On the subject of Trolls

[ElastiGirl]

UHOH!!!! Someone godwinned the thread!!

[blackvelvetrpg]

The thing is however the mention of
Adolf Hitler,The Fuhrer,Admiral Canaris,Gestapo,Nazis,the Holocaust
Joseph Goebbels,Albert Speer,Himmler,Heyrich,the Final Solution
1942,Auchwitz,Dachau,Anne Frank,death camps,crematoria,Zyclon B
Westerbroek,euthanasia,gassing,Hirohito,baby eating krauts,Jews,
Poles,Russian POW's,Colditz,Rudolph Hess,Eva Braun,Nuremburg...etc

always seems to happen many posts into a thread,when you can
already reasonably expect it to have run out of steam,regardless of whether
somebody suddenly blurts out "Heil Hitler"

To test Godwins law,you'd need to blurt out the taboo words
1rst to perhaps 3rd post in a thread to see if " the word"
can kill the thread

Basically "Undead trolls" who kill a thread,rather then keep
one flaming along

I just hate trolls! They are so pathetic and waste everyone's time.

[Schwarzd354]

I have to agree with Clickme on this issue. Debate is one thing, and is publicly recognized as requiring skill. However, from what I've seen of trolls, they don't debate. They attack someone's position, then claim they themselves are beyond reproach. I have yet to see a troll take responsibility for the impact of their behavior. Trolling is not an art form. If you have proof to the contrary, please show me. But from what I have seen, trolling is childish, petty grandstanding. And that's a polite definition.

If I were to view a thread wherein two posters tossed their opinions back and forth, along with evidence and supporting arguments, I would call that debating. But I'm not seeing a lot of that. Instead I'm viewing posts that have random and uncalled for posts that blatantly confront, dismiss or outright insult someone else's point of view. Then, when that post is argued against, the poster responds by stating that they were within their right to say such things. And that their behavior is justified. Yet they give no reason for this other than that "You people need to not get upset over nothing." I go back to my starting post here, even if that first confrontational comment was meant to be facetious, that is difficult if not impossible to convey through text.

Two side notes. First, Taruby pointed out to me what lurkers are, so strike the usage of lurker from my starting post. Second, TrumanGrace, I was being polite with my description of fanfiction.net. It hasn't changed much from what you wrote.

[God]

Originally Posted by ElastiGirl

UHOH!!!! Someone godwinned the thread!!

WOW! I won yet another thread? Yay me!

[thejakeman]

Originally Posted by Schwarzd354

To me, a troll, a lurker, etc. Is someone who intentionally writes their posts in a way to get the strongest reaction. Sometimes these reactions can be for the good, but all too often people are upset and offended. If it ended there, I think most issues of trolling would be resolved.

yes, all too often people decide to feel butthurt by something they read on the internet.

Unfortunately, it doesn't end there. What always seems to follow is the thread degenerating into the troll stating that they were joking, or that they were in their right to state their opinion so everyone else is in the wrong. And on the other side people continue to react with more fervor to the troll's comments. Each side rallying supporters to their cause.

It's called escalation, and it took two sides to start it.

For the joking, I'm all for humor, but it is damn hard to convey through text. Tone of voice and body language are removed, making it harder for people to realize the humor.

only if you assume that people are being serious on the internet. you need to start from the other end, believe that they're joking until proven otherwise, not vice versa.

and again, it's YOU who didn't get the joke, others did. so you're asking people to accommodate you.

For stating your opinion, everyone absolutely has that right.

great! you agree.

But there is a time and a place and people don't always seem to acknowledge when it is appropriate to state their opinion, or to phrase it a certain way. A lot of comments could be shifted away from seeming negative if they were written with less confrontational language.

oh, no you don't. you want to put restrictions on that right, turning it from a right into a privilege. who exactly is the judge of the "right" time and "right" place? you? society?

Personally, I find it rather aggravating that this happens so often. And obviously, not just on this website. I deal with enough obnoxious people in real life, I'd like to have a chance to get away from them for a while. Instead, I see the same self-absorbed arrogance.

you get away from people in real life by going to other people on the internet. they're still people, and just as likely to piss you off. if you really want to get away from people, you go do a solitary activity, not go to a website and expect everyone to behave the exact way you want them to. that sounds like arrogance to me.

Originally Posted by elmo

take thejakeman for example he's the most well known troll i know of

you haven't heard of many trolls....

Originally Posted by Clickme

Trolling isn't an art-from, it's about a person who enjoys pissing people off, and getting yuks from it.

If someone happens to offend someone else with a joke that was ill phrased or taken out of context, all they need to do is say Sorry, I didn't mean it like that, and drop it. On the other hand, Trolls like to believe that whatever they do, is in the right, and no one can tell them otherwise... like Hitler. Yes that's a bit extreme, but it gets the point across.

well, no, you just happen to believe that everything that they do is wrong and that no one can tell you otherwise. like Hitler felt towards the Jews.

for someone who purports to be so much more open minded than his ideological opponents, you sure do have a lot of irrational bias.

