# [OT] Trolling



## DDK (Jan 22, 2003)

I've just been informed that I'm a troll.

Now, this is probably going to make me sound really stupid, but I'm sure lots of people think that about me anyway so a few more won't hurt. But anyway, until I was told this, and given an explanation of what a troll is, I had no idea I was doing something that is considered a faux pas.

I've never understood the whole troll thing. Maybe I'm just retarded? Stranger things are true...

However, if what I was told is true, then I have to wonder what is wrong with trolling.

A direct quote from the person, who shall remain nameless, that told me of this apparently vile tendancy of mine:

"Even you admit that your post was to get opinions and stir the pot, and began the whole thing with a lie. That's a troll... trolling for reactions."

Ok, so now I know, but I'm still confused as to why this is a bad thing.

How is wanting to spark debate and create discussion on a topic one is devoted to and interested in, in a forum where discussion and debate on topics one is devoted to and interested in is what the forum is for, a bad thing?

I truly do not understand.

This post, for instance, I'm betting is considered a troll. Did I post it to get a reaction? Umm... yes... that's the point of posting, isn't it? To get a reaction?

Now, in one particular case, I lied to get a reaction. Now, anyone that knows me closely, knows that when it matters, I'm the most honest person they could ever know. White lies about height, weight or exaggerations about skill in something or the size of a caught fish, sure, but important things, never. So to me, this was no big deal, in fact, I'm quite happy to admit that the lie was in the thread I started about piracy where I stated that I found a website with all these PDF's on it; I never found any such site. Ok, ok... so I lied, but it was on an issue that I was genuinely interested in hearing the opinions and concerns of fellow RPG fans on. And let's face it, we know those sites exist, so it's not like I was making it all up.

So I start threads that get people talking. Isn't this a good thing? Isn't this contributing to the community in a positive fashion? The above example was only ONE in which I told a little white lie in order to get things started and I haven't done so before or since.

I have a genuine concern, interest and affection for the answers and posts to the threads I create or contribute to. Yes, I'm bored and I have a lot of time on my hands and I practically live on the net. But I have no 'agenda'. There is no malice in my posts. Hell, even Morrus could vouch that I say what I mean and mean what I say and do so up front and personal-like. So any interpreted meaning in my words or through my 'trolling' is just that; interpreted. It's simply not my style to be subtle.

So... am I troll? Well... I guess so... but why is that a bad thing?


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (Jan 22, 2003)

Fourecks said:
			
		

> *I've just been informed that I'm a troll.
> 
> Now, this is probably going to make me sound really stupid, but I'm sure lots of people think that about me anyway so a few more won't hurt. But anyway, until I was told this, and given an explanation of what a troll is, I had no idea I was doing something that is considered a faux pas.
> 
> ...



The "definition" of troll used ignores a few aspects of what some (like myself) consider trolling.

A troll usually posts something inflammatory.  And I mean that in the worst sense of the word: _Arousing strong emotion, especially anger, belligerence... _.

Trolls often post something directly antithetical to the group's purpose (like posting "fat people suck" on a Weight Watchers group, "3e sucks!" on a 3e message board, or similar mean-spirited comments).

I'd have to go back and read more of your posts to decide whether or not I consider you a troll.  I don't think (from what I recall) that's you've been particularly "troll-ish" but I may be forgetting something.  

At any rate, troll or not, I would not start off posts with a lie, even if it is a "harmless" little lie, or just to "start something."  The whole "boy who cried wolf" syndrome, and all.  For me, it just leads to a general mistrust of *all* of a person's posts.  Which means I'm less like to react publicly to your posts...which, you say, is the whole point.  If you'll lie to make a point, well, you'll lie again to make another point.  All of your data becomes suspect.


Billy Goat Gruff


----------



## aliensex (Jan 22, 2003)

Well, there is always a fine line between a debate and an argument.  So I guess there is also a fine line between STARTING a debate and STARTING an argument.

Trolling is generally about intent.  If you post a subject and idea with the intention of getting people mad at you and each other, then that is trolling, so it is a subjective thing.

Sometimes a debate can be started, then someone comes in and starts flaming everyone they disagree with.  Thats not the fault of the topic starter.

