BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'

Subject: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 30 Apr 03 - 11:43 AM

This isn't about the activity, it is about the word.

In a thread that's been gone for a while, someone responded to my post by suggesting that I was troll.

My first reaction was a bit like that of the fellow who had been tarred, feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail.
But the accusation got me thinking.

"Troll" has become a word to hide behind.
If you don't like my post, you don't simply and honestly say "I don't like what you said."
You don't make any attempt to deal with the issues I raise.
You label me "troll."

It's name calling, pure and simple. The only appropriate response is, "Am not."

Labeling a post as the efforts of a "troll" has become the e-version of the classic ad hominem argument

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Apr 03 - 11:45 AM

eh? what's the classic ad hominem argument??

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Apr 03 - 12:01 PM

Guest/Russ, I think you're missing the point. Trolling is simply making a controversial statement then sitting back and seeing what response you get. It's pretty indiscriminate- and in fact, many trolls never come back or at least never post on the subject again.

A troller in real life is a fisherman who throws hooks overboard at a certain depth hoping to catch a certain species of fish. In addition to those fish, there often is also a 'bycatch', fish they either don't want or in some cases that are illegal to fish on that day or in those waters. Those fish by law are thrown back overboard, and almost invariably die from injuries.

Just so, an internet troll doesn't know what s/he will catch.

Mind you, trolling is not necessarily injurious.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Apr 03 - 12:10 PM

Ebbie - I think Russ knows what the word means - he is musing on the fact that it has become a knee-jerk reaction for some people to call anyone they disagree with a Troll - they just shout the name & a bunch of other people jump in and start name-calling too.
Now in internet terms I think trolling implies that someone is deliberately setting out a lure to try and get people to bite the bait. To say that someone is trolling implies that you think they are cynically trying to manipulate people into a reaction & that their intentions are either mischief or malevolence.
Its quite a nasty name to throw at anyone - and it seems to happen a lot here. Along with the old "you're just a Guest so you must be a coward, a troller, and we don't want you around".
Ah well. c'est la vie.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: mexican
Date: 30 Apr 03 - 12:17 PM

I love trolls - makes this board more interesting!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: wysiwyg
Date: 30 Apr 03 - 12:34 PM

"We have nothing to fear but fear itself."

Well, trolling operates kinda like that, in that whenever a thread starts to talk about trolling, it invariably winds up being a troll thread. Not necessarily because the person who started it intended it to be that way, but because the reality is that it always degenerates into the sort of discussion that might as well have started off as intentionally trollish. It can happen when people jump in anonymously to MAKE it a troll thread (intending to do it), or it can happen when one ore more otherwise-reasonable folks just lose it, when their buttons are unexpectedly pushed.

This is why some of the folks around here sometimes label a thread or a post as a troll-- to sort of remind the veterans that responding is bound to go the route of similar past discussions. ("Oh, yeah...! I almost forgot, I decided I was gonna leave these alone.")

For whatever reason, when this has happened over and over again, it's clear in hindsight that the participants just do not yet have the capacity to sustain such a discussion over time, no matter how fine the intentions. It's just so full of hot buttons that, as Amos said in another thread, "It just leads to a box canyon."

I've often seen people characeterize messages about not playing into a trolling pattern as "Royal Edicts" not to criticize. I know a lot of active Mudcatters, but I dunno anyone who fits the tag of Mudcat Royal-- I know I sure don't-- rather, I do know a lot of folks who just choose not to add their energy, or invite others' energy, to a trip to a box canyon that only ends up making people feel more negative than they were to being with.

Sometimes people call me a Pollyanna or idealist, but the truth is, I have Inside Scoop information and experience about the power that being positive can have, far more power (which can be directed however we choose), than being negative. People like to tap into it, but seldom like to hear about it, because it challenges so much negativity that there's a backlash when it comes up.

But the truth is, any time you are able to go around a negativity instead of plowing right into it, and keep your positivity going in action, it's a win for everyone. Trolling, once you see that's what's happening, is not in that direction at all.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Apr 03 - 01:23 PM

"Troll" is a Mudcat member - who doesn't go in for trolling, so far as I can see.

"Trolling" has developed several meanings, and some of them refer to things that are OK enough.

The kind of trolling that is damaging is where people post in ways that are intended to sow dissension, without having any motive over and above doing that, not caring one way or another about the issue itself.

