Trolling

[ToddG]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886914000324

Trolls just want to have fun


Abstract
In two online studies (total N = 1215), respondents completed personality inventories and a survey of their Internet commenting styles. Overall, strong positive associations emerged among online commenting frequency, trolling enjoyment, and troll identity, pointing to a common construct underlying the measures. Both studies revealed similar patterns of relations between trolling and the Dark Tetrad of personality: trolling correlated positively with sadism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism, using both enjoyment ratings and identity scores. Of all personality measures, sadism showed the most robust associations with trolling and, importantly, the relationship was specific to trolling behavior. Enjoyment of other online activities, such as chatting and debating, was unrelated to sadism. Thus cyber-trolling appears to be an Internet manifestation of everyday sadism.

[Tamara]

I suspect anything referencing the so-called "Dark Triad" to be metatrolling and suggest we check the author's keyboard for Cheeto residue. ;)

[ToddG]

I love Cheetos. What are you trying to tell me?

[GJM]

I looked at the abstract, but didn't buy the whole thing. I didn't see their definition of "trolling." I suspect different people have different understandings as to what "trolling" is.

[orionz06]

I suspect different people have different understandings as to what "trolling" is.

This is very much true. I have asked someone with that three letter user title I have an issue with a question that was hard and had my thread deleted because making someone work for an answer was "trolling".

[cclaxton]

"There are no winners or losers in a civilized discussion. There are just people who express their thoughts and people who learn a bit more about a subject and improve their presentation of ideas by engaging in conversations with worthy opponents.

"Trolling" has nothing to do with sincere expression of contrary opinions or stubborn dedication to an idea. Trolling is all in how the comments are phrased and how the comment poster behaves, especially when confronted."

http://pluperfecter.blogspot.com/2011/08/14-characteristics-of-classic-internet.html

Reminds me of something my mom used to say: "If you can't say something nice, then just listen."
Cody

[ToddG]

I looked at the abstract, but didn't buy the whole thing. I didn't see their definition of "trolling." I suspect different people have different understandings as to what "trolling" is.

I think that's true to an extent. I'm specifically thinking in terms of people who actively, publicly, enthusiastically extoll others to troll and love to brag about doing it themselves. I think it's hard to question whether that counts as trolling or not.

[GJM]

The tricky part is that having differing points of view, is what makes for interesting discussion. I suspect many people view trolling differently, depending upon whether they are on the giving or receiving end.

There are also forum differences as to what constitutes trolling. For example, here at PF, most any advice considered tactical or mil/LE oriented, is exempted from the charge of trolling. On other forums, any tactical advice is considered trolling.

[TCinVA]

It's entirely possible for people to disagree without themselves being disagreeable. "Trolling" is bad behavior as a function of personality defect.

People do confuse these sometimes, and sometimes textual communication doesn't accurately convey someone's intentions. Still, bad behavior as a function of personality defect usually stands out pretty clearly for what it is.

[BaiHu]

I think trolling is an integral part of good discourse in an online discussion :p

[JHC]

Practical jokes must indicate sadism also.

[TCinVA]

Practical jokes must indicate sadism also.

Sadism is a function of human nature. There's a spectrum. Some people are in the "Dude, that's messed up!" end of the spectrum.

[jetfire]

If you burn ants with a magnifying glass for fun, you're messed up.
If you write it down and make it repeatable, you're a scientist.

Trolling is one of those phrases that along with bullying has completely lost any semblance of consistent meaning. I know what I define trolling as, but that may not be consistent with how other people define trolling.

[ford.304]

It really depends on the local rules.

Places like 4chan or doodie project have an established culture of not just free speech, but free speech extremism - as in, not only anything goes, but anything is encouraged. Trolling is no longer trolling, but the primary mode of communication.

Trolling only exists when someone is trying to enforce a different set of social rules, and you can get off on provoking those enforcers.

[ToddG]

See, I think that's the point of the referenced article. Just because you have a group of people who all agree that certain behavior is "ok" doesn't make it so.

You could find a gang rape crew and they'd tell you that gang rape is fine. It doesn't make it fine.

Now if you're talking about standards of behavior INTERNAL TO THE PARTICULAR SITE, sure. I'd never say you're trolling if you're keeping to the rules of the local forum. It's the ones who want to show off how they're trolling elsewhere and trying to cause trouble at other sites (as we've had some do here in a quite organized and determined fashion at times) then I don't think the fact that they think it's ok matters one whit.

[jetfire]

Basically: pooping on your lawn is fine. Pooping on someone else's lawn and then telling other people to go over there and do same is pretty clearly not fine.

[cclaxton]

Words do have meaning and impact...that is why we use them. Trolling is pretty well defined IMHO, and those that try to blur the lines are just making it easier for them. The best way to do this is to define specific behavior that is considered trolling, such as:
- insulting or attacking the poster rather than making a relevant argument or comment on the subject;
- namecalling;
- intentionally anonymous or hidden behind user names and hiding personal details;
- Will bring up unrelated issues they are upset about, for instance, "this is just like gun-grabbers....";
- Making wild accusations or repeating ridiculous conspiracy theories;
- Inflammatory comments that are intended to upset the crowd (and this does kinda depend on the audience);

Just because you are in a men's locker room doesn't automatically mean you can curse like a sailor...it depends on which locker room you are in. It is easy to define which behavior and what the consequences are. We can all get passionate about certain things and can get carried away on occasion, but when two or more of the above exists, then a consequence seems in order.
Cody

[Chuck Haggard]

See, I think that's the point of the referenced article. Just because you have a group of people who all agree that certain behavior is "ok" doesn't make it so.

You could find a gang rape crew and they'd tell you that gang rape is fine. It doesn't make it fine.

Now if you're talking about standards of behavior INTERNAL TO THE PARTICULAR SITE, sure. I'd never say you're trolling if you're keeping to the rules of the local forum. It's the ones who want to show off how they're trolling elsewhere and trying to cause trouble at other sites (as we've had some do here in a quite organized and determined fashion at times) then I don't think the fact that they think it's ok matters one whit.