Personally I like a good debate, I tolerate anybody's point of view.

Just remember, on the internet everyone's opinion is equally worthless


----------



## Sagan Darkside (Jan 22, 2003)

*Re: Re: [OT] Trolling*



			
				Barendd Nobeard said:
			
		

> *For me, it just leads to a general mistrust of all of a person's posts*




Bingo.

Fourecks, I don't consider you a troll, but I try not to waste my time on any discussions you start. 

I have no appreciation for being deceived. It does not matter what intentions led to that deception.

SD


----------



## MEG Hal (Jan 22, 2003)

One of the key words you used was "lying" if you are here to start a debate, I am cool with that if you start with a lie to start a debate *OFF WITH YOUR HEAD* now since you are a troll you will regenerate, so all in all that is not as horrendous as it could be  .  Lying bugs me stirring up debate does not.


----------



## EricNoah (Jan 22, 2003)

If this isn't a Meta thread, I don't know what is.  And awayyyy we go...


----------



## Bagpuss (Jan 22, 2003)

Personally I love a good troll. I can't see the problem with them. 

First it usually high-lights all the hypersensitive or stupid people, who jump right in screaming their opposition to the poster. Helps to know who they are so you can avoid them in future.

Second it sparks a debate which are always more interesting than so and so latest house rule.

Third it usually leads to some sort of consensus, which makes you feel part of a group of people, so it comforts all the lonely people that only have a life through the internet.

Only good can come from trolls. (I miss Bugaboo)


----------



## DDK (Jan 22, 2003)

aliensex said:
			
		

> *Trolling is generally about intent.  If you post a subject and idea with the intention of getting people mad at you and each other, then that is trolling, so it is a subjective thing.*



So in other words it doesn't really matter what is said, or even intended, as ultimately the judgement call is made by the mods.

I could be the envy of sweetness & light and yet still be labelled a troll.



			
				aliensex said:
			
		

> *Personally I like a good debate, I tolerate anybody's point of view.*



So do I which is partly why I'm here. Beats playing a computer game especially since I write in-between posting and even if I'm not doing that, I'm writing when I'm posting... engages the brain on some level at least.



> _Originally posted by Sagan Darkside_
> *Fourecks, I don't consider you a troll, but I try not to waste my time on any discussions you start.*



Why? Or did you mean you won't from now on?



> _Originally posted by Sagan Darkside_
> *I have no appreciation for being deceived. It does not matter what intentions led to that deception.*



A very rigid position to take, given the nature of humanity. Are you saying you never, ever, ever at all, do not, under no circumstance and will never lie? Even just a small smidgeon of exaggeration?

The mere fact that I admitted it just goes to prove that overall I'm very honest, after all, I'm admitting it to my own detriment... but anyway...


----------



## Larry Fitz (Jan 22, 2003)

I love when Eric moves a thread I'm reading, it's like a virtual rollercoaster, well metaphysically... kind of... um... back to the topic....


For me Fourecks the problem in lying in posts is that later when someone points out consequences of what you said (like publishers requesting the name of the site so they can take appropriate actions) you either have to seem like a co-conspirator and say "I won't tell you." Or cast further doubt on yourself by saying "Oh, that? I made that up." Which means people aren't sure when you are lying or not. Your post would have generated the identical commentary if you had mentioned that sites exist where such things are downloadable, and it still would have been shut down when it reached the point at which it was shut down (I apologize for my part in that BTW). It is one thing to be willing to lie to save a life or protect the reputation of a deserving friend. it's quite another to lie casually to make your post seem more authoritative, don't you think? I believe you are a forthright and sincere person, but in the limited forum presented here it will be difficult for other people to see that now. For myself, heck I''m still willing to come to Australia and run a game for you and your friends....


----------



## Squirrel Nutkin (Jan 22, 2003)

Raistlin Majere said:
			
		

> *The great Bugaboo was a troll and you didn't see anyone complaining about him, right?*



 You _can't_ be serious.


----------



## DDK (Jan 22, 2003)

Raistlin Majere said:
			
		

> *Dude, don't put too much substance in what people say.*



It came from someone whose opinion I respect.



