Hello Escapist!
I?ve noticed from my reading that you are, generally speaking, an intelligent and insightful community, so I wondered if I could have your thoughts on a short essay?
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response" ?Wikipedia
Trolling is considered either abhorrent or praiseworthy in the internet community of your choice. This practise is, by its' very nature, polarising. Individuals or communities must make a decision to embrace or reject trolls. What, then, will decide this? In my involvement in geofiction, the creation of an artificial nation online, in-world laws were enacted against trolling, among other 'vices'. Compare this to these examples [http://regretfulmorning.com/2009/07/9-famous-trolls/].
I ask three questions of the internet community at large: Should an enlightened society accept or reject trolls? Is there are pure definition of trolling? What is the correct response to trolling?
Trolling has obviously entered the vernacular, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. It is, then, the place of men and women to decide the value or worthlessness of the practise? Chief arguments for trolling include 'trolling is art' and 'harden up', while arguments against include 'they?re attention seekers' and 'be more sensitive'. The first of these arguments is based on the tenuous definition of art in our modern society. I won't argue the place of trolling in art, if it has one, because then I have to get into art, which is not my forte. The counterargument of attention-seeking behaviour is closely linked to bullying, and therefore cyber-bullying. Again, as child psychology is not my forte, I will stay away from this one too. I will focus, then, only on 'harden up' vs 'be more sensitive'. Drawing on the closest piece of real-world law I can think of, Queensland's thankfully defunct Obscenity Laws. According to the legislation, obscenities are defined by the majority of the present audience (and therefore reiteration of comments/reproductions of works show to parties who are offended is an offence by the reiterator/reproducer). This would seem a simple solution, saying you have to be offended not your friend who isn't here, but for some serious issues this may not be enough. Imagine a joke unilaterally offensive, something about the holocaust and dead babies and women's rights etc. Now imagine this was said to an IRC channel full of people who didn't find it offensive for some reason. Is the joke still offensive? Keep it in mind, but whatever your answer; is it still trolling? What?s going on there? I guess by the Wikipedia definition, there was probably no negative emotional response and therefore not trolling.
Perhaps we need a stricter definition of trolling? I put forward this,
Trolling requires
1. Intention
In much the same way murder or fraudulent misrepresentation requires intent, trolling surely requires intention to elict a negative emotional response.
2. Action
The act of posting is required. One cannot troll by omission or by a post on a different thread or forum.
3. Diversion
The troll must redirect or attempt to redirect the conversation. This can be either towards the troll, towards the subject matter or towards a new subject.
4. Negative Response/Offense
The actual creation of offense or a negative emotional response is required.
Note that meeting criteria 2 and 4 constitute cyberbullying, whereas meeting the full four constitute trolling.
For an example, and I am being egotistical here, this comment on a picture in a forum:
Thread title 'Geek Pictures'
[there is a picture featuring a joke from 'Big Bang Theory']
Me: "Are we absolutely sure that Big Bang Theory is 'geek'?
I personally haven't found many geek jokes in there at all, it's more mainstream humour."
I was then countered intelligently and respectfully by two people, to which I responded,
Me: "[clarification of my points]
I will withdraw my comment, however, because I don't want to start a flame war
"
I was then countered by two more people against my clarification (which was quite egotistical, I will admit, trying to have the last word like that), followed by three more comments of 'Don't Feed The Trolls'.
Based on my definition (hurr hurr, say the psychologists, he justifies his actions with his own rules), I would conclude that my behaviour was not 'trollish', by merit of a lack of intention, and was instead 'douchey'.
After trolling has been identified, what is the appropriate response? Classically, one would respond DFTT or similar, but is that the best way to counter? Should you counter? Is the act of countering trollish behaviour? First, we have to backtrack to the bit where we asked if trolling was positive or negative. I guess I never answered that, so you'll have to figure that one out for yourself before you continue.
It's Bad: Ignore them. A troll fails if it doesn?t redirect the conversation. It's an old adage, and very lame, but if you ignore it, it'll go away.
It's Good: Troll right on back. Surely if trolling is a good thing, just a bit of play-acting to relieve stress, it's healthy for you to play along. You could pretend to troll, you could pretend to be grieved by this, either way you're helping people blow off steam. There's nothing the internet likes better than a rant.
