Internet trolls: What to do about the scourge of the Web?

[pErvinalia]

The reason you can skirt rules is because it's too much bother making and enforcing rules complex and/or subjective enough to deal with trolling consistently.

Yep. Ratz is too laid back to be able to effectively deal with Seth (even if it wanted to; Personally, I don't care that it doesn't). But when a comprehensive and strictly enforced rule set is in place, like it was at RDF and Ratskep, Seth can't last.

[Audley Strange]

So it does become a troll is someone who says something that someone gets upset at.

Once again, I think you are expanding the definition of troll beyond usefulness. Yes, I agree that all of the following have said something that someone gets upset at: the person who pestered that boxer, our own Chuck Jones, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King. The problem I have is to equate the former two with the latter on the grounds that they said something that someone gets upset at. Your dilution of the meaning of troll renders the term somewhat useless.

No Hermit. I think the public is expanding the term beyond all usefulness. I stated clearly that to me trolls were provocateurs. It's only your belief that somehow what the latter two were doing mattered that gives that provocative behaviour value makes them heros rather than trolls. However let's be honest someone thought King enough of a troll to off the poor sod. Sort of like Mr Punchy faces reaction to the ignoble hootings of a disgruntled fan.

To me Swift's "A Modest Proposal" is trolling, a fine piece of trolling. But, no apparently it's not that, there's no art to it, no motivation besides shits n giggles. Apparently it's just mean horrible people saying things we don't like. Not my definition, I've been arguing against that since the thread started. However that seems to be the consensus. Look at the posts on this thread. Bad people say things we don't like and it's good when we hurt and punish them for their unorthodox words.

You know a bit like people did when black people spoke up for their civil rights.

And of course it takes two to troll.

[Hermit]

So it does become a troll is someone who says something that someone gets upset at.

Once again, I think you are expanding the definition of troll beyond usefulness. Yes, I agree that all of the following have said something that someone gets upset at: the person who pestered that boxer, our own Chuck Jones, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King. The problem I have is to equate the former two with the latter on the grounds that they said something that someone gets upset at. Your dilution of the meaning of troll renders the term somewhat useless.

No Hermit. I think the public is expanding the term beyond all usefulness.

I am part of the public. Am I in the minority for not expanding the definition of troll beyond usefulness? Anyway, that is a very novel approach coming from you. So far you have argued as though it was you personally who subscribed to this particularly expanded interpretation rather than reporting on what you perceive the public at large to think. Is this sudden and belated tacking manoeuvre an attempt to avoid having to admit that you are once more teetering on the edge of coherence? Or even tipping beyond it?

[Seth]

Seth:

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

You're cute when you're so mad.

I'm not mad. What ever gave you the impression I was mad?

The only time I've ever been mad online are the two times someone has tried to "out" me by allegedly revealing private information to harass me.

Otherwise I don't have enough emotion invested in this sort of thing to get mad about anything. I do get frustrated with the obtuseness of some people, but that's part of dealing with the proletarian hoi-polloi.

[Seth]

So... you're not a troll, but you call yourself a troll because you've been called a troll, because of your trolling method?

Simplistic, but close. Your error is in characterizing my "method" as being for the purpose of "trolling", whatever that it.

It's not. My method has been created and honed over two decades of writing online for the purposes of education and entertainment, though not necessarily of the useful idiot I'm debating with.

[Audley Strange]

So it does become a troll is someone who says something that someone gets upset at.

Once again, I think you are expanding the definition of troll beyond usefulness. Yes, I agree that all of the following have said something that someone gets upset at: the person who pestered that boxer, our own Chuck Jones, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King. The problem I have is to equate the former two with the latter on the grounds that they said something that someone gets upset at. Your dilution of the meaning of troll renders the term somewhat useless.

No Hermit. I think the public is expanding the term beyond all usefulness.

I am part of the public. Am I in the minority for not expanding the definition of troll beyond usefulness? Anyway, that is a very novel approach coming from you. So far you have argued as though it was you personally who subscribed to this particularly expanded interpretation rather than reporting on what you perceive the public at large to think. Is this sudden and belated tacking manoeuvre an attempt to avoid having to admit that you are once more teetering on the edge of coherence? Or even tipping beyond it?

Well perhaps though I've been consistent coherent and answered your question. I considered it more likely be your usual tiresomely obvious tactic of looking for something to wilfully misunderstand and then nitpick, I guess it's hard to tell eh?

[Hermit]

So it does become a troll is someone who says something that someone gets upset at.

Once again, I think you are expanding the definition of troll beyond usefulness. Yes, I agree that all of the following have said something that someone gets upset at: the person who pestered that boxer, our own Chuck Jones, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King. The problem I have is to equate the former two with the latter on the grounds that they said something that someone gets upset at. Your dilution of the meaning of troll renders the term somewhat useless.

No Hermit. I think the public is expanding the term beyond all usefulness.

I am part of the public. Am I in the minority for not expanding the definition of troll beyond usefulness? Anyway, that is a very novel approach coming from you. So far you have argued as though it was you personally who subscribed to this particularly expanded interpretation rather than reporting on what you perceive the public at large to think. Is this sudden and belated tacking manoeuvre an attempt to avoid having to admit that you are once more teetering on the edge of coherence? Or even tipping beyond it?

Well perhaps though I've been consistent coherent and answered your question. I considered it more likely be your usual tiresomely obvious tactic of looking for something to wilfully misunderstand and then nitpick, I guess it's hard to tell eh?

Pointing out your rather extreme change of course is not nitpicking. You have been arguing that you think that basically anyone who is provocative and/or says something that upsets others is a troll in all but your next to last posts. All of a sudden you are backtracking by saying, well, that's what the public thinks. Not only is that inconsistency teetering on the edge of incoherency, but you don't even attempt to back the public's alleged opinion on the matter up with one iota of evidence. I'll concede that you are right and I am wrong if you furnish survey results which indicate that, say, Martin Luther King (or Ann Coulter, if you prefer) is popularly regarded as a troll, but even then the fact remains that your (or the public's) definition of "troll" is so expansive as to render it useless as a concept.

[Daedalus]

So... you're not a troll, but you call yourself a troll because you've been called a troll, because of your trolling method?

Simplistic, but close. Your error is in characterizing my "method" as being for the purpose of "trolling", whatever that it.

It's not. My method has been created and honed over two decades of writing online for the purposes of education and entertainment, though not necessarily of the useful idiot I'm debating with.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

He could bottle and sell arrogant, couldn't he?

[Daedalus]

He could bottle and sell arrogant, couldn't he?

Diluted with a heavy dose of delusional, yep.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

He could bottle and sell arrogant, couldn't he?

Diluted with a heavy dose of delusional, yep.

"This product is highly adulterated."

[Robert_S]

Lemme get this straight.
If there is no such thing as trolling and Rosa Parks was a troll..
Does that mean there any never such person as Rosa Parks?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Get over the word troll. It's "just plain asshole".

[Seth]

He could bottle and sell arrogant, couldn't he?

I wish. Unfortunately there's little market for it, it's been saturated for decades.

[Seth]

He could bottle and sell arrogant, couldn't he?

Diluted with a heavy dose of delusional, yep.

Sadly, that too is available here in pure-quill form from nearly everyone else here.

Ah well, I work with what the Good Lord sends me....