			
				EricNoah said:
			
		

> *If this isn't a Meta thread, I don't know what is.  And awayyyy we go... *



Oh, sorry, I've never been good at picking the right forum... to be honest, I didn't think about it all. I was kinda upset when I heard this so wasn't really thinking.


----------



## Friadoc (Jan 22, 2003)

Fourecks,

...why don't you try making theoretical speculation instead of lies?

People would actually take the insightful forum of a theoretical statement, or situation, a lot better then they would an outright lie.

Plus, with a lie, you have to keep up with your position in it, the history of it, and other such items that, sooner or later, will catch you up and make you a liar in the eyes of those who catch you, as well as to those whom they tell.

With a theory, or any other kind of speculation, people look at you a lot better, consider their opinions longer, and focus more on the topic then they do the instances in the topic - IE: I'm sure what caught you up was all the publishers asking you for the site addy, et al, in reference to the piracy of their products.

A lie is a lie, it's all opinion as to the morality of it, as people's morals are defined by themselves, their background, and their place in the community and not just a definitive listing of right and wrong.

Personally I'll have no truck with a deceptive individual, however a rampant speculator and theoretician is a very enjoyable person, indeed.


----------



## Sagan Darkside (Jan 22, 2003)

Fourecks said:
			
		

> *
> Why? Or did you mean you won't from now on?
> *




Why don't I consider you a troll? I take you at your word that there was no malice and you had "good intentions", but I think that is just as bad if not worse then someone who does it out of malice. 

I have been generally avoiding your discussions since the pirate thread. It is not out of malice, but any solid argument needs to be built on trust between the people in the argument. That is the only way to convince a person.

If there is no trust, then it becomes a matter of ranting. I have done too much ranting and trying to better.



> A very rigid position to take, given the nature of humanity. Are you saying you never, ever, ever at all, do not, under no circumstance and will never lie? Even just a small smidgeon of exaggeration?




I have little reason to lie. My loyalty is to my own self-respect, and that does not warrant much need for deception.



> The mere fact that I admitted it just goes to prove that overall I'm very honest, after all, I'm admitting it to my own detriment... but anyway...




Are you trying to convince me or you? 

SD


----------



## DDK (Jan 22, 2003)

Larry Fitz said:
			
		

> *Your post would have generated the identical commentary if you had mentioned that sites exist where such things are downloadable, and it still would have been shut down when it reached the point at which it was shut down (I apologize for my part in that BTW).*



Yeah, that's the cutting edge of the knife now, isn't it? You see... I tend to... be a little... impulsive. In the above instance, there was no actual time at which the thought went through my head, "This is a lie, you could just say this another way," 'cause I was all enthused about the prospect of talking about the issue. Hell, there wasn't even a spur for the idea, I just had a brainwave that said, "Post a thread about piracy!" and did it...

Stupid maybe. Trolling probably. But I still found the thread interesting and I do, genuinely, believe piracy is a reprehensible act and I do, honestly wonder why more is not done about it. Speaking of which and as an aside: Judge to Verizon: ID pirates

Anyway, look, I'm sorry for that lie, I just didn't think and when I did, I didn't think it was a big deal. To my knowledge (which would be based on my memory... which is terrible) I haven't done that before or after. Eh, what can I say? Eric, can you change my nick to M.U.D.?


----------



## EricNoah (Jan 22, 2003)

Fourecks said:
			
		

> *
> Eric, can you change my nick to M.U.D.? *




I don't know, are you a community supporter?  



(Sorry, man, I had to do it! )


----------



## DDK (Jan 22, 2003)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I don't know, are you a community supporter?
> 
> ...




Lol. After today I might have to be!


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 22, 2003)

I want to be a community supporter. Please tell me how to do this without using a paypal account. I will do it postehaste!

/nudges Eric


----------



## Umbran (Jan 22, 2003)

Fourecks said:
			
		

> *
> So in other words it doesn't really matter what is said, or even intended, as ultimately the judgement call is made by the mods.
> 
> I could be the envy of sweetness & light and yet still be labelled a troll.*




Of course.  Humans are fallible, silly person.  

If you go into a resaurant, and your server screws up your order, dumps hot soup on your lap, is perfunctory, seems to pay no attention to you, and makes you wait interminably for your check, you will probably label her as a "bad waitress".

