Where is the line drawn on trolling?

[Ouija]

The thing that bugs me most about the term "trolling" is the amount of people who chuck it in as an accusation to somebody who has a viewpoint different from theirs. I find that more annoying than the "genuine" trolls.

[prettygood]

I'd define trolling as taking a viewpoint that you don't yourself believe in to generate controversy. The milder form is when a poster exaggerates their own view to the point where they themselves know that it's no longer their opinion, but also that it will antagonise people. The stronger form is when a user creates an entirely new persona in order to antagonise people.

 

Crude trolls are tacky because it's a base and predictable tactic that can easily be spotted. I can respect a subtle troll, however. Trolls have been around as long as the internet has and so net users are very wise to them. It's therefore almost an art form to create a persona that is able to antagonise people or generate a reaction, without people realising that the persona is fake.

 

For example, I'm a huge fan of slimsid's work. The true writer has created a "positive troll" who doesn't antagonise people but uses an entirely fictitious persona to entice responses. He's so effective that many SF users seem to believe that slimsid is a real person. Hats off to him.

[Treatment]

Trolling can be inerpreted as anything from making insulting and off topic posts on a thread, starting a thread to deliberately upset people- there are dozens of different interpretations and only a few can be definately called trolling but everyone has a different interpretation of it.

 

I thought that it was purely poo stirring ?

[Grandad.Malky]

Trolling is also a term that can be used to stop a heated debate in its tracks, just call the other person a troll and that’s the end of it:huh:, so next time you are on the back foot you know what to do.

 

Edit

 

Dam….. Nongrata beat me to it

[shoeshine]

As I see it, a few members of this Forum have spent endless hours recently using "hue and cry" tactics (against some posters) operating at full blast .... on occasions a tactic mistakenly used (I believe) against innocent "newbies".

 

In July of this year, one ex-pat Sheffielder came under close examination when a poster posed a question to Tony prior to his leaving as Admin as to whether "Mr. X" (I shall call him) really was domiciled and posting from the USA.

 

He was, of course resident in the US, as Tony confirmed.

 

"Mr X" made two major errors on this Forum ......

 

As a regular reader of his posts, I'd say his first major error was to visit the Thread about "Private Education" .... which brought to the Forum the fact the said "Mr.X" had become a successful businessman over there, and owned several businesses and properties in the US.

 

"Mr X" saw no reason why Private Education per se should be abolished. And in my view, he was quite right too.

 

How the few "Left-of-Left" Lefties on SF howled.

 

His second major error was a making a particular post on the St. Luke's v Graves Park Thread ....... which led, if I'm guessing correctly in a Life Ban from this Forum.

 

As for the "persona non-gratia" ex-Members ...... whatever has transpired in the past on SF ...... they should have the opportunity to rejoin the Forum legitimately and prove themselves worthy of such an amnesty ..... if they can't or won't do that ...... then place the ultimate sanction of a long-term ban.

 

Even murderers rarely get "life" in this day and age ....... and the law was changed in 1966 to end the Death Sentence for capital crimes, FGS.

[Annoni_mouse]

As I see it, a few members of this Forum have spent endless hours recently using "hue and cry" tactics (against some posters) operating at full blast .... on occasions a tactic mistakenly used (I believe) against innocent "newbies".

 

In July of this year, one ex-pat Sheffielder came under close examination when a poster posed a question to Tony prior to his leaving as Admin as to whether "Mr. X" (I shall call him) really was domiciled and posting from the USA.

 

He was, of course resident in the US, as Tony confirmed.

 

"Mr X" made two major errors on this Forum ......

 

As a regular reader of his posts, I'd say his first major error was to visit the Thread about "Private Education" .... which brought to the Forum the fact the said "Mr.X" had become a successful businessman over there, and owned several businesses and properties in the US.

 

"Mr X" saw no reason why Private Education per se should be abolished. And in my view, he was quite right too.

 

How the few "Left-of-Left" Lefties on SF howled.

 

His second major error was a making a particular post on the St. Luke's v Graves Park Thread ....... which led, if I'm guessing correctly in a Life Ban from this Forum.

 

As for the "persona non-gratia" ex-Members ...... whatever has transpired in the past on SF ...... they should have the opportunity to rejoin the Forum legitimately and prove themselves worthy of such an amnesty ..... if they can't or won't do that ...... then place the ultimate sanction of a long-term ban.

 

Even murderers rarely get "life" in this day and age ....... and the law was changed in 1966 to end the Death Sentence for capital crimes, FGS.

 

Couldnt agree more. There are many who get away with far worse than certain members who are serving life bans for their past indiscretions.

[Wildcat]

I'd define trolling as taking a viewpoint that you don't yourself believe in to generate controversy. The milder form is when a poster exaggerates their own view to the point where they themselves know that it's no longer their opinion, but also that it will antagonise people. The stronger form is when a user creates an entirely new persona in order to antagonise people.

 

Crude trolls are tacky because it's a base and predictable tactic that can easily be spotted. I can respect a subtle troll, however. Trolls have been around as long as the internet has and so net users are very wise to them. It's therefore almost an art form to create a persona that is able to antagonise people or generate a reaction, without people realising that the persona is fake.

 

For example, I'm a huge fan of slimsid's work. The true writer has created a "positive troll" who doesn't antagonise people but uses an entirely fictitious persona to entice responses. He's so effective that many SF users seem to believe that slimsid is a real person. Hats off to him.

 

In other words people that play devil's advocate are trolls, which I normally announce when I am doing it to avoid confusion.

 

But sometimes I will post a deliberately opposite view to my own in agreement intended to expose the consequences of what was said because the irony seems to be the best way on the occassion to respond. It could be a matter of perception and what I see as irony could be interpretted as trolling, I suppose. To be honest Trolling doesn't bother me that much.

 

What does bother me is the offensive views some people come out with.

[RJRB]

Just resurrecting this old thread having watched Richard Bacons programme last night.

There were some really awful instances of posts on Facebook RIP sites etc calculated to further upset grieving families,or aimed at hurting individuals by bullying or threatening.

This is a world apart from the "devils advocate" type posts and must be stopped by the hosts and government.

There are some sick people out there.