Trolls:
What are they?
What is a troll in the Sciforums context?
What should be done?


Introduction

One of the most-abused words around Sciforums these days is "troll." Ne'er, of course, does the word seem to have a positive connotation. But the behavior leading to accusations of trolling include:

• Provocateurism
• Spam
• Divisive isms

Not all conditions leading to accusations of trolling, however, are intentionally negative:

• Dyslexia, and its natural effects
• Linguistic and cultural differences
• Formal education

Thus we see that some measure of responsibility must be invested in the accuser; one cannot simply go around calling everyone they don't like a troll.

Links discussing trolling

• Internet Trolls (AOL): http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm
• "troll" (Webopedia): http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/t/troll.html
• "troll - as used on the internet" (WhatIs): http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci213222,00.html
• "Troll Definition": http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TrollDefinition

(Feel free to post any links to relevant discussions of trolling; the more info for discussion, the better.)

Issue:

From even these four links, it becomes clear that the issue of trolling is controversial; much as most agree that good is good and bad is bad, or right is right and wrong is wrong, the debate really starts when one decides to start qualifying things according to such labels.

Almost everybody agrees that trolling is a bad thing. But what is trolling in the Sciforums context? Are there different facets of trolling that need to be addressed? (e.g. What I call a "provocateur," referring to a specific behavior, some others generally call "troll".) A couple of the links above include harmless behavior (see Webopedia def. 2, 3 (http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/t/troll.html), also WhatIs def. 2 (http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci213222,00.html).)

So what I would like to create here is a discussion intended to establish:

• What is a troll in the problematic context at Sciforums?
• Nature of offenses?
• Response to offenses?
• Policy conflicts?

In the end, then, I would hope that we might discuss and agree upon some general guidelines whereby we might propose for a general vote a policy by which people might appeal for moderation against "trolling." We must consider at the very least the criteria for the label, the penalties of trolling, and also consider--in general and specific--what to do about inflammatory abuse of the accusation, which might in itself become a form of trolling.

But troll is as diversely applied a word around here as ignorant, variations on the word f@ck, and the word terrorist in United States.

So come together, ante up your two cents, and let's put SFOG toward a better use than the Ban Wars.

I think the problem is who can we objectively call a troll? I mean I have my trolls, you have yours. To everyone, everyone else is a troll. What should be the severity level? I think the most blatant trolls are those who post complete irrelevancy or come into conversation as if they have some moralistic crusade, or the ones who simply flame. I think the first thing is to create a list of those posters who have a propinquity for trolling, and they should be warned.

The Nazi's were big fans of lists, as are most paranoid, despotic types.

If you figure out some way to have open forums, but make trolling impossible, you clearly are too smart to be wasting your talents cruising around the internet looking for arguments.

My defintion of a troll is the green monster which lives under a bridge in Scandinavia. *Smirk*

"That man's silence is wonderful to listen to"

That is what I do to thwart irrelevants...just ppl who contribute literally nothing on ignore! As of this moment I only have one, and I don't think they realize it. ;)

a “Troll” is a person who comes to a forum to start fights about a specific issue or topic. This is not the same as a “Flamer” who simple trys to start fights on any topic or issue. The to can easily be confused though but distinctions are not needs as both type deserve the same punishment.

Does that mean that the person who starts the act is guilty or what?

Not necessarily, for example here at sciforums we have “Kook”s these are like troll in that they come here only to start a specific discussion that few if any will agree on, the difference is the Kook is well mannered, civil and obeys rules of society, for example craterchains (Norval is a Kook in that he comes to argue his theory that crater chains are cause by alien wars, no one seems to agree but he does not go ape shit on them and through feces, those that attack craterchains (Norval violently are at fault not craterchains (Norval. Now lets take adullabomber he was a troll in that he came here claiming Jews are pure evil and that Islam is a victim of them, he would not follow the rules of civility and caused many fights, he was at fault. In conclusion I give the following diffinitions:

Kook:
Come here only to start a specific discussion that few if any will agree on, are well mannered and civil.
They should be argued against in the same manner, but will rarely if ever agree with you, you can keep arguing, give up on them or laugh at them secretly, but because of there nice behavior they can’t be banished and should be lived with.