Avoiding any subject that might be controversial isn't such a good thing. Most things that matter have the potential to divide people. But when you care about an issue, you aren't setting out to divide, you are hoping to explain your point of view to other people, and that is very different. The kind of trolls I'm talking about just want to stir things up, not with the aim of helping get a real discussion, but trying to manoeuvre people into a fight.

And nobody ever attacks GUESTs as such - it's GUESTS who don't add a handle that get asked please would they add a handle as a gesture of courtesy to make it easier for people to distinguish on GUEST from another in a thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 30 Apr 03 - 01:50 PM

GUEST (one of them, anyway) asked:

"eh? what's the classic ad hominem argument?? "

The reply to an argument by ignoring the argument and attacking the speaker: "The guy who said that is a [communist] [homosexual] [atheist] [general bad man] [troll]", thus implying that anything he says can't be true, or shouldn't be credited. "Ad hominem" means roughly "against the man".

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: GUEST,Raedwulf
Date: 30 Apr 03 - 04:14 PM

McGrath said it just about perfectly!

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: GUEST
Date: 01 May 03 - 10:02 AM

The worst problem with the word troll being used as an epithet in this particular forum, is the continued abuse of it by the Joe Clones and Joe Offer--ie the management. We saw this happen in Hester's "LEAVING" thread, where Jeri the Joe Clone used the dreaded t word in a single word post. Which was then followed by a very nasty personal attack on Hester by Big Mick the Joe Clone.

Then they realized how really bad they looked for doing it, and decided to destroy the evidence. The thread has since been vaporiszed.

The Mudcat standard for use of the words 'troll' and 'guest' as epithets and ad hominem attacks, is one that has been set by management here. It is also regularly used by a certain small group of members, most of whom never contribute anything regarding music, to police what they perceive as 'their' boundaries of their personal Mudcat clubhouse.

The real problem here is that the management ain't too evolved, hence the widespread abuse. The management doesn't always censor the spirited debate, the expression of controversial opinions, etc. Rather, they target certain individuals they don't like, just as they did with Hester for complaining about the level of bigotry being tolerated and often de facto encouraged, in this forum. I believe the reason for this is because the management itself is pretty intolerant in just those ways.

Looking at the growth of just that sort of posting at Mudcat, along with the rapid growth of just those sorts of posters as members in recent years (which has occurred everywhere online, except in the forums where people have self-policed and fought back against bigots taking over their turf), one sees pretty clearly what sort of behavior the management chose to defend against.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 May 03 - 04:49 PM

Once again, politely: ...nobody ever attacks GUESTs as such - it's GUESTS who don't add a handle that get asked please would they add a handle as a gesture of courtesy, to make it easier for people to distinguish on GUEST from another in a thread.

Just as a friendly gesture which costs asolutely nothing in terms of anonymity?

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 May 03 - 04:57 PM

I too noticed the vapourisation of the Hester thread, and although it was teetering on the edge of nastiness at times, I disapprove of the decision to axe it.
Trolls are in the most part plonkers, and should be ignored, and I apologise to Russ on behalf of right thinking folk, for the person who because he couldn't understand the post, insulted the poster. I've been rude to a few people but at least I always used my own handle.

Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: Raedwulf
Date: 01 May 03 - 05:19 PM

As McGrath says, find a handle! In the last week, I've seen three different Guests in various BS threads who, I'm certain, are three different people. Luckily, they haven't posted in the same thread. Can you imagine the confusion if they did?

If you want a lesson in the difference it makes, take the example of "GUEST, Dreaded Guest". Originally, he set the Troll alarm bells ringing mightily. He posted highly inflammatory (& outright screwy) threads completely anonymously. But as time went on, he kept coming back & gave himself a name (he's still not a member, as far as I know, but he's got a recognizable handle). He even showed a sense of humour in his choice!

He's still coming back. Most people at MC probably regard him as a bit of a nut. Nothing wrong with that! I'm a bit of one meself, many people might say! *g* It takes all sorts to make a world. But he's given himself a name - we recognize him now, & y'know what? I think I'd notice the difference if he left - he's part of the community now. I hope he keeps hanging around (I can always use a laugh... *bg*).