It used to be OK, like really, really OK and held in high esteem, for people to arrive near your village in a big boat, invite themselves in and kill nearly everyone, steal all your loot, rape the womenz, burn the houses and then leave with loot and slaves.

People have kind of gotten over doing that quite as much as they used to back then.


Trolling seems to be like art or porn, hard to define at times but "you know it when you see it".



Basically: pooping on your lawn is fine. Pooping on someone else's lawn and then telling other people to go over there and do same is pretty clearly not fine

Yeah, basically, until the poop builds up and the smell starts to annoy the neighbors

[baddean]

Basically: pooping on your lawn is fine. Pooping on someone else's lawn and then telling other people to go over there and do same is pretty clearly not fine.

Trollers and poopers are clearly born of the same piece of human kitten. If the poopers believes that pooping on some elses lawn is fine then they might also believe that enticing others to poop on others lawns is also fine.
To us rational "non-pooping on others lawns persons", having the poopers poop on our lawns is clearly not fine.
Then again, if we poop on our on lawn it might lead the poopers to believe that it is ok to poop on our lawn as well.
Sorry........ I should stop now before it is misconstrued that I am trolling (pooping?)

[Mr_White]

Practical jokes must indicate sadism also.

Good point, JHC.

I've always considered trolling to be communicating in bad faith, in an attempt to get someone's goat or to exert themselves, or more generally, just plain messing with someone. It sure seems to me like there is a wide spectrum of that, from what is very close to goodhearted joking around, to what is probably pretty close to bullying.

For example, I got trolled in AFHF when Todd told me I shot a 5.02 when I really shot a 4.58 on my last FAST run. Later, I got trolled when Ben Stoeger posted that I had shot the FAST in 3.30 and set a new official record. Then I tried to troll Ben Stoeger by wearing my pistol-training.com hat to his class, but it didn't work at all because he likes pistol-training.com. To me, those are all examples of good-natured trolling.

The Wikipedia article was interesting enough, though I only read the first few paragraphs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

I deliberately mess with people only rarely, and I really try to avoid doing it in a mean-spirited way. But by Wikipedia's definitions, I am still a troll, because I do really like to post things that are ridiculous, ludicrous, or non sequiturs that ultimate detract from an on-topic discussion, even though I am just making a joke and not trying to rile anyone up. I wouldn't have called that trolling, but apparently some people think it is.

Trolling is also largely within the control of the recipient. A person has to take themselves, or whatever the subject of the trolling is, seriously. If a person can laugh at themselves, they become immune to an awful lot of trolling. If you take yourself very seriously, you become extremely vulnerable to trolling on the internet. Just like in real life.

[NETim]

This is what happens when I go trolling:

http://frontiernet.net/~netim/48Muskie1005.jpg

[ford.304]

The difference between trolling and practical jokes is entirely based on the empathy of the joker.

The joker will stop the moment he realizes he's actually upsetting someone. For a troll, that's the whole point, and his signal to keep going.

And Todd: I don't disagree with anything you said. Similarly, it's perfectly fine to wear your bondage gear at the local club, but please don't show up to the PTA meeting in a gimp suit without prior permission.

[Mr_White]

Words do have meaning and impact...that is why we use them. Trolling is pretty well defined IMHO, and those that try to blur the lines are just making it easier for them. The best way to do this is to define specific behavior that is considered trolling, such as:
- insulting or attacking the poster rather than making a relevant argument or comment on the subject;
- namecalling;
- intentionally anonymous or hidden behind user names and hiding personal details;
- Will bring up unrelated issues they are upset about, for instance, "this is just like gun-grabbers....";
- Making wild accusations or repeating ridiculous conspiracy theories;
- Inflammatory comments that are intended to upset the crowd (and this does kinda depend on the audience);

Just because you are in a men's locker room doesn't automatically mean you can curse like a sailor...it depends on which locker room you are in. It is easy to define which behavior and what the consequences are. We can all get passionate about certain things and can get carried away on occasion, but when two or more of the above exists, then a consequence seems in order.
Cody

To me, some of what your criteria is just being an a-hole, not trolling. Just insulting someone probably isn't trolling, or if it is, it's a really weak troll. I mean, they might get upset about it, but unless you can reel them in and make them expend energy discussing something they have no wish to, that probably doesn't amount to trolling.

I'm not so sure trolling is neatly defined. A portion of the Wikipedia article argues for a broader definition that includes both unintentional and deliberate disruption.

There is a built in mechanism to deliver 'consequences' to trolls - people can simply not pay attention to them. It's that simple.

Check out my new USPSA hat:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7366/12592141553_0c18495861_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/12592141553/) 0215141930-01 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/12592141553/) by OrigamiAK (http://www.flickr.com/people/52790396@N08/), on Flickr

[ToddG]

I would not call the fast time thing trolling, but it was definitely a practical joke and if someone said it was sadistic I probably couldn't claim innocence.

[ToddG]

I would not call the fast time thing trolling, but it was definitely a practical joke and if someone said it was sadistic I probably couldn't claim innocence.

[JHC]

Good point, JHC.

I've always considered trolling to be communicating in bad faith, in an attempt to get someone's goat or to exert themselves, or more generally, just plain messing with someone. It sure seems to me like there is a wide spectrum of that, from what is very close to goodhearted joking around, to what is probably pretty close to bullying.

For example, I got trolled in AFHF when Todd told me I shot a 5.02 when I really shot a 4.58 on my last FAST run. Later, I got trolled when Ben Stoeger posted that I had shot the FAST in 3.30 and set a new official record. Then I tried to troll Ben Stoeger by wearing my pistol-training.com hat to his class, but it didn't work at all because he likes pistol-training.com. To me, those are all examples of good-natured trolling.

The Wikipedia article was interesting enough, though I only read the first few paragraphs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

I deliberately mess with people only rarely, and I really try to avoid doing it in a mean-spirited way. But by Wikipedia's definitions, I am still a troll, because I do really like to post things that are ridiculous, ludicrous, or non sequiturs that ultimate detract from an on-topic discussion, even though I am just making a joke and not trying to rile anyone up. I wouldn't have called that trolling, but apparently some people think it is.

