Perhaps trolls are no longer relevant. In the past, what ' re under the bridge.
Good trolls or Bad trolls
Sort:
Everyone is a troll to Professor Stuffybottom.
I think its one of the more interesting, and diverse forums I am a member of put it that way.
Its a testament to the broad appeal of the game.
In terms of trolls though, its not toooo bad, in my opinion.
DaveOakRidges wrote:
Perhaps trolls are no longer relevant. In the past,
what ' re under the bridge.
So what your saying is that all this talk about trolls
Is pretty much just talk. I agree, I think, in the classicle
Sense of the word, there arnt too many people out
here who are down right mean out here. There might
be people who exibit some of the tendencies(trollish behavior) of trolls( annoying,bothersome ), but there just
Isnt all the meaness out here that some people say
there is. I totally agree.
Professor stuffybottem?
Well, I'm not sure 'nicer' is the correct term but there are definitely more 'subtle' trolls. For example, the good/subtle/clever/lifeless trolls have several accounts, each with a different personality and backstory, and they interact with themselves to incite unbridled discussions (which ideally would end up as 'Hot Topics').
They also practice what is known as 'feeding the troll', which in their case would be 'feeding themselves'
It is possible that I am in fact the original poster of this thread. Nobody knows, except him (me?). Stay tuned for my other accounts.
Definitely there's paranoia and oversensitivity about the topic on this site. I had a long email exchange with Erik, the owner/founder, and he agreed that the policies have been too aggressive.
As I understand it, mods will no longer lock threads, will only block or ban in cases of true spam (i.e., commercial advertising) and pornographic postings, etc., and will simply move threads to off-topic.
A positive change. It will also level the rhetorical playing field against those poncy self-appointed vigilantes, who've taken to pissing all over the forums as if they owned the place, in the name of "cleaning up the spam," (i.e., the insufferable members of that idiotic club, "Royal Spam Society") since they'll no longer be able to lean on kohai to back them up.
That's good news about the moderation levels. Everywhere you get 'good and bad' ... just like 'real life', if you ignore the bullies then they will just get fed up and move along. So the biggest recommendation on any forum is 'DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS'. Ignore the bad and embrace the good times.
@DarnCatz
Well the issue is that "trolling" for one person is "productive discussion" for another. There just isn't an objective fact of the matter, and it's impossible to find the lines without essentially taking sides. Look, we've suffered these problems in First Amendment law for nearly a century, and sifting genuine expression from noise-making is basically a lost cause.
I actually thought that the far worse situation was that vigilante groups sprouted up, evidently recruiting the biggest douchebags on the forums, with the putative goal of "cleaning up" spam by ganging up on people and calling on "friendly" mods to enforce their verdicts. Ironically, I personally found them to be the most trollish ones of all.
Anyway, according to Erik, the official line is now that mods are no longer empowered to take sides like that, block or ban users because of what they say, nor to lock threads and close discussions after their buddies get the last word. So much the better for the forums.
@Daniel_Pi ... the modern definition of someone who 'trolls' is someone who trolls to purposely sow bigotry, racism, misogyny, hatred or just encourage arguments between others. They are often emotionally-immature users who just thrive in an environment such as this where they are allowed to make public comments and get attention for it.
All sites have them. I think this site however, has enough common sense and now the autonomy to deal with it through discussion and debate. And long may it be so...
What the mods did (and I take your word for this as I haven't witnessed it) is something different, I think as you put it, they got empowered and simply let the power go to their heads.
I saw a programme the other day on why people fell in love on line, with someone they had never met. It's because you can be who you aren't on here... people can be very brave on a keyboard and it empowers them. 'Keyboard warriors' in effect.
Not everyone is happy and successful in their home life and I think sometimes forums and the internet are people's 'other personality that they want to be' coming through.
This all sounds very deep, but I am fascinated in the human phyche.
@DarnCatz
Is a troll necessarily sowing bigotry, racism, misogyny, or hatred? My thinking was that a "troll" was someone who posts provocatively to illicit angry responses for their amusement. I mean, it seems to me, for example, that someone posting anti-racist comments on a white supremacy forum would be a troll...
Daniel_Pi wrote:
@DarnCatz
Is a troll necessarily sowing bigotry, racism, misogyny, or hatred? My thinking was that a "troll" was someone who posts provocatively to illicit angry responses for their amusement. I mean, it seems to me, for example, that someone posting anti-racist comments on a white supremacy forum would be a troll...
I for one would not think twice about attacking anyone making a racist remark, no matter who made it.
In order for a troll to get a 'positive' reaction, he would need to provoke within a more controversially-aware subject to get the benefit he/she was after. Someone merely expressing their opinion, for example on whether the Gunners are better than the Spurs isn't going to cause too much furore, unless you're a Spurs fan....