Whereas, you, 10:02 Guest, you sound like the man with an axe to grind in the LEAVING thread. You sound like someone hiding behind anonymity. Give yourself a name & become part of the community. Either that or shove off and 'troll' another board. Because refusing to come out from behind anonymity makes you look very much like a troll! And no amount of anonymous posting (especially bitching) is going to gain much respect for your opinions from anyone round here...

Sorry, but that's the way it is, & if you stop to think about, I'm sure you'll see why, even if you think it's wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 May 03 - 06:01 PM

I was rather surprised to see the LEAVING thread removed. There were some aspects of it which were a bit silly, and some people came across unwontedly nasty (and a few predictably nasty), but I didn't feel it got anywhere near the stage where the safety curtain needed to be dropped.

The whole business of nameless GUESTs - it suddenly started me thinking about an episode in CS Lewis's Voyage of the Dawn Treader. They come to this island where there are these scarey invisible monsters. And then they get made visible, and it turns out they are actuallt a fairly amiable bunch of creatures, known as Dufflepuds, who had foolishly thought that being invisible was a good idea because they weren't happy with the way they looked.

Much better out of the closet.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 01 May 03 - 06:07 PM

argumentum ad phasma; argumentum ad dufflepud

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 01 May 03 - 07:35 PM

McGrath,

Even though you have never attacked GUESTs as such, your claim that "nobody ever attacks GUESTs as such" is much too strong.

According to the official records, I have been posting here as "GUEST, Russ" since 6/5/00. More than once during the last (almost) three years I have read posts attacking GUESTs as such, handle or no. There have even been entire threads devoted to discussing the desirability of making GUEST postings impossible.

I first posted as a GUEST because I could. Now I do it as a matter of principal.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 May 03 - 07:57 PM

The argument about whether it would be better if the Mudcat was a members' only forum isn't quite the same thing as hostility to GUESTs as such.

On balance I'd be against it, mostly because it would interfere with the freedom of newcomers and occasional visitors to come in asking for songs, but there's a case to be made for it.

I can quite accept that there may have been posts from people attacking GUESTS as such - it takes all kinds. But they haven't registered on my memory, and I think they are pretty untypical. More typical have been cases where particular GUESTS with handles have been accused of malicious trolling because of what they have written.

The accusation "you are hostile to all GUESTS" is, of course, made very frequently by some nameless GUESTs (or maybe by just one - who can tell the difference?), but that doesn't make it true.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 02 May 03 - 06:34 AM

I'm glad that McGrath agrees with me about the dubious removal of the Hester thread, thanks Kevin. Many threads are edited, and quite often a Joe Clone note will be inserted saying "Personal attack deleted", or words to that effect. The deletion of a complete thread without explanation is the sort of action that unnecessarily gives justification to the GUEST posters who accuse Mudcat of being dictatorial. While I don't think it's a hanging offence, I'd like to know why it was done.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: GUEST
Date: 02 May 03 - 09:29 AM

McGrath has never engaged in ad hominem attacks upon guests? Don't make me laugh. The best that can be said about McGrath is he is beginning to see the light about the idiocy surrounding guest identity issues, and is currently trying to reform himself. But he has still has his lapses.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: GUEST,Huest James
Date: 02 May 03 - 10:08 AM

I also agree that Guests, nameless or not, are often made to feel very unwelcome here. I also agree that a certain kind of censorship exists here as well. It operates by accusing people of being anonymous if they happen to disagree with the general opinion.
   There are many valid reasons for people to be Guests..they are not all "Trolls". We coul;d all do with a bit of mind broadening here.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 02 May 03 - 01:28 PM

argumentum ad McGrath; argumentum ad Harlow.
argumentum ad flatum mola

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 02 May 03 - 01:41 PM

I misspoke! I meant to say argumentum ad ventimolina!

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 02 May 03 - 01:43 PM

The windmills of your mind

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: GUEST
Date: 02 May 03 - 01:44 PM

Don't worry heric, your feigned mistake isn't the reason why you come off like a pompous, arrogant ass.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: CapriUni
Date: 02 May 03 - 01:45 PM

From Ebbie: Mind you, trolling is not necessarily injurious.

Very true. I like to think of myself as a "Joyful Troll," who deliberately posts provocative messages with the intent of getting a long lists of responses, or, occasionally, changing the direction of an ongoing discussion.

