attacks religion, which is actuall Christianity. Of course. All religions are just like Christianity. That's what's taught in schools and written in all the "cool" books. I actually remember one of my English professors at college saying something like that on facebook recently. Quote: That is kind of funny, in a way. If there was so much infighting, that the most trustworthy person was the person who pretty much openly betrayed Jesus, not the unseen betrayers to the word/teachings. From what I understand, it was because of how bad the infighting was getting why Constantine called all the Bishops together, locked them in a room for two weeks, and told them to "get their s**t together or gtfo".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:31 pm
rmcdra jaden kendam I could name a few more, but not sure if they would report me. But to be clear, i do not actually miss Barry, because he gave me a headache, but I think that he was good at what he did. I don't think many miss him. It makes me wonder why people miss him and some of the others who made debating absolutely miserable some times. Of course, if some of the others disappeared, I am sure they would be missed by some and celebrated for leaving by others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:46 pm
There's a thread idea that I've been kicking around for a while on how religion doesn't exist. The crutch of the argument is that religion is a construct of Western Society based on how the Medieval Catholic Church is structured and that "religion" is basically any culture or subculture that fits within this paradigm, hence why there seems to be confusion to some in whether Buddhism should be considered a religion or a philosophy. While I could make it into a serious debate, I could easily turn it into a satire.
My only reason for not doing it so far is how taxing/time consuming it has been seeming to post or respond to anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:25 pm
rmcdra There's a thread idea that I've been kicking around for a while on how religion doesn't exist. The crutch of the argument is that religion is a construct of Western Society based on how the Medieval Catholic Church is structured and that "religion" is basically any culture or subculture that fits within this paradigm, hence why there seems to be confusion to some in whether Buddhism should be considered a religion or a philosophy. While I could make it into a serious debate, I could easily turn it into a satire. My only reason for not doing it so far is how taxing/time consuming it has been seeming to post or respond to anything. Talking about the Medieval Catholic Church will make it all about Christianity, so of course, the angstheists and christians will duke it out, which may make it worthwhile to read and not a reportable thread. I may hit the marker on reporting threads if someone keeps making the same darn two topics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:01 pm
I guess I am way behind here, but as far as I understand, trolls are people who act knowledgeable to invoke negative reactions from people... Sometimes they don't act knowledgeable, sometimes they just say something uncalled for...
I don't think calling people out on their bullshit is being a troll, I think it's what keeps the internet a somewhat bearable place. If everyone went around claiming they had the ultimate knowledge of what they were talking about with no one to call them on it, then there would be no point to anything...
If everyone was allowed to spout whatever crap they wanted for the sake of their ego, and no one was allowed to challenge what they said because someone's feelings might get hurt, well, most discussions wouldn't go far now would they?
Anyway, people who use intelligence to challenge and combat foolishness aren't trolls in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:58 pm
Eltanin Sadachbia I guess I am way behind here, but as far as I understand, trolls are people who act knowledgeable to invoke negative reactions from people... Sometimes they don't act knowledgeable, sometimes they just say something uncalled for... That is the common definition, but to me, that is just a jerk or idiot or whatever. They almost never know enough to actually make an argument or say anything of worth. Reporting them doesn't always work as some mods blame the people getting harrassed and not the harrasers. The people I am talking about don't even have to call you a name to get a reaction from you, which I think, makes them better at the game then most people who call themselves trolls. Anyone can 4chan, but how many can out 4chan, 4chan? Eltanin Sadachbia Anyway, people who use intelligence to challenge and combat foolishness aren't trolls in my opinion. Some of them do it to elicit a certain emotional response and do actually get reported for doing it. Sometimes the reports stick and mods will tell them to quit trolling. I used to have an in when it came to what mods did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 5:49 am
~teehee, I liked that, a description of a troll... I don't know if I can be classified as a troll, sweatdrop ... I don't know... people tend to call me as a troll because of the style I write my comments, they say it is retarded "blah, blah, blah"... teehee, but it i just actually a quirk of mine~ mrgreen 4laugh
~oooowwwwiiiieeeee, although, I usually deal with trolls in a "cute and friendly way"... sometimes I pretend to be a follower of the troll's "mighty deeds" sometimes I "admire" the troll's "wit", etc.~ 3nodding 3nodding 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 9:46 pm
I don't know about this definition of a troll. When I think of the word troll I think of the ugly thing under the bridge the jumps out to eat you. Anyways, the word was meant initially to label someone that really got under their skin on purpose. I don't think it's right to be downright offensive when disagreeing with someone. Even mildly offensive to some is hurtful to others. So what I'm saying is that it's not a label I'd use on someone who uses satire or clever talk to disagree with someone. I've seen some of these. I usually get ugly trolls or just usual comments on my youtube. But on a couple occasions one of my videos got both the ugly troll and the person that just disagreed with the other user. I didn't really find the disagreement to be offensive too much, but rather got the reaction from the other person that posted another comment to support his side.
Anyways, when I see a troll. I see "I'ma kill joo (rarely)," "f you," pointing out supposed bad grammar just to invalidate me, comments that state they support something that more than likely the person doesn't support just for reactions sake, and various other comments that they know darn well will get me or anyone else to hate them.
I have some real problems that go back too far that kinda of cause me to distress over them, but even youtube videos I see on how to deal with trolls makes one point perfectly clear and one video (that I personally found funny) says not to let it get the best of you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