What you don't know is that she's normally a good waitress, but tonight she's got a migrane and can't see straight, and is only on the job because she desperately needs the money.  

People apply labels based upon their observations and deductions.  Sometimes, they get it wrong.  It is terribly impolite to apply a negative label until you've got pretty overwhelming evidence, but it happens.  Don't take it too personally.  We are only human.

As a public service, I will now include the most full definition of "troll" as applied to the online communities that I've ever run across - 

From The Jargon File:


> *troll*
> 
> 1. v.,n. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT. 2. n. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll." Compare kook. 3. n. [Berkeley] Computer lab monitor. A popular campus job for CS students. Duties include helping newbies and ensuring that lab policies are followed. Probably so-called because it involves lurking in dark cavelike corners.
> 
> ...


----------



## EricNoah (Jan 22, 2003)

Well now that we're on the topic of trolls, shall we try to identify some "definitely no-no trolling behaviors" as well as some that might be acceptable in certain circumstances?

Example of the classic troll:

A visitor who is not really a community member decides to register and then post an inflamitory comment designed to raise the hackles of the typical community member.  So a post reading "D&D Third Edition is for 3etards!!!!" would clearly be a no-no type troll.  The sentiment may be genuine (i.e. the poster genuinely hates 3E and probably thinks we're scum, but is not interested in a discussion but instead wants to see how many outraged replies can be garnered -- this is trolling in the sense of dangling bait...)

Example of the humorous troll:

A member posts a humorous question regarding a situation that only the most gullible would find plausible.  Classic example is Bugaboo's post way back when asking how much DMs should charge to run games.  99% of the people get the joke and join in on the fun, 1% fall for it at first but get it eventually.  This type of troll has often been tolerated here just due to the fact that when I ran these boards I personally found that stuff funny.  Some people don't, and it happens a lot less frequently these days. 

Example of genuine outrage that seems like a troll:

A long-standing member of the community (maybe not EN World, but the D&D community at large) posts an angry letter about how D&D Product XYZ will lead to the moral ruin of all D&D players.  This has the marks of the classic troll, but ... this person has a great stake in staying credible in the community, and thus his motives are a lot less suspect.  Still, the manner in which the missive is delivered does indeed raise a lot of ire and emotions run high.  This kind of thread is probably tolerated for quite a while, mods make attempts to get people to stay on track and not make personal attacks, but ultimately it goes down in flames.  

Anyone else care to add to the list?


----------



## EricNoah (Jan 22, 2003)

Breakdaddy said:
			
		

> *I want to be a community supporter. Please tell me how to do this without using a paypal account. I will do it postehaste!
> 
> /nudges Eric
> 
> *




Hmm, I don't know.  I think Russ is setting up an alternative payment method thingy but don't know where he's at on that.  

Some folks I believe have sent money directly to Piratecat and he's passed it on to Russ via PayPal.  

So ... long story short ... I don't know.


----------



## DDK (Jan 22, 2003)

*Can I hijack my own thread?*



			
				Breakdaddy said:
			
		

> *I want to be a community supporter. Please tell me how to do this without using a paypal account. I will do it postehaste!*



Yeah, paypal requires a credit card for Aussies. Or at least, that's what it was like last time I checked and even if they did the same thing as in the US, with a check account, I can't afford one of them either!

I'll tell you what, Eric, I'll make you this promise. *IF* (it's a very big if...  ) a certain negotiation I'm in is successful, I'll not only become a community supporter (how much is that, anyway?) I'll give a donation of $100 U.S.

Sigh... if, it always hinges on the if. Cheer for me and hope that the financial partner thinks it's a goer  If only for the extra cash for EN World


----------



## Crothian (Jan 22, 2003)

You also have to realize many people with call people trolls when a post is slightly on the trollish side.  People really seem to jump up and make claims way to fast.  

Intent is very important in the definition of a troll.  Lying to start a discussion is fine if there really is a discussion there to be had.  It's easy to set up a situation that may be problematic and claim it happen and ask people what would they have done?  

Fourecks, I've seen a few of your posts but known I would call trollish.  If you have some specific examples that you are worried about we can discuss them.