The difference between me and "Nasty Trolls," however, is that I aim to provoke outbursts of laughter.

Though I admit -- sometimes, my aim is off.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 02 May 03 - 01:50 PM

Ouch! I used to like GUESTS.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: GUEST
Date: 02 May 03 - 01:55 PM

heric, come on. You are busy cynically spouting off Latin phrases, which is something that pompous jerks do to make themselves look smarter than those who don't get it--it's an 'insider' or 'private club' sort of game.

You aren't the only one who has ever attempted to show off with Latin phrasebook knowledge. Consider my post above to be a friendly warning. Remember, we're folkies here. We don't have contempt for intelligence and knowledge, just for the self-aggrandizing abuse of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 02 May 03 - 02:01 PM

Oh, phew. I thought you actually knew me and meant it. I KNOW how stupid it is that why I'm doing it.

http://www.italatin.com/latin.html

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: GUEST
Date: 02 May 03 - 02:08 PM

New to the internet and just found the website?

How about we call a truce. I wouldn't want us to sidetrack this otherwise brilliant conversation about my choice to remain an anonymous pain in the ass.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 May 03 - 02:19 PM

EVERYONE here is anonymous, apart from the occasional eccentric like me who uses his own name. GUESTs without labels are no more or less anonymous than people using handles, either GUESTs or members. It's just that it's easier to hold a conversation if you can tell whether you are talking with one anonymous person or six.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: MMario
Date: 02 May 03 - 02:21 PM

weeeeellllllll - as anonymous as they want to be...many of us (even those who use "handles") don't hide much in the way of names, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: GUEST
Date: 02 May 03 - 02:26 PM

Could you guys explain it to me again? I don't think I've heard those arguments before.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 02 May 03 - 03:35 PM

A lot of duplication of thread 56314, initiated by Little Hawk, We are all Trolls. All trolls
Am I doing a service by pointing to a thread with additional discussion? Or am I implying ......

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: GUEST
Date: 02 May 03 - 03:38 PM

Do I sense that some natives are getting a tad restless with official policy and party lines? Is there an insurrection brewing perhaps?

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: artbrooks
Date: 02 May 03 - 04:43 PM

No

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 02 May 03 - 04:47 PM

Members of the same family often cricize one another, but in the end they are still family, and stand up for one another, particularly against strangers.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 May 03 - 05:33 PM

"Could you guys explain it to me again? I don't think I've heard those arguments before."

Now, with a Mudcat member, or a GUEST with a handle, it'd be possible to judge whether that's naivety or irony. But no name of any kind means no context.

I'd guess at irony, but maybe that's because I'm from the East side of the Atlantic, where it tends to be assumed that you're ironic in that kind of comment, if you don't explain you mean it. (And even that doesn't guarantee much, because of course the explanation might be ironic as well.)

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: GUEST
Date: 02 May 03 - 05:33 PM

And it is that happy state of affairs that keeps the murder rate up. But that is fine here too, because folkies love a good murder ballad.

Wait now, what is that sound I hear off in the distance? Is that...the sound of wagons circling?

Ah, music to the ears of many a Mudcatter, that sound. It means they can take off the kid gloves and start flaming away, because they know their reinforcements are coming.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: CapriUni
Date: 02 May 03 - 06:12 PM

Note: The following is taken from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from InfoSoft International, Inc. (All rights reserved.)

verb, intransitive
1.        To fish by trailing a line, as from a moving boat.
2.        a. To wander about; ramble. b. Slang. To patrol an area in search for someone or something.
3.        Music. To sing heartily or gaily.
4.        To roll or spin around.

Now, the Internet use of the word is usually drawn from meaning #1 (and is perhaps also related to meaning #2.b). With Mudcatters, I'd hope that we'd all fit troll in the sense of meaning #3 as well, at least every now and then. And some of the odder members of our community (including Guests) may even troll in the sense of meaning #4. ;-).

Now, speaking from personal experience, I find that Meanings #3 and #4 work well together simultaneously.