[elmo]

no i have not your the only one i know so ill just call you the troll king

[Schwarzd354]

Jakeman, I don't believe that people can decide whether or not to be upset by something. Emotions are, by their nature, not an intellectual process. And yes, escalation is a two way street. But so is compromise and understanding.

I feel I must ask, why should I be required to assume that people are joking? I personally tend towards a more serious slant in my life. I'm not saying no one should make jokes on this or any forum, I've seen some rather good internet humor. I'm am not asking anyone to accommodate me, but I feel that there is an equal responsibility on the part of both the poster and the reader to make an effort to ensure the message is clear.

I felt I made it clear that I support everyone's right to freedom of speech. I place no restrictions on that right. However, there is such a thing as social awareness. If someone's mother died, it would be inappropriate to walk up to them and say "Yo mamma is so fat, her grave needs it's own zip code." Would I stop someone from doing that? No. It is their right to do so. However, I would say that it is inappropriate and a sign of poor judgment.

I will admit that there is more social interaction on the internet than in real life, if only because of they ability to converse with more people. And while I could avoid people online, or use the ignore feature. I choose not to, because I feel it would impinge upon their right to free speech. Perhaps I was not clear in what I said, so let me try again. I go online to find more people who share my point of view. I know that I will not fully escape people I wish to stop dealing with, nor do I really intend to. But one reason I began this thread was to resolve and find compromise with some of the problems I have had with interacting with people on this site.

Finally, Jakeman, your closing comment to Clickme supports my point. This is the beginning of what has occurred on countless other threads. I'm not saying your opinion or reaction is wrong, nor am I saying that about Clickme's statement. But the way you each have handled your expressing your point is almost guaranteed to provoke the other into a similar reaction. And perhaps guaranteed is the wrong word, but using any other thread as evidence, this is the textbook beginning of the degeneration of a thread.

[Very_Good_Karma]

Originally Posted by Schwarzd354

Taruby pointed out to me what lurkers are, so strike the usage of lurker from my starting post.

Actually, you could actually edit 'lurker' out of your OP yourself- and I emphasize that you really did totally misuse the term. The hundreds of silent, invisible lurkers viewing this thread are displeased.

But to actually contribute to the thread, I've recently noticed that some of the most insidious behavior by trolls isn't outright insulting people, it's saying stupid but not particularly objectionable things. Like, coming into a thread in the BE forum and asking an artist why he chose to draw a girl's breasts so big. Or making a comment in a thread about a popular anime that so-and-so's character is obviously a ripoff of a character in another anime.

The effectiveness of those sorts of comments at derailing a thread without drawing fire to the troller are amazing. People rush in to answer the stupid question or refute the absurd position- in fact, it's kind of like chum for Lurkers. But with such a stupid issue being discussed, more stupid things are bound to be said, and within five posts the thing can snowball into a forest fire. If it doesn't, all the troller has to do to keep the fire burning is blandly reiterate their question or inane assertion. And most people never seem to catch on that the troll doesn't actually give a shit about the subject, doesn't actually hold that ridiculous opinion about it, and doesn't actually care what the answer is to their absurd question.

I don't think a serious troll can be reasoned with because of this: since they make up positions they don't actually hold, they'll never willingly give you the chance to criticize their real position. Argument for them is like a game of Keep-Away.

[Schwarzd354]

Karma, I have noticed that behavior too. For me personally, it was overshadowed by the more blatant troll behavior. But you do make an excellent point. And again, much like the more objectionable behavior, whether or not it is meant facetiously is difficult to tell right away. And before too long the thread is buried in a pile of either misunderstandings, or in worse cases, fully serious insults.

Whether or not the troll supports their statement or says it just for the reaction, the result is the same. The root issue seems to be that people apparently have the desire to start these snowball effects in the first place. To be fair, as jakeman pointed out, escalation one crux of the issue. In that the troll and the responders both contribute to the death of the thread. But I feel that the entire problem could be avoided if people were slightly more conscientious in their posts.

Let me be fully clear to avoid confusion. I am not telling people not to state their opinions. I am not telling people not to make jokes, not to have fun, and not to say what they mean or want to say. What I am saying is that we all need to step up, and make an effort to be clear in our views and opinions. Regardless of what they are.

[thejakeman]

Originally Posted by Schwarzd354

Jakeman, I don't believe that people can decide whether or not to be upset by something. Emotions are, by their nature, not an intellectual process. And yes, escalation is a two way street. But so is compromise and understanding.

but is this not the entire point of being self aware and civilized? to learn to control our emotions?

