Nominations for Chess.com Troll of the Month - Oct. 2013

Showing off that he is not knowledgeable? He has stated that his chess skill stems from watching all of the Backyard Professor's videos. The only surprise is that he has not stepped forward to defend his kinsman in arrogant self-righteous ignorance. Rather, he started the thread: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/senator-ted-cruz?ncc=3#first_new_comment

Hey, I'll second the nomination for her (Yekatrinas) to remain here.

Have her stay, women are rarely trolls!

Yeah, let the community decide whether she is a troll or not.

You see, hicetnunc is not a troll too, he is one of the most respected person I've seen on the forum, you see him fighting to have his name remove ? No. He probably see this thread as a joke so he probably enjoy it anyway and no harm done.

I think Y, C and J are not mathematician, neither are they trolls. They just involved in a debate that neither of them know exactly what they talk about. They talk about functions, mapping, scalar fields, real, complex numbers etc. Yet they don't know what they talk about, neither do we.

To be involved or got involved into a debate doesn't make somebody a troll. That's what science needs, debate. I don't defense anybody, just science.

Nomination accepted.

The intention of this contest is to let the community decide who the best trolls are. That's why I don't filter nominations, and I put every nomination that is received onto the list. However, the only exception is that if the nomineee himself/herself wishes to opt out of the contest he/she may do so. This is maily for the sake of not causing trouble with the mods, since forcing someone who does not wish to be nominated to be on the list will likely be interpreted as a personal attack, and the mods won't be happy about it.

haha you were threaten by someone , no surprise there. tracking turned off.

Please do not use the word "troll" in a derogative sense in this thread. The purpose of this contest is to recognize the contribution that trolls are making to the chess.com forums, and to remove some of the stigma surrounding the word "troll." Using the word in a negative sense and calling everybody trolls, including people who are not trolls, or at least clearly weren't trolling in the particular comment in which you claim they were trolling, definitely does not help to achieve that purpose.

It is all about attitude. You keep on fighting whereever you write. Please stop with that. Bean_Fisher gave you good feedback. But not only do you take the bait every time, you also see bait everywhere. 

You won the battle, you lost the war. Those are not the kind of things in life you should try to win. Even not, or maybe most of all not, here on chess.com.

If you consider bean_fisher a troll, then should you add links to posts. Otherwise can he not become nominated.

It is of no importance.

Some person cursed at me in a thread of mine. I did not react vehemently, I just asked him to come with some good arguments. He didn't reappear in my thread. And he would be welcome with good arguments.

If someone would call me a troll, I would accept that. Unless Irontiger is doing that, because he nominated himself and I do not consider that fair play. I think he should get off this list.

To answer your question what I would do if I was nominated for a troll after nominating someone else: I would probably laugh.

To me is it too a little unclear what a troll is, but if I understand macer75 well, then should humour be a part of it. For the good or the worse, Chiaroscuro62 and you do not display a lot of humour in your posts. To put it mildly. :-)

If I understand macer75 well, then should it be some refreshing posts in the threads. In some other thread posted Irontiger an article about the German language. It made me laugh. If that is trolling, then is Irontiger definitely a troll.

I don't think that people who annoy other people are trolls in the definition of macer75.

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally[3][4] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

Thanks Lou-for-you. Is the way macer75 is using it inline with this definition or not? I guess it is not, isn't it?

With respect to that definition were jaaas and Chiaroscuro62 clearly acting like trolls in the discussion with Yekatrinas. Ziryab is imo currently not doing that in the discussion about language use. Imo is he trying to solve the question by stating that an error within grammar is an error within grammar and should not be extended to disregard anyone beyond that matter.

You never know, but personally i give people the advantage of the doubt. Better to start from the idea that they are smart and have humor, than from the idea that they are dumb and frustrated. Loek, you are one lucky person that you can give the lady a try.. :-)

LOL, so you try to be his students. He made it clear you are not good enuf, meaning you exceed his expectation. But, maybe you are a fool trying to be his student.

I don't think this is the forum to discuss what they( math stuff) are. Well, it depends, if you think my opinion is a judgement, there is nothing I wd say.

And where did I attack you? Just by saying you are not mathematician? Are you really not? I don't think you are one.

All you do is argue about math stuff and you think that makes you one. Try to look for the meaning what it is. You know better than that. Don't degrade yourself the way you did.

Anyway, in the comment by Bean_Fischer that you quoted, I really don't see how he is trolling, either by your definition or by mine.