Go on! Try it! It's Fun!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: GUEST
Date: 02 May 03 - 06:25 PM

Here in the Great White North, we are currently focused on the #1 definition, getting our trolling motors running for the opener next weekend. This is not generally seen as a bad thing, unless you believe people shouldn't be allowed to go fishing on Mother's Day.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: GUEST
Date: 02 May 03 - 06:28 PM

P.S. This is a public safety announcement. Be forewarned that engaging in #4 above with a trolling motor could easily swamp the boat. We now return you to your regular trolling.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 May 03 - 09:35 PM

I'm a troll, troll-de-roll,
I'm a troll, troll-de-roll,
I'm a troll, troll-de-roll,
And I'll eat you for supper.

But the Billy Goats Gruff knew how to sort that one out...

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: Gurney
Date: 03 May 03 - 04:10 AM

Thoughts to the thread: Despite CapriUni's dictionary, for the last 50 years, trolling has meant trailing a LURE from a moving boat, to excite predatory fish to strike.
The inference of Ebbie's hooks and CapriUni's line seems to me unsporting, some inoffensive fish minding it's own bizz, when WHAM.
No, it is a hunter chasing a hunter.
Makes it one of the more obvious computer terms to understand, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 03 May 03 - 05:40 AM

Trip trap trip trap trip trap, over the rickety bridge!!
Of course I'm far too young to remember it myself ¦¬]
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: CapriUni
Date: 03 May 03 - 10:01 AM

From Gurney: Thoughts to the thread: Despite CapriUni's dictionary, for the last 50 years, trolling has meant trailing a LURE from a moving boat, to excite predatory fish to strike.

Well, the American Heritage (and most other dictionaries, I think) list the most common definition first, and trolling as hunting a hunter was listed first.

But "trolling" as a way of singing is not quite extinct, yet, even though it is seriously endangered. While not in common usage every day, it becomes common parlance once a year, at least. Or need I remind you of:

Troll the ancient Yuletide carol
Fa-la-la-la-la, la-la-la-la.

And as I said in my first post to this thread, I do consider myself to be a troll in the first sense, as well. I just don't bait my hook with anger, nor am I trolling (as in meanings 1 and 2.b) for angry lurkers. I'm trolling for Lurkers and Regulars who are ready to pounce on anything silly, joyful or thoughtful. So I need to use laughter as bait...

And I must say, I've done pretty well... After all, I caught a Guest in this very thread, who posted yesterday at 18:25 and 18:28 Mudcat time. I also seem to have caught a Gurney. ;-)

So don't knock my angling methods... Laughter fried up in the pan makes a very nice supper, and doesn't lead to as many bouts of indigestion as anger and spite.

Signed,

The Joyful Troll

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 03 May 03 - 02:23 PM

I've caught Gurnard before, both Red and Grey......Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: Mudlark
Date: 03 May 03 - 10:14 PM

CapriUni...Sychronicity is a wonderful thing. My Forgotten English calendar came up with "troll hazard" as the word of the day, meaning "...he that goeth gaping after his maister, looking to and fro tyl he have lost him. This knave goeth gasyng about lyke a foole at every toy, and then seeketh in very house, lyke a maisterles dog..."

Obviously akin to the second meaning listed and this 1565 reference is quite visual, and certainly fits in with my idea of trolling for humor.

(There is also a nifty quote from Montaigne: "Many a man as been a wonder to the world, whose wife and valet have seen nothing in him that was even remarkable. Few men have been admired by their servants." How lucky I am that i have none!)

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts about 'Troll'
From: CapriUni
Date: 04 May 03 - 01:19 AM

Mudlark --

Thanks for that quote. It is quite visual, and, well, fun.

However, there is one big difference between this "trolling hazard" and trolling for (and with) humor is that you are must more likely to find humor than just miss it.

Although we don't live in a society of knaves and masters anymore, I can still relate to the scenerio you posted above -- when I've agreed to meet up with friends at a mall or large festival without any of us being really clear on a meeting place. Of course, if we were "to sing heartily and gaily" while we search for each other, than we might succeed more often.

Oh, and as regards singing, I think I read a quote from one dictionary (forget which one -- sorry) that "trolling" once specifically meant to sing a song in a round. And that reminds me of the description you quoted above, with the servant following after the master, and never catching up. And that reminds me of the fishing technique where the angler tries to lure the fish into following after the bait...

hhhmmmmm....

"Troll" as the name for the creature under the bridge comes from a different language root altogether. And even in the original Scandinavian folklore about them, the trolls are not universally evil or mean or greedy.