Trolling is also largely within the control of the recipient. A person has to take themselves, or whatever the subject of the trolling is, seriously. If a person can laugh at themselves, they become immune to an awful lot of trolling. If you take yourself very seriously, you become extremely vulnerable to trolling on the internet. Just like in real life.


I thought of practical jokes in an analogous context because so much of the trolling that I understood to be trolling, seemed like a digital version of the practical joke. And some practical jokes are funny and some are cruel. I've never much had the stomach for practical joking in general and when attempted, I've usually immediately revealed the gag to cut the target's discomfort to a minimum. Always been soft like that.

[Mr_White]

I would not call the fast time thing trolling, but it was definitely a practical joke and if someone said it was sadistic I probably couldn't claim innocence.

It's cool, I'm not mad or anything. :cool:


I thought of practical jokes in an analogous context because so much of the trolling that I understood to be trolling, seemed like a digital version of the practical joke. And some practical jokes are funny and some are cruel. I've never much had the stomach for practical joking in general and when attempted, I've usually immediately revealed the gag to cut the target's discomfort to a minimum. Always been soft like that.

Same here.

[TCinVA]

I would not call the fast time thing trolling, but it was definitely a practical joke and if someone said it was sadistic I probably couldn't claim innocence.

...or like laughing like a hyena when some drunk (and married) chick at a bar tries to grope a buddy and he has to practically put her in a wrist lock to knock that stuff off.

[ToddG]

How is THAT my fault?

[CCT125US]

in AFHF Todd told me I shot a 5.02 when I really shot a 4.58 on my last FAST run. Later, I got trolled when Ben Stoeger posted that I had shot the FAST in 3.30 and set a new official record.

I would have paid to see the look on your face. That is awesome, so wrong but awesome.

[TCinVA]

How is THAT my fault?

Just another example of sadistic tendencies. :cool:

[cclaxton]

I deliberately mess with people only rarely, and I really try to avoid doing it in a mean-spirited way. But by Wikipedia's definitions, I am still a troll, because I do really like to post things that are ridiculous, ludicrous, or non sequiturs that ultimate detract from an on-topic discussion, even though I am just making a joke and not trying to rile anyone up. I wouldn't have called that trolling, but apparently some people think it is. Trolling is also largely within the control of the recipient. A person has to take themselves, or whatever the subject of the trolling is, seriously. If a person can laugh at themselves, they become immune to an awful lot of trolling. If you take yourself very seriously, you become extremely vulnerable to trolling on the internet. Just like in real life.
A normal discussion should take into account how people RECEIVE the message you are delivering, or how they RECEIVE the words. That involves being sensitive to people's sense of what is civil or what might be viewed as bad behavior. Just because YOU think it's a joke or YOU think it's funny or YOU think it should be received as a joke or as funny, doesn't mean others will. We can't read your mind and know when you are being serious or making a joke, so it is YOUR responsibility to make that abundantly clear. It is not our responsibility to read your mind or try and figure it out, because that is then setting a trap....and I would define that as Trolling. If you know the recipient(s) won't be offended, that is one thing, but on a public forum, you can't possible know that. You can know a bit about the audience, and some context, but you can't possible know there won't be some people offended.

Precursor your joke-posts with: JOKE at the beginning and then we all know.
Cody

[Mr_White]

I would have paid to see the look on your face. That is awesome, so wrong but awesome.

I was really, really, really disappointed for several seconds until he showed me the timer. Then it became funny, and it still is.

[orionz06]

Trolling is a fine art.

[Mr_White]

A normal discussion should take into account how people RECEIVE the message you are delivering, or how they RECEIVE the words. That involves being sensitive to people's sense of what is civil or what might be viewed as bad behavior. Just because YOU think it's a joke or YOU think it's funny or YOU think it should be received as a joke or as funny, doesn't mean others will. We can't read your mind and know when you are being serious or making a joke, so it is YOUR responsibility to make that abundantly clear. It is not our responsibility to read your mind or try and figure it out, because that is then setting a trap....and I would define that as Trolling. If you know the recipient(s) won't be offended, that is one thing, but on a public forum, you can't possible know that. You can know a bit about the audience, and some context, but you can't possible know there won't be some people offended.

Precursor your joke-posts with: JOKE at the beginning and then we all know.
Cody

You are wrong; I do not have a responsibility to communicate in the way that you want. There are consequences to words and actions, to be sure, and I do take that into account. Me (usually) controlling myself and staying on topic in p-f threads is an example of that. But you don't get to tell me how to talk - well, you can, but I'll give your demand all the concern it's due (none.) :D

I'd agree that consideration for how a person receives a message is an important factor in structuring one's communications...however, I do not have a responsibility to prevent others from being offended, despite the case you argue for total and complete political correctness.

Don't worry, anything I post on p-f.com is either honest discussion or an obvious attempt at being humorous.

[GJM]

Gabe, you are GM level when it comes to being trolled, and appearing to enjoy it. That slo-mo video of your draw, with your shirt up around your neck, was hysterical.

[MDS]

The motive power of a good troll is the trollee, not the troller. If the troll has to work about as hard as the folks being trolled, it's an argument/debate/discussion, not a troll.

If trolling went out of style, I wouldn't miss it. But I do miss flaming. That is a lost art I would love to see resurrected.

[rob_s]

It's entirely possible for people to disagree without themselves being disagreeable. "Trolling" is bad behavior as a function of personality defect.

People do confuse these sometimes, and sometimes textual communication doesn't accurately convey someone's intentions. Still, bad behavior as a function of personality defect usually stands out pretty clearly for what it is.

So does good.

For quite some time I've noticed the "anti-troll" as an online typology. They're not less screwed up.

[Aray]

So does good.

For quite some time I've noticed the "anti-troll" as an online typology. They're not less screwed up.

They can be more self righteous.

[cclaxton]

You are wrong; I do not have a responsibility to communicate in the way that you want. There are consequences to words and actions, to be sure, and I do take that into account. Me (usually) controlling myself and staying on topic in p-f threads is an example of that. But you don't get to tell me how to talk - well, you can, but I'll give your demand all the concern it's due (none.) :D I'd agree that consideration for how a person receives a message is an important factor in structuring one's communications...however, I do not have a responsibility to prevent others from being offended, despite the case you argue for total and complete political correctness. Don't worry, anything I post on p-f.com is either honest discussion or an obvious attempt at being humorous.

This statement seems to indicate that you are against even rules about trolling because they would restrict "how you talk." Rules against trolling are exactly prohibiting the ways in which we communicate, and that includes you. I don't see how you get to political correctness here...this is about finding the most effective means to convey your message/opinion WITHOUT engaging in trolling communications (or offensive, insulting, inflammatory, etc.). If I want to engage in a discussion, and try to make my point I am going to find the best possible way to communicate in a positive manner so it is received in the best light. Being negative is either an indicator of trolling, in the worse case, or, in the least case, less effective at convincing people of your point.
Cody

[GJM]

Cody, so I can better understand your post, please define what you mean by "trolling?"

[ToddG]

Holy cow. I should be slapped in the head for starting this thread. Can I give myself a tempban?

[BaiHu]

Cody,

I think the difficulty in the 'troll' is that some people are so easily offended. In fact, they go out of their way to find 'offense' in anything someone says. I believe that is what OAK is referring to in his statement about 'PC'.

Sometimes I 'troll' in the sense that I'm trying to provoke discussion with an article, link, video, thought, etc. I'd have no problem with someone saying 'you're trolling me, bro', but I can also imagine a larger number of people saying, 'right on! I totally agree with that post, link, etc.'

I believe the whole point of this thread is 'trolling' the forum members for a better understanding of 'trolling'.

I believe Chuck was the closest when he said: Trolling seems to be like art or porn, hard to define at times but "you know it when you see it".

However, some people think missionary position is too much for them whereas Japanese Anime Tentacle Orgies are totally passe.

At least that's how I see it.

Savvy?

[GJM]

Holy cow. I should be slapped in the head for starting this thread. Can I give myself a tempban?

I put that request in the same category as me asking the mods to help me put "my posts" on my own ignore list.

Origami and I were discussing this thread yesterday, and actually thought it healthy to have a forum discussion about this topic. So many people have different definitions of what trolling is, and then throw an accusation of "trolling" around, that trolling may be more confusing than my description of Manny Bragg's four ways of working a trigger.

[orionz06]

Holy cow. I should be slapped in the head for starting this thread. Can I give myself a tempban?

That may or may not be considered trolling yourself.

[BaiHu]

Bazinga on Todd and GJM. Lol! Epic troll, Todd!

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[hossb7]

I think the biggest problem with "trolling" isn't even in the act itself - it's the misdiagnoses by others.

Being negative isn't trolling.
Name calling isn't trolling.
Disagreeing with someone isn't trolling.

Trolling is when one posts a purposely inflammatory comment/question in order to agitate others.

There's been a rash of people being accused of trolling (not necessarily on this website) when it could probably go either way. But as another member put it, trolling is an art, and the best trolls still leave it to question of whether they're trolling or not.

[cclaxton]

Cody, so I can better understand your post, please define what you mean by "trolling?"
2150

But in all seriousness: My definition is: A person posting a message attempting to poison the discussion, be disruptive, incite flaming, be unusually critical, and bait users with inflammatory statements. And, BTW, I don't' consider this thread a trolling thread...people have been mostly civil and engaged in a valuable discussion.
Cody

[cclaxton]

I think the biggest problem with "trolling" isn't even in the act itself - it's the misdiagnoses by others.

Being negative isn't trolling.
Name calling isn't trolling.
Disagreeing with someone isn't trolling.

Trolling is when one posts a purposely inflammatory comment/question in order to agitate others.

There's been a rash of people being accused of trolling (not necessarily on this website) when it could probably go either way. But as another member put it, trolling is an art, and the best trolls still leave it to question of whether they're trolling or not.
Being negative covers a vast area of statements. Intentionally making negative statements as an attempt to poison the discussion or inflame users....IS.
Name-calling is absolutely trolling when the name is an insulting one. There is a big diff between calling someone a "liberal sympathizer" and calling someone a "commie scumbag" for instance, the latter being trolling, IMHO. Disagreeing is certainly not trolling...completely agreed.
Cody

[hossb7]

Being negative covers a vast area of statements. Intentionally making negative statements as an attempt to poison the discussion or inflame users....IS.
Name-calling is absolutely trolling when the name is an insulting one. There is a big diff between calling someone a "liberal sympathizer" and calling someone a "commie scumbag" for instance, the latter being trolling, IMHO. Disagreeing is certainly not trolling...completely agreed.
Cody
Name calling is subjective in terms of whether it's insulting or not. I personally wouldn't consider name calling to be trolling. With that being said, just because something isn't trolling doesn't mean it's acceptable behavior. That might be where some of the confusion is coming from.

I think a lot of this quickly becomes existential. What if I'm asking a question or posting a statement that I am genuinely interested in but another viewer/poster interprets it as "intentionally making negative statements as an attempt to poison the discussion"? Does that make me a troll in their eyes or in everyone's eyes? I think that trolling, true trolling, is not a black and white topic and certainly exists in an abstract sense; at least to a certain extent. Sure, there are definites as to what trolling is but the behavior is subjective.

[YVK]

Five pages of discussing external attributes of something that can only be defined by an original intent of an action.

Epic troll, TLG.

[TheTrevor]

Trolling is the online equivalent of incitement to violence: deliberate acts calculated to hit emotional trigger points and elicit strong reactions from the targets, preferably in a way that causes infighting. Cruelty and contempt are motivational "root causes" behind the acts of most trolls, ranging from the common feces-disturber variety through the seemingly benign "concern troll".

Some of what has been referred to as trolling here, isn't, as noted. If you're messing with your friends with no ill intent, that's certainly not trolling. Simply being an idiot, or being deliberately ignorant and obnoxious about it, don't rise to the level of trolling. Those people are just annoying, but there's generally no cruelty or contempt behind their facade.

