How to best handle trolls?

How to troll:
First post in a thread is an inflammatory statement. It is vauge enough that you can't be pinned down with any specifics, allowing both deniability and the chance to accuse others of "putting words in my mouth". To this end they use rhetoric that is already well worn, with many implied premises and conclusions. They should never provide hard evidence, since that allows the possiblity that it can be refuted. Most importantly, the initial post contains no attacks on anyone.
Then wait...
Those who follow up with a serious response should be called stupid or unaware of the "facts". Again, care is taken to avoid providing evidence that can be refuted or debated. This usually leads to flames and to the next tactic.
Those who follow up with a flame are taunted back, be creative use name calling and other tactics to incite more flames. If called for flaming accuse them of starting it.
Assert that your position requires no supporting evidence because it is "obvious to everyone", yet insist that anyone who contradicts you must provide evidence. Any evidence that is provided is summarily dismissed as "biased".

This is of course perfect. Bait in the form of bad assumptions and poor reasoning is offered up in a manner that is inflammatory, but doesn't make a direct attack. This prevents calls of abuse with the reasoning that "I'm as free as anyone to state my opinions, even if they are unpopular". Response flames are "justified" with the excuse that "I'm just responding to someone who attacked me first".

Enjoy! As long as people continue to respond to you, you can have years of fun.

While I think the "just ignore them, don't 'feed' them and give them attention" mentality is among one of the most enlightened viewpoints, it's not exactly the method I subscribe to. Let me explain why.

Some people don't quite get that they're trolling or what they're doing is wrong, some people are simply not conscious of their actions enough to see that they're seeking out conflict, being contrary just to argue, ect. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that they're just confused, frusterated, having a bad day, whatever.

If someone walks into a room and takes a dump on the carpet, ignoring them won't necessarily make the problem go away unless they're solely doing it for attention. There are occasions with some people out there where if everyone in the room says, "Hey, don't be a jerk, don't do that", they will realise, "Gee, I shouldn't walk in here and take a dump on the carpet, last time people got pretty upset". It's rare, sure. Most people who troll ARE just trying to get a reaction/attention, sure. What can I say, I'm optimistic about human nature and try to assume that people will say, "Gee, 50 people just told me my feet stink and I'm off my rocker, maybe I should pull my feet out of my mouth and go wash them."

WOW! This is great news for us all.

~Ulrika~

Excellent analysis.

~Ulrika~

It looks like these turned out to be famous last words.

~Ulrika~

Optimism isn't going to handle a problem in an environment of virtual anonymity. In RL, the person being criticized has real and sometimes serious consequences for their actions. On the net, the most we can do is deny them attention.

If you were familiar with country music, George Strait would tell you who said the famous last words.

Thats the problem with the Internet- say anything you want, no one can kick yer ass for it. Odds are, if you met the "trolls" in RL, they wouldn't say the same things they'd say online.

I -OTOH, will

Logan, you are describing the reaction of a socially well adapted adult.

There are many psychologically well understood mechanisms where people don't behave in this way and actually enjoy negative reactions by others. For most children, for example, it is perfectly normal to behave in this way for a while. Any parent, who has survived puberty can tell you about it. (A father of a 6 year old son talking) With most people, this kind of behaviour stops somewhere between 17 and 30. For a few it is a behavioural pattern that becomes part of their personality.

And even though it is sad and contrary to what our feelings tells us, such people are never changed by opposing them. Because opposition is what they are looking for.

this thread is now about baby penguins.

Are they Exploding Baby Penguins??

.

Personally, I think the mob mentality is more ugly than any trolling I've seen here.

The mob mentality is used by a few who think they lead the weaker members of the pack.

Once a few start attacking most of the weakest members will eventually join in.

The more the attacked poster feels frustrated by the attacks, it's common to become combative, which makes him look like a troll, when in reality, he was frustrated by the attacks.

Of course, the leader of the pack knew this would happen, and that's why it was pushed.

Kevn, if we're disucssing the same person here, I must respectfully disagree with you. In this example would you really consider that the person I think you're talking about was "attacked" (the thread had nothing to do with him) or that he intentionally tried to inflame the people who had already posted?

It seemed like classing trolling to me, rather than a case of feeling attacked and lashing out. It seemed to me to be a situation in which the person was getting off on trying to inspire anger in others.

You really dont see it that way in that example? I'm honestly curious.

Did you mean Explosive Baby Penguin?

Or maybe penguins that SHOULD explode??? Hmmm??

Taco,

I didn't read it all, but the first page shows he was stating his opinions, when someone got rude with him. His opinion is most likely unpopular here, but that's no reason to ridicule or be rude to him.

I ran several irc channels, and I know how excited people get. I have been following his posts on a few threads, and it was clear he was being ganged-up-on.

I don't like groups attacking a single poster based on his opinion. It's happened to me here as well. The reason I didn't get any warnings is I have experience with this kind of thing. In the past I would have flamed righteously.

Scroll back and see the delight taken in bringing him down. And it's no doubt his opinions are the cause. If he were a Bush hater he would have been accepted into the fold open armed.

Actually Kevn, if you look at this particular poster being refferred to's posting history, youll see that he has actually been abrasive, and has attacked people here with little ofr no provocation from the outset of his career here.

Seriously, Kevn, take a good hard look at it.

No no no no a thousand million baJILLION times no, and then some more no.

If a person is NOT being dishonest, then a person is NOT deliberately posting with the express purpose of riling people up.

Should people get riled up nonetheless, by sheer exposure to ideas contrary to their own, then that is THEIR problem.

In other words, there shouldn't be some level a person reaches, such that a person says his piece, others argue with him, he keeps saying his piece, others keep arguing, tempers rise, and then it is therefore up to the one in the minority view to either shut up or get banned.

At least, that is the way it SHOULDN'T be.

I'll be damned if I'll ever be a mouse on these forums, learning to be quiet about my own views once I realize they aren't popular enough, and that once that is determined, I'm supposed to politely shut up forevermore. To heck with that.

coco

I agree Lucifer, his posts were abrasive, sarcastic and baiting and when asked for facts to support his statements he became abusive and mocking to the poster asking him to explain his position.

There was no discourse of intellect or humor.

People disagree, I understand that. I'm interested in reading posts presented by people supporting positions that I don't agree with when they are explained and backed up with facts and reason, I learn things that way. I am not interested in seeing people abused for the entertainment purposes of one nasty person.

.

I guess we just see it differently, Kevn. a "please do this is you support this cause", is met with his initial post of :



To me, that's very much trolling, and I'm respectfully astounded that you dont see it that way too.

just my opinion.

I agree with Kevn.

coco

Baby Penguins r teh kewt



Pleeeeeeze don't 'splode these

I don't think his reference to Democrats is any worse than some of the things people here call the Republicans. I don't find it baiting or trolling to have a strong negative opinion about a political party. I expect Democrats to strongly dislike conservative ideas, and vise versa.

Maybe I'm just thick skinned from the years on IRC, it's so common. I've seen people with so many different opinions, it's numbed my senses I guess. That's why I don't easily get baited into breaking the rules, even though my opinions are very contrary to the majority.

I try to read between the lines to see people in the majority baiting him in, knowing the hot buttons. Then they find a way to trigger a remark from him that breaks the rules. While at the same time appearing innocent of inflaming him. Then they report that post. The moderator rarely reads the entire thread, to see it was a baiting.