Troll:
Come here only to start a fight about a specific argument that few if any will agree on, are rude, violent and insulting and love to pick a fight. They will commonly hijack threads and stock members that have argued against them.
DO NOT FIGHT AGAINTS A TROLL, it what it wants, you can argue against it in a nice manner then wait for it to spit fire and acid at you, its best to stay calm at all times with a troll this usually angers or frustrates the troll or sometimes even causes them to declare victory in a attempt to piss you off, don’t fall for it. The best thing to do is report their behavior and hope their banished, on this forum though usually the troll has to piss off a mod or admin directly to get banished, but thanks the SFOG we can now vote to banish them! Afterwards it is best to have a “burial thread” for the troll where we can publicly ridicule it and laugh at it, this will anger the troll to its bone as it can do little about it now that it is banished, with a little luck the troll will give up trolling after having being humiliated like this (negative re-enforcement, psychology)

Flamers:
All the same as the troll except very indiscriminate, will do anything, say anything to piss other members, mod or admin off. Usually don’t last on the forum as long as a troll. After banishing they should not have a burial thread as these people may even enjoy the attention of being laughed at!

I'd like to see more active moderation in curbing some of the "troll" activity.

I must say that I'm against "censure" in general, but there are times in which I'd like to see threads of the same "troll" merged or closed to leave only one thread... or moved to more appropriate forums. It seems apparent that this thread http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=31677&page=1&pp=20 would me more appropriate in the Pseudoscience section, based on the OPs contention.

I also think rules against direct insults to other members could be enforced effectively if they were in place and if a forum, like pseudoscience had active moderation (is Banshee gone?).

In the pseudoscience forum, for instance (where a number of "trolls" gather like moths to a bug light) this rule exists: "Posts that interrupt a serious thread with ANY inane comments that in no way, shape, or form relates to the original topic, will be deleted. Threads that repeat a previously posted theme may be merged together or deleted in its entirety." Modifying this somewhat to point out that ad hominem comments are subject to deletion/modification and that "Sciforums members typically embrace scientific method by profession or study and extrodinary claims or alternative science will likely result in one or more responses of a questioning and challenging nature."

It seems like the alternative science proponents are frequently surprised when their "theories" aren't well received in a "science" forum.

I'm also convinced that many come here from other forums of the "alternative science / pseudoscience / new age" genre seeking credibility or trolling for a challenge to their metaphyisical explanations to the universe. They then go back to where they can be pat on the back and told how "scientific-minded" or "revolutionary" they are.

SkinWalker,

I think any logical fallacy not just ad homs should be deleted on site, unfortunately that would remove a majority of the post on this forum!

Also you reminded me of some things that can be done to Kooks: their threads should be merged or deleted to just one, and move to the appropriate sub-forum if needed.

Now lets take adullabomber he was a troll in that he came here claiming Jews are pure evil and that Islam is a victim of them


bullshit , you just haven´t read enough ...
what about his bbc-thread ? ( yes , he was a racist --- but at the same time , nobody banned dolts like zero )

I'm sorry Adulla was a troll: no matter where he went he would always say something about the evil "Joo", "Amerika", ect. he was trying to piss people off into fighting him, he was valgur, insultive and filled with appeal to emotion fallacies... all this is troll behavior. It does not matter if sometimes he says things that are true.

I think for this thread to avoid trolling and flamming, names I think should not named.

i´d rather have honest people then some slimy weener like xxxx , xxxxxxxx or the infamous xxxxxx ;)
what he said was his opinion ; not an attempt to piss innocent people off !

then why did he use appeal to emotion fallacies? why then did he have to bring it up on so many post even ones not related to the issue? Why then did he insult people directly?

Trolls are persons who use any kind of ad hominem attacks in their posting under the serious forums, i.e, anything but Free Thoughts.

why just a ad hominum? Why not one of the many other wonderful fallacies (like how adullabomber used appeal to emotion fallacies)

A couple of notes regarding ad hominem.

First, a usage note from the American Heritage Dictionary, according to Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ad%20hominem):As the principal meaning of the preposition ad suggests, the homo of ad hominem was originally the person to whom an argument was addressed, not its subject. The phrase denoted an argument designed to appeal to the listener's emotions rather than to reason, as in the sentence The Republicans' evocation of pity for the small farmer struggling to maintain his property is a purely ad hominem argument for reducing inheritance taxes. This usage appears to be waning; only 37 percent of the Usage Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak. Ninety percent of the Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument, as in It isn't in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way. This use is acceptable to 65 percent of the Panel. · Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting personal attacks, as in “Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich insists that he and Panetta can work together” (Washington Post). This usage may raise some eyebrows, though it appears to be gaining ground in journalistic style . . . .It has been mentioned recently by another poster that we might seek a forum free of ad hominem; as the usage note suggests, that would be a difficult feat to accomplish that would require a remarkable amount of hair-splitting for something that most if not all of us find irritating to various degrees.

Interestingly, the classical ad hominem is a useful but superficial tool--e.g. politics, as the example suggests, has use for this form of argument.