Some trolling is more subtle than simply posting inflammatory statements, and in fact, some of the intolerable subhumans who spend their waking hours as trolls gauge their success by how long they can string along their unwitting targets before anyone figures out that the troll is a life-wasting oxygen thief.

[TheTrevor]

Five pages of discussing external attributes of something that can only be defined by an original intent of an action.

Heh. Exactly.

[Mr_White]

Of course everyone is free to judge the manner of my communications, and they don't need my permission. I think my manner of posting and communication on p-f.com is self-evidently polite and respectful. When I diverge from that, there is a reason.


This statement seems to indicate that you are against even rules about trolling because they would restrict "how you talk." Rules against trolling are exactly prohibiting the ways in which we communicate, and that includes you. I don't see how you get to political correctness here...this is about finding the most effective means to convey your message/opinion WITHOUT engaging in trolling communications (or offensive, insulting, inflammatory, etc.). If I want to engage in a discussion, and try to make my point I am going to find the best possible way to communicate in a positive manner so it is received in the best light. Being negative is either an indicator of trolling, in the worse case, or, in the least case, less effective at convincing people of your point.
Cody

Rules set by whom? Forum staff chooses the rules they want to have. I decide to participate or not, same as everyone else. Enforcers decide whether I have crossed the line, I decide to participate or not, and the cycle continues. Those are like Big Boy Rules for internet discussion.

Your post below, which I was responding to, asserts that I have a responsibility not to offend. And you are patently wrong. I would AGAIN make the distinction that this is totally separate from effective communication, which you seem to conflate with a moral responsibility borne by a communicator and is not the subject under discussion.


A normal discussion should take into account how people RECEIVE the message you are delivering, or how they RECEIVE the words. That involves being sensitive to people's sense of what is civil or what might be viewed as bad behavior. Just because YOU think it's a joke or YOU think it's funny or YOU think it should be received as a joke or as funny, doesn't mean others will. We can't read your mind and know when you are being serious or making a joke, so it is YOUR responsibility to make that abundantly clear. It is not our responsibility to read your mind or try and figure it out, because that is then setting a trap....and I would define that as Trolling. If you know the recipient(s) won't be offended, that is one thing, but on a public forum, you can't possible know that. You can know a bit about the audience, and some context, but you can't possible know there won't be some people offended.

Precursor your joke-posts with: JOKE at the beginning and then we all know.
Cody



Your definitions of trolling are so broad that they allow you to cry 'troll!' whenever there is something you don't like, even when it's a legitimate discussion among willing participants. You recently did this in one of the recent IDPA threads when you suggested that people shouldn't discuss aspects of the sport they don't like, because you didn't like the way the discussion was going.

Some people are so obstinate or illogical, that even though they are communicating in good faith, they appear to be a troll.

Going by your definitions, I'd complain that many of your posts are trolling, since they frequently annoy me. But I don't have the right not to be annoyed, and neither do you. I get to: say nothing, argue against you, put you on Ignore, or complain to staff. I choose the first two.

I can see that you have a deep desire to control other people.

[hossb7]

Solid post. I agree with all of it.

[JHC]

Trolling is the online equivalent of incitement to violence: deliberate acts calculated to hit emotional trigger points and elicit strong reactions from the targets, preferably in a way that causes infighting. Cruelty and contempt are motivational "root causes" behind the acts of most trolls, ranging from the common feces-disturber variety through the seemingly benign "concern troll".

Some of what has been referred to as trolling here, isn't, as noted. If you're messing with your friends with no ill intent, that's certainly not trolling. Simply being an idiot, or being deliberately ignorant and obnoxious about it, don't rise to the level of trolling. Those people are just annoying, but there's generally no cruelty or contempt behind their facade.

Some trolling is more subtle than simply posting inflammatory statements, and in fact, some of the intolerable subhumans who spend their waking hours as trolls gauge their success by how long they can string along their unwitting targets before anyone figures out that the troll is a life-wasting oxygen thief.

Origami AK and GJM - don't you think this is a pretty solid definition of "professional grade" trolling at least?

There is also some degree of pride in the "trolling community" for the development of the skill to be effective but subtle enough not to expose the trolling too obviously.

FWIW - I can't say I've seen much harm come from any of it in any case. None comes to mind anyway.

In the annals of trolling some of the most spectacular I am aware of witnessing were waging a wave of vengeance; more or less in defense of a certain "dentist". ;)

[Mr_White]

Trolling is the online equivalent of incitement to violence: deliberate acts calculated to hit emotional trigger points and elicit strong reactions from the targets, preferably in a way that causes infighting. Cruelty and contempt are motivational "root causes" behind the acts of most trolls, ranging from the common feces-disturber variety through the seemingly benign "concern troll".

Some of what has been referred to as trolling here, isn't, as noted. If you're messing with your friends with no ill intent, that's certainly not trolling. Simply being an idiot, or being deliberately ignorant and obnoxious about it, don't rise to the level of trolling. Those people are just annoying, but there's generally no cruelty or contempt behind their facade.

Some trolling is more subtle than simply posting inflammatory statements, and in fact, some of the intolerable subhumans who spend their waking hours as trolls gauge their success by how long they can string along their unwitting targets before anyone figures out that the troll is a life-wasting oxygen thief.


Origami AK and GJM - don't you think this is a pretty solid definition of "professional grade" trolling at least?

Yes, this is the definition that I personally tend to subscribe to.

That's why I was initially surprised when a source quoted in the Wikipedia entry on trolling said that was too narrow a definition, and needed to include those whose good faith communications also caused disruption. There are a lot more trolls if this definition is used. I think that's too broad.

To me, the real core of trolling is communication in bad faith. Lots of legitimate discussion involves some amount of contention, and some is pretty rancorous. That can mean it's just an intense discussion; it doesn't have to be trolling. And I do think there is a very wide range of behavior in the span of what I would consider trolling. The edges can be blurry sometimes. It is not always easy to spot and that's part of what makes it an effective tactic.

[ToddG]

To me, the real core of trolling is communication in bad faith.