I feel I must ask, why should I be required to assume that people are joking? I personally tend towards a more serious slant in my life. I'm not saying no one should make jokes on this or any forum, I've seen some rather good internet humor. I'm am not asking anyone to accommodate me, but I feel that there is an equal responsibility on the part of both the poster and the reader to make an effort to ensure the message is clear.

because it will save you hours of grief over things you can't control.
especially on the internet.

I felt I made it clear that I support everyone's right to freedom of speech. I place no restrictions on that right. However, there is such a thing as social awareness. If someone's mother died, it would be inappropriate to walk up to them and say "Yo mamma is so fat, her grave needs it's own zip code." Would I stop someone from doing that? No. It is their right to do so. However, I would say that it is inappropriate and a sign of poor judgment.

great. so it's just an opinion of yours.

I will admit that there is more social interaction on the internet than in real life, if only because of they ability to converse with more people. And while I could avoid people online, or use the ignore feature. I choose not to, because I feel it would impinge upon their right to free speech. Perhaps I was not clear in what I said, so let me try again. I go online to find more people who share my point of view. I know that I will not fully escape people I wish to stop dealing with, nor do I really intend to. But one reason I began this thread was to resolve and find compromise with some of the problems I have had with interacting with people on this site.

really? your first post here just looked like your opinion on trolls. the first post of yours that i read had you viciously attacking another poster for a fairly obvious joke. the joke wasn't directed at you, so i would say that you made that an issue. no one is starting fights with you.

Finally, Jakeman, your closing comment to Clickme supports my point. This is the beginning of what has occurred on countless other threads. I'm not saying your opinion or reaction is wrong, nor am I saying that about Clickme's statement. But the way you each have handled your expressing your point is almost guaranteed to provoke the other into a similar reaction. And perhaps guaranteed is the wrong word, but using any other thread as evidence, this is the textbook beginning of the degeneration of a thread.

hey, if he chooses to get annoyed at me, that's his choice. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy here. i don't pretend to be anything other than what i am, it is other people who choose to label me. i have never called myself an intellectual, or a troll, or so on, it is only others who foist these labels upon me. clickme has a very well defined self-image that he reiterates about once a week as a "nice guy" who is always courteous and will always be your friend, unless you try to hurt his friends, which is when he'll raise an arm in protest. also, he may always be friends with chicks, but never get reciprocation. taruby wrote a rather good post concerning the negative effects of acting (or believing you act) this way. clickme balked at this, since the entire point of being a "nice guy" is to avoid having any negative effects on the world around you, and refused to believe it even while he displayed a bunch of those behaviors. so me and click go way back. i'm trying to prod him into a more assertive sort of person and he rebuffs the idea as somehow being detrimental to the world around him. one of these days i'll get him to realize that HE is the most important person in HIS life, not all of the people he grovels obsequiously to.

[Schwarzd354]

Jakeman, I feel that your responses to what I have said are proving my point. I feel that you are not acknowledging what I have said. Looking at your post above, I see two examples. I clarified my stance on free speech and social awareness, and you disregarded it in a way I personally found rather rude. After first seeing that you felt I was placing restrictions on the right to free speech, I made an effort to clarify myself. Yet I feel you have disregarded if not completely ignored what I have said.

Secondly, your comments in regards to Clickme. I wrote earlier that emotions are not something we can control intellectually. Not in my opinion or experience at least. You make a valid point in that self-awareness allows us to control how we display these emotions, but don't you agree that it no amount of self-awareness can stop an emotional reaction from occurring? My point here being that I feel you have not acknowledged what I have said about emotions. You say that Clickme chooses to be annoyed with you? I'm sorry but I don't feel that emotions are so voluntary.

For what else you've said here, let me address that. Again, maybe interpreting posts as humor first will "Save me hours of grief". But why is the onus on me? Or on any reader? During a face-to-face conversation, is it only the listener's responsibility to interpret the speaker? I don't believe so. And while I have previously stated that tone of voice and body language are lost in text conversations, I feel that the responsibility to fully understand is up to both the listener and the speaker.

This leads into what you said about my first post you saw on this site. If I'm thinking of the same thread then it is the Disposable Army thread http://www.process-productions.com/f...ad.php?t=12914 is that correct? If so, at the time, I was not aware that the poster (Herr Onymous-Bosch) was joking. Because I couldn't tell that was his intent, and as I've said, I tend to take things seriously first and foremost. Once I knew that he was joking, I retracted my post.

Finally, on a personal note. I again state that I feel you, Jakeman, are disregarding what I have said. And I feel that your responses are unfair because of that. It is not my intent to get into a fight with anyone here. But I feel that your manner of ignoring what I have said, as well as the way you phrase your responses to be confrontational.

That's all I have to say in response to your above post. I'm not going to comment on the history between Clickme and yourself because I do not have enough information to, in my opinion, have a valid stance on the issue.