If you decide to counter, for whatever reason, I have to say that's trollish behaviour. I've tried to be relatively impartial and keep a somewhat informal tone here to let you form your own opinions, but I have to put my metaphorical foot down here. If you counter, particularly using DFTT, you are most certainly trolling. I refer to the chart;
Intention, Action, Diversion, Negative Emotion/Offense
DFFT covers all four. Intention and action certainly apply, and more often than not it will result in Diversion (a sort of ganging up on the troll is certainly the intention there). The only point of conversation, then, is Negative Emotion/Offense. If we assume that people troll for powertrips, to let off steam or for other self-therapeutic release regardless of harm to others, then they obviously have some emotional issues at the time. If this becomes habitual (i.e. in the case of the 9 famous trolls), there is still an underlying emotional or mental issue. One must remember, then, that trolls are people too. The accusation of trolling can offend people who don?t think themselves trolls (be they trolls or not) or create a panic/guilt trip in real trolls. DFFT, particularly when directed at someone by name, is a hurtful comment and should be used with caution. From this I must conclude that countertrolling is almost wholly trollish behaviour.
Rather than write a conclusion in the traditional sense, reiterating my points, I instead invite you to think back yourself on the one point that stood out. To be a jerk and quote scripture for my own ends:
"A man asked the Buddah, 'Buddah, is there a god?'
The Buddah replied, 'If there was a god, would that make you a better person?'"
Has this made you a better person on the internet? I'm probably going for the wrong audience here at The Escapist, you?re all pretty open minded (I thoroughly enjoyed ZombieJoe's Fetish Thread [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.266651-Do-you-have-a-fetish-Why-do-you-think-you-have-it] from both a psychological and sociological perspective, as well as giving me faith in humanity again) but I hope this helps you in some way. Forgive a troll, hug a furry, tell that guy on the forum that maybe Kirk isn't so much better than Piccard.
postword
Yes, I am aware of the irony that is available to the reader to troll. Be aware that if you do you may be psychoanalysed.
I?ve noticed from my reading that you are, generally speaking, an intelligent and insightful community, so I wondered if I could have your thoughts on a short essay?
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response" ?Wikipedia
Trolling is considered either abhorrent or praiseworthy in the internet community of your choice. This practise is, by its' very nature, polarising. Individuals or communities must make a decision to embrace or reject trolls. What, then, will decide this? In my involvement in geofiction, the creation of an artificial nation online, in-world laws were enacted against trolling, among other 'vices'. Compare this to these examples [http://regretfulmorning.com/2009/07/9-famous-trolls/].
I ask three questions of the internet community at large: Should an enlightened society accept or reject trolls? Is there are pure definition of trolling? What is the correct response to trolling?
Trolling has obviously entered the vernacular, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. It is, then, the place of men and women to decide the value or worthlessness of the practise? Chief arguments for trolling include 'trolling is art' and 'harden up', while arguments against include 'they?re attention seekers' and 'be more sensitive'. The first of these arguments is based on the tenuous definition of art in our modern society. I won't argue the place of trolling in art, if it has one, because then I have to get into art, which is not my forte. The counterargument of attention-seeking behaviour is closely linked to bullying, and therefore cyber-bullying. Again, as child psychology is not my forte, I will stay away from this one too. I will focus, then, only on 'harden up' vs 'be more sensitive'. Drawing on the closest piece of real-world law I can think of, Queensland's thankfully defunct Obscenity Laws. According to the legislation, obscenities are defined by the majority of the present audience (and therefore reiteration of comments/reproductions of works show to parties who are offended is an offence by the reiterator/reproducer). This would seem a simple solution, saying you have to be offended not your friend who isn't here, but for some serious issues this may not be enough. Imagine a joke unilaterally offensive, something about the holocaust and dead babies and women's rights etc. Now imagine this was said to an IRC channel full of people who didn't find it offensive for some reason. Is the joke still offensive? Keep it in mind, but whatever your answer; is it still trolling? What?s going on there? I guess by the Wikipedia definition, there was probably no negative emotional response and therefore not trolling.