----------



## Sagan Darkside (Jan 22, 2003)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> *Anyone else care to add to the list? *




I will try, though I have not seen this once since I have come back here:

Example of the self-gratification troll:

A member of the community posts what they claim to be spoilers to a highly anticipated book that is about to hit the shelves, but what they post is actually their own ideas. There seems to be little reason for it other then to gather opinions on their own ideas

SD


----------



## DDK (Jan 22, 2003)

Crothian said:
			
		

> *Fourecks, I've seen a few of your posts but known I would call trollish.*



Thanks.


----------



## Henry (Jan 23, 2003)

*Re: Can I hijack my own thread?*



			
				Fourecks said:
			
		

> *Sigh... if, it always hinges on the if. Cheer for me and hope that the financial partner thinks it's a goer  If only for the extra cash for EN World  *




Oh, I'll ALWAYS cheer on someone for financial success and wish them well.... as long as it's legal. 

But Fourecks, My personal opinion is that you might want to give more personal thought to the things you post if it truly bothers you what others think of you.

Hear me out a second here. You've stated that you tend to be a "little impulsive" when you post topics, and make assertions you can't back up. As a matter of fact, I seem to recall that I PERSONALLY went a little out on a limb in keeping the piracy thread open longer than it would have otherwise - in good faith, mind you.  (It's not like there was a disagreement or anything, but we dislike emotional threads GUARANTEED to go down in flames, because it's a little like thsoe people that balance spinning plates on skewers, if you can understand where I'm coming from.)

So, one thing to think about is the following - and I post this not for Fourecks, but for ANYONE who wishes to heed it: 

*Before making a post, and clicking that "send" button, ask yourself, "Will what I am about to post be GUARANTEED TO tick someone off?" If the answer is not even "yes," but maybe even "possibly," then stop, review the post, and see if anything in it can be better worded, so that it is less inflammatory, and more likely to get your point across without making someone see red.* 

I guarantee, no one on these boards will think less of you for either reviewing your post, or clicking the "edit" button if you realize you may have gone too far and offended your fellow board members. 

Last thing: NO ONE here has ever gotten ticked off at _"I disagree."_ However, there is rarely a day that goes by that one of the mods or admins doesn't have to edit a post or close a thread that contains some variation of _"your opinion is stupid."_

Food for thought.


----------



## hong (Jan 23, 2003)

Looks like it's time to pull out the definitive word on this topic, from the man himself:



```
[color=white]
From: James "Kibo" Parry (kibo@world.std.com)
Subject: Trolling for dollars (was: Year 2000 urgency not needed?) 
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology
Date: 1997/06/15 
 

In alt.religion.kibology, [email]jaffo@onramp.net[/email] wrote:
>
> Michael Straight wanted to share:
> :
> : High marks for humor, but multiplied by a fairly low difficulty rating,
>  :your total score is still well above average in a slow week for ARK.
> 
> I'm sorry, I have to give Maelstrom much higher marks than you do.
> 
> The quality of the responses makes all the difference for me.
> 
> Every time I read one of these and think, "Naw.  Too obvious!  He's overplayed
> his hand."  He gets three more fish.
> 
> FLAWLESS VICTORY!

That, indeed, is what makes a good troll. My strategy is to see how
ludicrous I can make the trollery and still have someone fall for it.

For instance, "William Shatner owns six pairs of green socks." isn't a good
troll if he owns seven pairs.

"Isn't William Shatner a pair of green socks?" is a good troll, but ONLY if
it works, and generates one of the four desired responses:

LEVEL 1 TROLLAGE (GULLIBOZO, 100 points): "He is? Oh no! Now I'd better
tell everyone else I know who used to like him!!!" Believes everything he
or she reads in actual print, which includes Usenet.

LEVEL 2 TROLLAGE (CYCLOPEDANT, 10 points): "No he isn't. I know because he
was on Star Trek last night and spent six hours enlarging every frame on my
computer to look for green socks and you're wrong, you must be stupid or
something!" Lacks a bullsh_t detector.

LEVEL 3 TROLLAGE (IMPEDANT, 3.14159 points): "I know this must be an
attempt to troll me, but I'll answer it anyway: No, he isn't. He is a human
being." Bullsh_t detector malfunctioning, allowing pedantal lobe to
override.

LEVEL 4 TROLLAGE (OTHER, 1/2 point): "I don't know." Doesn't know but seems
too interested for own good.

The desired response to an attempt at trolling is *not* a flame. Flame-bait
is not trolling, and trolling is not flame-bait, although it sometimes
generates flames from those whose bullsh_t detector is connected directly
to the bullsh_t generator. Flames generated by attempts to troll people do
not affect your score.

I should mention also the concept of a META-TROLL, which consists of
posting a COMPLETELY ACCURATE, TRUE, SANE statement and having trollage
ensue.

(true statement) "Nichelle Nichols on 'Star Trek' was dating the producer,
Gene Roddenberry!"
(level 2 response) "No, that was Majel Barrett!"
(explanation, not promulgated) Gene Roddenberry really was dating Nichelle
"Lt. Uhura" Nichols *and* Majel "Nurse Chapel" Barrett at the same time.

Meta-trolls generate BONUS POINTS, doubling your score.

There's also the COUNTER-TROLL, which is the concept of parrying a troll
with another troll, often done by people whose bullsh_t detector is
connected to the trollerizer:

(obvious troll) "Major Barrett wrote every episode of 'Star Trek' with his
wife, Jean Roddenberry."
(troll detected and parried) "Actually, you're thinking of 'Deep Babylon
Nine', starring George Lucas's pet rabbit Binky."

If the counter-troll generates trollage, the counter-troller receives
double points, and they are deducted from YOUR score, you LOSER!

The first person on the Internet to receive 10,000,000 points will be
declared the winner and will receive "hitsies".

Also you must take a drink whenever someone mentions Star Trek, ever.


                                   -- K.
                                   I invented trolling the year
                                   after I invented the smilie.
                                   Also I didn't say if he _gets_ hitsies
                                   or _GETS_ hitsies.
[/color]
```