This. But of course I'm assuming your mind and my mind are seeing those words in the same light.

If a bunch of guys on another board say, "Hey, all these guys over on ZIPLIGHTER.com are saying something we disagree with, let's have a fire mission and screw up their thread," even if they're sincere in disagreeing they're still communicating in bad faith. They're not trying to engage in dialog, they're just trying to make other people upset because -- and this was the real point of the OP -- they enjoy making other people upset. That's their idea of "fun." And to me, using free speech as a shield and BS excuse for trying to disrupt other people's enjoyment of a website is no different than trying to sit down at their dinner table uninvited shouting WRONG! over and over again.

[Mr_White]

sit down at their dinner table uninvited shouting WRONG! over and over again.

See you at dinner! ;)

Just joking.

[TheTrevor]

This. But of course I'm assuming your mind and my mind are seeing those words in the same light.

One of the most important functions of an online community, moderated or unmoderated, is to continuously sensitize the participants to appropriate conduct in the context of the community. In the event of diverging views on how something might be interpreted, a healthy community will step in to offer respectful feedback on how they perceived the content in question. PF is remarkable in how well it maintains this equilibrium, and it's one of the reasons I hang out here instead of any number of other online venues.


And to me, using free speech as a shield and BS excuse for trying to disrupt other people's enjoyment of a website is no different than trying to sit down at their dinner table uninvited shouting WRONG! over and over again.

I trust you will be stopping by to explain this to my offspring sometime soon, then. :cool:

(And yes, I realize OAK beat me to the punchline on that one, more or less.)

[GJM]

This. But of course I'm assuming your mind and my mind are seeing those words in the same light.

If a bunch of guys on another board say, "Hey, all these guys over on ZIPLIGHTER.com are saying something we disagree with, let's have a fire mission and screw up their thread," even if they're sincere in disagreeing they're still communicating in bad faith. They're not trying to engage in dialog, they're just trying to make other people upset because -- and this was the real point of the OP -- they enjoy making other people upset. That's their idea of "fun." And to me, using free speech as a shield and BS excuse for trying to disrupt other people's enjoyment of a website is no different than trying to sit down at their dinner table uninvited shouting WRONG! over and over again.

There are a few ways to look at this. One, is that some folks are being disruptive, crashing dinner parties they were not invited to. The other, is the crashers provide a useful reality check, since they generally only thrive when forums stake out positions that lend themselves to crashing.

Plus, disagreement is what spawns new forums, and keeps things evolving. I don't know the exact history, but didn't an AR15 issue lead to M4, and an issue there led to PF, and an issue at PF lead to the formation of Doodie?

[ToddG]

Let's not devolve this into something that could become forum vs forum.

Beyond that, no George I don't agree. The fact that someone else thinks they need to come in and shake up our forum (or another) for our good because we can't be trusted without their "reality check" doesn't make it true, doesn't make it socially acceptable, and doesn't make it right. I don't go spam Stormfront just because I think they're dingbats.

[GJM]

Let's not devolve this into something that could become forum vs forum.

Beyond that, no George I don't agree. The fact that someone else thinks they need to come in and shake up our forum (or another) for our good because we can't be trusted without their "reality check" doesn't make it true, doesn't make it socially acceptable, and doesn't make it right. I don't go spam Stormfront just because I think they're dingbats.

You are missing my point -- both of them.

1) The name of any forum is irrelevant. What is relevant is that disagreement leads to butt hurt, and butt hurt leads to new forums. My point is disagreement is a natural part of evolution. But for disagreement, there would be no Pistol-Forum.

2) This had nothing to do with whose reality check it is -- goofy stuff leads to humor. Ever watch the late night shows and listen to the monologues?

[ToddG]

1) The name of any forum is irrelevant. What is relevant is that disagreement leads to butt hurt, and butt hurt leads to new forums. My point is disagreement is a natural part of evolution. But for disagreement, there would be no Pistol-Forum.

I'm neither missing the point nor disagreeing with it. I just don't want this thread to get dragged into something that's against our rules. So again, I'm going to say: this line of discussion is done, please.


2) This had nothing to do with whose reality check it is -- goofy stuff leads to humor. Ever watch the late night shows and listen to the monologues?

On this I am blind to the point. I don't see gang-trolling another forum the same as putting on a monologue on your own show.

[Chuck Haggard]

I never heard of Doodie. I had to go look. I feel stoopid--er.

[MDS]

I never heard of Doodie. I had to go look. I feel stoopid--er.

This thread can make it very easy to slip across the line into inter-forum shenanigans. Let's all please be careful.

[Mr_White]

Great video someone showed me explaining the 'range of trolling behavior' thing. This is very close to my view of it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O83vd0l-_Ew

[justintime]

I never heard of Doodie. I had to go look. I feel stoopid--er.

Me neither - I also did not know any of the back story of pforum and all the crazy stuff. I don't care though, with such changes comes cool stuff. I like pforum since it discusses stuff relevant to me in a format that I like with people I respect.

I'm fairly certain you can't proclaim trolling and legitimately do it. The art of trolling is subtle in that people cannot be sure if serious

[Chuck Haggard]

Over the years I have cut the places I go to on the internets down to a very few, I find most of the web to be the intardnets, the comments section on most You Tube videos is illustrative of what I'm talking about.

Like people getting pushy while driving when they wouldn't engage in that kind of behavior in person, the internet enables all kinds of jackassery.


I greatly appreciate places like PF and LF that have moderators that police the asshattery. If I wanted to deal with idiots all I would have to do is go to work and do a few bar checks. I don't need that crap on my own time.

[David Armstrong]

This is very much true. I have asked someone with that three letter user title I have an issue with a question that was hard and had my thread deleted because making someone work for an answer was "trolling".
LOL!! And QFT. I remember a couple of instances, one where I was griped at by a mod for trolling, even though I had only posted word for word what the same moderator had posted on the same subject on an earlier thread. And my favorite two PMs from two mods on the same post, one mod congratulating me on a well thought out post and the other mod warning about the post because it was trolling.:rolleyes:

[David Armstrong]

You are wrong; I do not have a responsibility to communicate in the way that you want. There are consequences to words and actions, to be sure, and I do take that into account. Me (usually) controlling myself and staying on topic in p-f threads is an example of that. But you don't get to tell me how to talk - well, you can, but I'll give your demand all the concern it's due (none.) :D

I'd agree that consideration for how a person receives a message is an important factor in structuring one's communications...however, I do not have a responsibility to prevent others from being offended, despite the case you argue for total and complete political correctness.

Don't worry, anything I post on p-f.com is either honest discussion or an obvious attempt at being humorous.
I think it was Jeff Cooper who said something along the lines of "Those who are more concerned about how something is said than what is said probably aren't worth talking too."

[ToddG]

If someone has a problem with Staff or a decision made by Staff, PM me or any other Staff member you would like to bring the issue to our attention.

A thread in the forum is not an appropriate or acceptable place for such discussion. Thank you.

[MichaelD]

Relevant to the discussion: Study: Internet Trolls Are Also Terrible In Real Life (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2453609,00.asp)


Internet trolls and video game griefers are just as broken in real life as you've always suspected, according to a new psychology paper by Canadian researchers. It turns out that the same folks who love to disrupt online conversations for the "lulz" are likely to also exhibit some pretty nasty personality traits in general.

[JV_]

MichaelID - I know some folks like to separate people's online behavior from their offline behavior, I never understood that idea. It's been my experience that all parts of one's behavior are pieces to the larger puzzle and poor online behavior does correlate to poor behavior offline.

[orionz06]

Generally I agree but I know of exceptions to that. I'm sure there are psych explanations to it but some people simply do just like to throw down bread and watch the critters fight over it.

[LittleLebowski]

I know a few guys that come across as nearly illiterate online but are decidedly well spoken in person. I've met a lot of folks in person after talking with them online. I did not see enough data to definitively correlate between say some guy that argues vehemently online and is a jerk in the "meat space." It's just hit and miss from my personal experience. Happily, most of the folks I've met from gun forums are good to go. I've certainly made some good friends because of gun forums and had guys I've never met in person bend over backwards to offer me assistance and favors.

I'll put it this way: my "NFE" list (stolen from Pat Rogers, means not effin' ever) list is dwarfed by my "Good Guys" list.

[orionz06]

I know a few guys that come across as nearly illiterate online but are decidedly well spoken in person. I've met a lot of folks in person after talking with them online. I did not see enough data to definitively correlate between say some guy that argues vehemently online and is a jerk in the "meat space." It's just hit and miss from my personal experience. Happily, most of the folks I've met from gun forums are good to go. I've certainly made some good friends because of gun forums and had guys I've never met in person bend over backwards to offer me assistance and favors.

I'll put it this way: my "NFE" list (stolen from Pat Rogers, means not effin' ever) list is dwarfed by my "Good Guys" list.


You forgot to add where people troll you like it's their job.

[ToddG]

People who behave substantially differently online -- especially those who are more argumentative and simply "tougher" -- bother me to no end. You're basically saying you have no spine but you'll pretend online.

Then again, I'm spending hours a day pretending to be a laser-sword wielding space hero online, so perhaps I should rethink my perspective. :cool:

[LittleLebowski]

You forgot to add where people troll you like it's their job.

There's definitely some weirdos out there.

[orionz06]

People who behave substantially differently online -- especially those who are more argumentative and simply "tougher" -- bother me to no end. You're basically saying you have no spine but you'll pretend online.

Then again, I'm spending hours a day pretending to be a laser-sword wielding space hero online, so perhaps I should rethink my perspective. :cool:
This I agree with but I think room needs to be made for interpretation of tone.

I feel that often I am too direct resulting in a more aggressive post. I think it's safe to say I don't take myself serious enough to be that aggressive.

Also something to note... Nyeti is one who online I hated for some time. Hearing his interview on Ballistic Radio was enough to create a data point and reassess what he has said in the past that bothered me. Hearing tone and the pace of the conversation cleared things up right away and adjust how I read what he posts. Having this info is priceless.

[JHC]

Is there a cultural thing going on whereas its much more acceptable to be cynical of anything and everything vs to believe passionately in anything? I sure have gotten that impression.

An example that comes to mind; one pretty competent troller; when he does weigh in positive and excited about something, gets piranha'd by his mates like "it is their job" to borrow from OrionZ. They are clearly all having fun but it strikes an oldster as a somewhat odd communication ritual. ;)

If there is anything to that; I think it may indicate that some of the would be trolls don't suffer from the deep, dark neurosis that some recent studies suggest. Its just a fashion if you will. But when it's wielded where it overlaps into "square" culture; it can come off pretty bad.

Maybe not.

[GJM]

I know a bunch of people who are almost impossible on the web, but a delight on the phone or in person. I think it is a mistake to assume how someone communicates in writing is equivalent to how they are in other forms of communication. Lawyers tend to quite comfortable making their points in writing. Many successful business folks, in contrast, have a rule of no bad news or hard conversations by email. Other folks just don't have much practice expressing themselves in writing, because their job or life experiences haven't caused them to develop that skill.

That said, while I am inclined to give someone a break for being verbose, inarticulate, emotional, illogical or even rude online, I always give someone a point for expressing themselves clearly, concisely and thoughtfully. In years past, mature men hung around the donut shop and mostly told lies. Today, that same BS is recorded for posterity on the web.

[Mr_White]

Is there a cultural thing going on whereas its much more acceptable to be cynical of anything and everything vs to believe passionately in anything?

Isn't this just called 'maturing and recognizing the truth'?

;)

[Mr_White]

I agree that not everyone expresses themselves similarly in person and online. I am pretty quiet in real life, unless I have something to say. But I am very comfortable writing and it's hard for me not to go on and on and on when communicating that way.

I try to give a lot of allowance and benefit of the doubt to people in written communication. Tone can be so difficult to discern and many people do not express themselves very clearly in writing. I hated emoticons for a very long time, but begrudgingly started to use them since they convey some of the lost nonverbal communication inherent to the written word.