I don't think you get my point. If you went to the online forum at KKK.org or neonazi.net or whatever (I dunno if such places actually have forums), and you started posting messages trying to convince them that racism was bad, or telling them about your interracial marriage, then wouldn't you be the troll? Since you'd be the one posting the provocative comments? My point is the context matters. I'd probably be inclined to agree that in most ordinary contexts, expressions of racism are likely to be (but are not necessarily in all cases) trolling. But in the example I gave, the exact opposite would seem to be the case. It would be the anti-racist who'd be the troll on, e.g., a neo-nazi forum.
Daniel_Pi wrote:
Definitely there's paranoia and oversensitivity about the topic on this site. I had a long email exchange with Erik, the owner/founder, and he agreed that the policies have been too aggressive.
As I understand it, mods will no longer lock threads, will only block or ban in cases of true spam (i.e., commercial advertising) and pornographic postings, etc., and will simply move threads to off-topic.
A positive change. It will also level the rhetorical playing field against those poncy self-appointed vigilantes, who've taken to pissing all over the forums as if they owned the place, in the name of "cleaning up the spam," (i.e., the insufferable members of that idiotic club, "Royal Spam Society") since they'll no longer be able to lean on kohai to back them up.
I dont think the policies were too aggressive. I guess some people just got trigger happy.
I'm a new mod here, and have worked with other sites in the past. The forums here are really nice and realtively trouble free in comparison.
Apart from spam, and the occasional swear word, their hasnt really been much that has made me go... 
Daniel_pi I get your point, I misunderstood the 'white supremacy' thing. Yeah, you're right that's how it would be perceived to the neo-nazi's I guess but I think what I'm trying to say is that a troll just enjoys a reaction for reaction's sake. Someone trolling a neo-nazi site should get a medal (and I'm not referring to the Iron Cross).
@ Daniel Pi
Well, seems like your pretty well versed in freedom of speech issues, I just have a rudimentary knowledge of it
especially in the States, but what I do know of it, if left
unchecked, govts. will sometimes overreach in squashing
our freedom of speech rights, for instance during WW 1
right here in the state I live in some people were given 20
year sentences under I believe the espionage act, not the
sedition act, for speaking out against the war.Eventually
Holmes, Brandeis, Charles Hughs, esp. adjudicated the
correct understanding of our 1st. amendment rights.
Churchill said that speech even violent speech( which he
Caught some flak for) had to be protected.
@Bill Hicks
Yeah, from what I've observed, I agree that the forums here are relatively trouble free. That's sort of my point. Most of the "problem" seems to be coming from the arbitrary persecution of "trolls," who by my lights don't seem to be so trollish. And yet enough people in certain social circles seem to have talked themselves into believing that the site is surrounded by hordes of Visigoths and Huns, itching to storm the castle walls.
How many times have you seen a member of the RSS lamenting about how the "trolling" is getting worse, and how the mods should ban and block more and more people? Going through past posts, how many times has "DrSpudnik" declared that a thread has been overrun by trolls, declaring that it should be locked, with Kohai promptly doing precisely that? And when criticized, Kohai effusively admits that she's "made mistakes," and then goes and does it again. Having an official directive from the top for mods to ease up is a much needed change.
And what's this about swearing? Are you telling me that swearing is not allowed? Seriously? I honestly did not know that. Well, fuck.
baruchyadid wrote:
Well, I'm not sure 'nicer' is the correct term but there are definitely more 'subtle' trolls. For example, the good/subtle/clever/lifeless trolls have several accounts, each with a different personality and backstory, and they interact with themselves to incite unbridled discussions (which ideally would end up as 'Hot Topics').
They also practice what is known as 'feeding the troll', which in their case would be 'feeding themselves'
It is possible that I am in fact the original poster of this thread. Nobody knows, except him (me?). Stay tuned for my other accounts.
.... do people really go that far? That is quite sad for the individual. I might take pity on the next troll now and ask them which Eric I'm talking to. But surely the site admin can clearly see accounts with the same IP addresses. This can be stopped with a mod saying 'why are you talking to yourself again Eric'? Would be an epic use of mod power!!
Noticed there sure are a lot of posts out here about
trolls, how their taking over, and what to do about
them. My only question is this really true, or is there
just a lot of hype about it now (maybe its a full moon).
Anyway,what exactly is a troll. Doesnt the mythological definition suggest a troll is a pretty vicious ogre, who's always looking for trouble or
can their be a nicer version of that creature, who's
maybe just looking for some fun out here? Somebody
help me out on a workable definition here!