Hong "on -1,000,000 points" Ooi


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 23, 2003)

As always, I think Hung is right on the money!


----------



## DDK (Jan 23, 2003)

*Re: Re: Can I hijack my own thread?*



			
				Henry said:
			
		

> *Hear me out a second here. You've stated that you tend to be a "little impulsive" when you post topics, and make assertions you can't back up.*



Eh, I've only made two assertions that I recall that I can't back up. Finding the pirate website and knowing publishing industry professionals/ex-professionals that have more XP than Gary "I invented roleplaying" Gygax.

The former was a mistake and, IMO, not a very big one. The latter... eh, what do I care if you believe me or not? I'm not about to ruin a friendship to prove it and it's not like whether you believe it or not has any bearing on my day-to-day life.

Aside from that, I haven't made any assertions I can't back up. I'm just clarifying this because the way it was phrased made it sound like I do it all the time as a regular habit.


----------



## Inez Hull (Jan 23, 2003)

Crothian said:
			
		

> *You also have to realize many people with call people trolls when a post is slightly on the trollish side.  People really seem to jump up and make claims way to fast.
> *




I've seen plenty of examples of this sort of thing on the net. Often people jump on a post and label it a troll simply because they disagree with it. Putting across opinions which are on sensitive issues are always potential flamebait, no matter how carefully and respectfully you make your case, simply because the issue itself will stir up emotion. There's nothing more annoying than trying to make a reasoned point on an issue only to have it dismissed as a troll simply because people don't wish to acknowledge that you could *seriously* hold that opinion.

Fourecks, if you haven't intended to cause a fight, just say so and get on with things.


----------



## tleilaxu (Jan 23, 2003)

i'd love to see the posts that got you accused of being a troll. 

i tried to start a troll of the year award but -some- people here complained and my thread got closed.


----------



## Horacio (Jan 23, 2003)

tleilaxu said:
			
		

> *i'd love to see the posts that got you accused of being a troll.
> 
> i tried to start a troll of the year award but -some- people here complained and my thread got closed. *




I was one of those people... and take no offense, but I'd do it again, for the same reasons...


----------



## Bagpuss (Jan 23, 2003)

Yeah Horacio is right (for a change), if you going to give an award to trolls it should at least be done on a monthly or even weekly basis.


----------



## tleilaxu (Jan 23, 2003)

thats because you have nothing better to do then mess with other people's threads


----------



## Horacio (Jan 23, 2003)

tleilaxu said:
			
		

> *thats because you have nothing better to do then mess with other people's threads *




Exactly. My only purpose in this life is messing with your threads. I'm your nemesis, you know. Whenever you post I'm there, watching you, trying to mess with your thread. Fear me, tleilaxu, because whenever you post you will feel my shadow lurking, waiting to mess with your threads...


----------



## Mortaneus (Jan 23, 2003)

tleilaxu said:
			
		

> *thats because you have nothing better to do then mess with other people's threads *




I thought we were discussing trolls, not flame-bait.


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 23, 2003)

tleilaxu said:
			
		

> *thats because you have nothing better to do then mess with other people's threads *




You had been gently told by several moderators that it was a bad idea, and yet you persisted. It was, if I remember correctly, a remarkable example of failing to take a hint!  So don't blame others for that thread closing, please.


----------



## tleilaxu (Jan 23, 2003)

_ response cut and emailed to PC_


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 23, 2003)

tleilaxu said:
			
		

> *
> 
> response cut and emailed to PC *




Thanks.  

I've edited my statement, though; sloppy phrasing on my part led to a misleading, extremely snotty comment that I didn't intend. My apologies for that.


----------



## DDK (Jan 23, 2003)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *I've edited my statement, though; sloppy phrasing on my part led to a misleading, extremely snotty comment that I didn't intend. My apologies for that. *



Damn, I missed it. This is what I get for sleeping...


----------



## HellHound (Jan 24, 2003)

As the guilty party in this equation, I'd like to say that my statement about Trolling was ENTIRELY based on the Piracy thread.


----------



## jdavis (Jan 24, 2003)

The piracy thread was very interesting but it had trouble written on it from the get go. Finding out it was started by a lie takes away from alot of the good from it (two wrongs never make a right). When you post something that is going to get heated up quick then you have to be real careful. 

Piracy has two sides that always say the same thing with the same reason and they always get heated  replies by people who have strong opinions. You should of known what was going to be said when you started the tread it is basically the same thing that is always said about piracy. When you make a statement to the fact that you just lied in order to get a heated discussion going, then it does smack of a troll. You should of known what was going to be said and how it would turn out when you started, it just got a bunch of people hot under the collar and stepped on a bunch of toes just to get the same answers that are always given. You might not of been a troll but starting that thread wasn't a good move even if you had been telling the truth.

Thinking before you post is always real important, I find myself going back and editing a lot of my post in order to make sure I don't step on any toes. I love a good discussion, even a heated one, but I don't care for fighting. Never post anything that will piss somebody off, get a good discussion going yes but not something that would get people angry (like a thread on piracy), that will always go bad. I now feel sorry that I ever read that thread more-less posted in it.


----------



## Sixchan (Jan 24, 2003)

Personally, I don't think you're a troll.  But after so long on boards that have the oh-so-nice mix of European Teen Communists and American Religious Right-wingers on a board where every second thread is political, and the others are all on religion, I've got a _very_ strict definition of 'troll'.

Someone posting "3e sucks" isn't a troll IMO.  For me, Trolls start at "America deserved 9/11" or "All Israelis/Palestinians are really cool guys" and work upwards.

But I guess here on a board without such discussions (respite! ) trolling starts lower.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 26, 2003)

Sixchan said:
			
		

> *But I guess here on a board without such discussions (respite! ) trolling starts lower. *




I think that, technically, what you mention aren't "trolls".  They're more like "flamebait".  Trolls look for the gullible.  Flaimbait looks to generate hostility.


----------



## Sixchan (Jan 26, 2003)

Where I come from, Trolls and Flamebait are very similar things.  Trolls are just a worse version.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jan 27, 2003)

If anything proves how dumb Trolls are its the fact they encourage flames, from which they can't regerate. 

Its like a Rakshasa offering a two for one sale on blessed crossbow bolts.


----------



## Horacio (Jan 27, 2003)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> *If anything proves how dumb Trolls are its the fact they encourage flames, from which they can't regerate.
> 
> Its like a Rakshasa offering a two for one sale on blessed crossbow bolts. *




ROFLOL!!!!!


----------