[TR675]

In interpreting what someone is saying face to face - the way we are designed to communicate - tone and body language are key. Body language in particular is a huge component of communication. It is hard to pick up on tone in someone's writing, and obviously figuring out their body language is impossible. Result: serious posts can be misconstrued as trolling or confrontational, and vice versa.

Another serious problem with discussion forums in general is that posters are often trying to communicate their points in writing, in a hurry, during a break from their job or a more serious task, often using their phones, and in a quasi-conversational style. Result: a lot of half-assed communicating is going on and being preserved for posterity.

I've personally misread innocuous posts as personal attacks, and God knows I've posted a lot of half-baked junk, especially when taking a 5-minute break from work. It's just the nature of the medium.

[JV_]

I know I've typed out a ton of stuff that reads well in my head, but after it's been posted for 10 minutes it makes a lot less sense.

I also have the too-many-edits problem.

[SGT_Calle]

Forgot I had this saved on my iPad, seems like this is the most appropriate thread ever to share it.
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/02/21/aha6eve4.jpg

[Matt O]

I also have the too-many-edits problem.

I too have a serious problem with this. I have a nasty habit of editing until flow, style and clarity have all but vanished. Perhaps that should be telling me something about how jumbled my mind is. :p

Unfortunately living abroad for an extended period of time had a measurably negative effect on my command of the English language.

[TR675]

Everybody has that problem. We all could use personal editors. You can never edit your own stuff as well as someone else (competent) can.

[trailrunner]

I try to give a lot of allowance and benefit of the doubt to people in written communication. Tone can be so difficult to discern and many people do not express themselves very clearly in writing. I hated emoticons for a very long time, but begrudgingly started to use them since they convey some of the lost nonverbal communication inherent to the written word.

In the old days of the wild-west usenet, we tried to live by the 30 percent nicer rule, i.e., since emotion and subtlety is difficult to convey in a forum post, when you are at the keyboard, be 30 percent nicer than you need to be to preempt miscommunication.

[Hatchetman]

I've touched on this before, but IMO defining trolling objectively is a losing proposition. Nine pages into this exploration of the topic we've yet to have the term defined to a degree that would suffice in a high school debate class and indeed the range of behaviors falling under the aegis of trolling is so vast that it takes no time at all before "yes buts," gray areas, fine distinctions et al make an amorphous mess of the matter.

Indeed, this sort of definitional problem isn't limited to trolling. Try to define the term "cult." One man's cult is another man's divine wisdom so the matter is difficult to settle. Similarly defining drug abuse is difficult as one person's gross overconsumption is another's rather staid Saturday night. Creating objective definitions that speak to a well bounded understanding of these term proves nigh impossible.

A subjective definition of these sorts of terms, however, is pretty darn easy. As mentioned in a different thread, I once worked on a telephone hotline; defining just what a "chronic caller"--a telephone troll--was proved pretty difficult objectively. Subjectively, however, it was pretty darn easy: a chronic caller was a person whose telephone habits interfered with their vocational, family, and interpersonal relationships. A cult member is one whose embrace of their religion gums up their work, family, and friendly relations. You can tell when someone is hitting the bong too hard when their work, family, and friends start chaffing about it. And so on.

Where internet trolls are concerned--and I've dealt with a lot of them in a lot of places--it's not all that difficult to detect subjective elements that suggest their keyboard behavior impacts their vocational, familial, and interpersonal relationships. Some are clearly posting opuses and reflexively sniping when on the clock somewhere, neglecting family as they cross internet swords with passing strangers, and probably substituting unpleasant online exchanges they can exert a modicum of control over for more pleasant face to face exchanges they most likely don't have the tools to successfully engage in. I think that last point is a critical one to keep in mind when contending with someone you presume to be a troll: they are there to punch you buttons in the hope of controlling the interaction to a degree they can't when dealing with folks in their day to day encounters. Don't reward that behavior by jumping through their hoops.

Bottom line: it's a lot more productive for a board to define standards of conduct and enforce them as consistently as possible to battle behavior nebulously defined as "trolling" than it is to discern some sort of Unified Troll Theory that uses some sort of quantum means to define trolls and toss them out the airlock. Should you find yourself nonetheless tangling with someone whose online habits are likely impacting their job, family, and friends, getting into a heated, protracted exchange only provides what they came for. Pointing out the pathological nature of their acts, however, is more likely to hit them where they live and perhaps inspire them to shut up or move on.

[ToddG]

Thanks for the great post, Hatchetman!

[cclaxton]

I too have a serious problem with this. I have a nasty habit of editing until flow, style and clarity have all but vanished. Perhaps that should be telling me something about how jumbled my mind is. :p

Unfortunately living abroad for an extended period of time had a measurably negative effect on my command of the English language.

[cclaxton]

I too have a serious problem with this. I have a nasty habit of editing until flow, style and clarity have all but vanished. Perhaps that should be telling me something about how jumbled my mind is. :p

Unfortunately living abroad for an extended period of time had a measurably negative effect on my command of the English language.
I use a simple text editor when I have time to work on the reply before posting it. Sometimes it sits for a few hours or even longer because I am not comfortable with it. I edit as necessary there. Sometimes it gets deleted. That way don't need to edit after posting.
Cody

[cclaxton]

Forums are informal ways of communicating. So, they are very much like verbal conversations, but without the non-verbal cues we get in person or the tone of a person's voice. So I think it is important to try to remember the basic rules of communicating apply here too, maybe even more important because we are missing the face2face. This Psychology Today article lists 5 rules for listening/reading and 5 rules for talking/writing. The principles are the same here if we are interested in being effective rather than just talking AT each other. I am certainly not perfect at adhering to them, but I do try to use them as guiding principles.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hide-and-seek/201207/the-10-golden-rules-communication
Cody

[Matt O]

I use a simple text editor when I have time to work on the reply before posting it. Sometimes it sits for a few hours or even longer because I am not comfortable with it. I edit as necessary there. Sometimes it gets deleted. That way don't need to edit after posting.
Cody

That's not quite what I meant. I was referring to over-thinking what I want to say until it is a jumbled mess, not editing after the fact.