Perhaps we need a stricter definition of trolling? I put forward this,
Trolling requires
1. Intention
In much the same way murder or fraudulent misrepresentation requires intent, trolling surely requires intention to elict a negative emotional response.
2. Action
The act of posting is required. One cannot troll by omission or by a post on a different thread or forum.
3. Diversion
The troll must redirect or attempt to redirect the conversation. This can be either towards the troll, towards the subject matter or towards a new subject.
4. Negative Response/Offense
The actual creation of offense or a negative emotional response is required.
Note that meeting criteria 2 and 4 constitute cyberbullying, whereas meeting the full four constitute trolling.
For an example, and I am being egotistical here, this comment on a picture in a forum:
Thread title 'Geek Pictures'
[there is a picture featuring a joke from 'Big Bang Theory']
Me: "Are we absolutely sure that Big Bang Theory is 'geek'?
I personally haven't found many geek jokes in there at all, it's more mainstream humour."
I was then countered intelligently and respectfully by two people, to which I responded,
Me: "[clarification of my points]
I will withdraw my comment, however, because I don't want to start a flame war
"I was then countered by two more people against my clarification (which was quite egotistical, I will admit, trying to have the last word like that), followed by three more comments of 'Don't Feed The Trolls'.
Based on my definition (hurr hurr, say the psychologists, he justifies his actions with his own rules), I would conclude that my behaviour was not 'trollish', by merit of a lack of intention, and was instead 'douchey'.
After trolling has been identified, what is the appropriate response? Classically, one would respond DFTT or similar, but is that the best way to counter? Should you counter? Is the act of countering trollish behaviour? First, we have to backtrack to the bit where we asked if trolling was positive or negative. I guess I never answered that, so you'll have to figure that one out for yourself before you continue.
It's Bad: Ignore them. A troll fails if it doesn?t redirect the conversation. It's an old adage, and very lame, but if you ignore it, it'll go away.
It's Good: Troll right on back. Surely if trolling is a good thing, just a bit of play-acting to relieve stress, it's healthy for you to play along. You could pretend to troll, you could pretend to be grieved by this, either way you're helping people blow off steam. There's nothing the internet likes better than a rant.
If you decide to counter, for whatever reason, I have to say that's trollish behaviour. I've tried to be relatively impartial and keep a somewhat informal tone here to let you form your own opinions, but I have to put my metaphorical foot down here. If you counter, particularly using DFTT, you are most certainly trolling. I refer to the chart;
Intention, Action, Diversion, Negative Emotion/Offense
DFFT covers all four. Intention and action certainly apply, and more often than not it will result in Diversion (a sort of ganging up on the troll is certainly the intention there). The only point of conversation, then, is Negative Emotion/Offense. If we assume that people troll for powertrips, to let off steam or for other self-therapeutic release regardless of harm to others, then they obviously have some emotional issues at the time. If this becomes habitual (i.e. in the case of the 9 famous trolls), there is still an underlying emotional or mental issue. One must remember, then, that trolls are people too. The accusation of trolling can offend people who don?t think themselves trolls (be they trolls or not) or create a panic/guilt trip in real trolls. DFFT, particularly when directed at someone by name, is a hurtful comment and should be used with caution. From this I must conclude that countertrolling is almost wholly trollish behaviour.
Rather than write a conclusion in the traditional sense, reiterating my points, I instead invite you to think back yourself on the one point that stood out. To be a jerk and quote scripture for my own ends:
"A man asked the Buddah, 'Buddah, is there a god?'
The Buddah replied, 'If there was a god, would that make you a better person?'"
Has this made you a better person on the internet? I'm probably going for the wrong audience here at The Escapist, you?re all pretty open minded (I thoroughly enjoyed ZombieJoe's Fetish Thread [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.266651-Do-you-have-a-fetish-Why-do-you-think-you-have-it] from both a psychological and sociological perspective, as well as giving me faith in humanity again
) but I hope this helps you in some way. Forgive a troll, hug a furry, tell that guy on the forum that maybe Kirk isn't so much better than Piccard.postword
Yes, I am aware of the irony that is available to the reader to troll. Be aware that if you do you may be psychoanalysed.