Furthermore, the failings of the adversary are, occasionally, fair game. There are some posters here who rely on their perceptions of the failings of others, and largely the argumentative body of our more subjective fora doesn't distinguish between mere pursuit of the failings of an adverary and fair consideration of the failings of an adversary; it's all useless ad-hom to folks around here.

By the time we get down to the Gingrich example, I'm wondering about the folks who praise O'Reilly or Scarborough or Hannity. These guys capitalize on fallacious appeals to emotion and popularity (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html) in order to maintain a constant stream of ad hominem disapproval in such a manner as to be covered by the context agreed upon by ninety percent of the usage panel. Rush Limbaugh? Do we have any real dittoheads around here? (I'm just wondering.)

But if we move over to "ad hominem abusive," or the classic personal attack (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html)--which usually corresponds to a breakdown of the discussion toward outright mudslinging--I think we're looking at what could become the centerpiece of a discussion on ad hominem.

To address Pollux's point directly, I look to the page on Personal Attack, linked in the preceding paragraph:The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims.

Not all ad Hominems are fallacious. In some cases, an individual's characteristics can have a bearing on the question of the veracity of her claims. For example, if someone is shown to be a pathological liar, then what he says can be considered to be unreliable. However, such attacks are weak, since even pathological liars might speak the truth on occasion.

In general, it is best to focus one's attention on the content of the claim and not on who made the claim. It is the content that determines the truth of the claim and not the characteristics of the person making the claim. The problem here is that even legitimate questions of validity can be labeled ad hominem, which condition can be construed to protect those who post negatively in other forms.

Yet even in this form, the ad hominem is weak; there must be a functional relationship shown between the question of validity and the issue at hand; the relevance of the question of validity to the issue must be established in order for the argument to have any real strength.

And while trolls seem to thrive on "ad hominem abusive," I think we might need a more specific consideration as the basis for an anti-trolling standard.

I mean, some people do set out looking for discord, and seem to get away with treating the issue as if it doesn't exist as long as nobody puts the specific label to it.

Excellent argument Tiassa,

I would like to add that we all make fallacies in our argument and statement here on this forum, if we had to implement punishment for each fallacy committed there would not be very many members left.

TROLL:
A person deliberately trying to destroy a site. Posts over and over again, saying nothing. Starts topics over and over again for no particular purpose.

A person trying to cause discord in a site.


NOT TROLL:
A person who wants attention.

a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people.

To deliberately post derogatory or inflammatory comments to a community in order to bait other users into responding.

the practice of trying to lure other Internet users into sending responses to carefully-designed incorrect statements or similar "bait."

Why tiassa was right again: there is much debate on the meaning of troll, what cool skill calls a troll I would call a flamer, and possible vise versa.

For whom the troll tolls, for the troll tolls for thee!

*shoots cosmic traveller*

Becoming a troll comes from excessive flaming:

Flaming: Flaming is being intentionally abusive with respect to another User (or his relatives or close friends). While it is sometimes appropriate and can be forgiven, it often is not. Some Forums on the Board are more tolerant of flaming than others. [Some clarification on what constitutes a flame: It must be recognized that a post replying to another post does not automatically justify that post's presence. A post can be on topic, a flame, and worthy of deletion at the same time. It is possible to make posts without inflammatory language while discussing classically "controversial" topics. Just because you replied to the topic does not mean your post had content. Basic Example: Thread called "Homosexuals should be allowed to marry". Response: "Faggots who want to marry should be killed". This is a basic example of an unjustified flame that adds little/nothing to the conversation while it is technically in response to the topic. Understand we wish to keep a basic level of civilty, even while discussing controversial topics.] Exactly what constitutes a flame is up to the Moderators to assess. Unless otherwise noted, the use of offensive picture material or smilies is banned.

I think the term "ad hom" has been bastardized on this forum and has become a useless term for many. If you spent 500 words explaining how Vanilla is the all-time best flavor of ice cream, and anyone who disagrees is wrong, and then in another thread mention that today at lunch you had Chocolate ice cream because it's your favorite, and it's the best, PREPARE TO HEAR ABOUT IT!! And rightfully so. And the responses that will follow you putting your foot in your mouth, or contradicting yourself are not "ad homs", or trolls, or flames. They're exactly the kind of light-hearted ribbing you would take from your friends if you did the same thing around them. Big deal.

If you can't handle it, don't volunteer anything. Remember, when you post your thoughts on a public forum, you're opening up your brain to the public, and if you've said something completely ridiculous, you're going to hear about it. If you can't deal with that, DON'T F-ING POST! :bugeye: