Do you agree with LL's Definition of Trolling?

Unless your an alt of an old timer, you don't have enough background on the subject to make that determination.

I don't agree - but then, I wouldn't, would I?

The most obvious problem with the definition is that it's impossible to tell the intent with which someone posted something. The second is that there are other reasons why someone might do it. For example, "playing Devil's Advocate" - in other words, trying to stimulate a useful discussion by posting a controversial point. Or, in my case; I often post contrary points that apply to my experience in the hope that they will be argued against and the counter-arguments will give me useful information.

I had always understood that trolling only really applied if you were posting a point of view that was obviously contrary to one that anyone in the community would maintain - such as posting "fishing is for losers" on a fishing BBS.

And why would I even start to discuss that with you?

Oh no it isn't!

If you can't stand the heat.............

Like it or not, the Lindens are public figures. Mocking and abusing them is a great American tradition.

Meh, they have had that definition published for years, it hardly matters what name they attach to it.

Linden Lab isn't the government, and the Jira isn't an op-ed page. Sure you can mock them when you want, and I do it too sometimes. But Linden Lab doesn't have the obligation to provide you the space for mocking. And though they let us run free on these forums, I cannot disagree with their desire to keep the Jira pages focused on serious technical discussion only.

I sweep-kicked Torley once. =^-^=

^^This!

That's a pretty classic definition of trolling. An example might be.. Showing up to a Jewish community forum, and making a post denying the holocaust. Or popping into a Conservative Republican forum and posting, bashing Bush. Or popping into a Gorean chatroom looking for an argument.

That's what is meant by "an intentionally contrary opinion written with the intent of inciting or getting argumentative opinions". In the above example, the post exists only to rile people up, Get their goat, and start a flamewar.

Other examples are posting to Macintosh forums with "Macs Suck" or words to that effect. Classic troll posts from my day were Macs vs PC's, Nintendo versus whatever system, Kirk vs Picard, Death Star vs Enterprise, Joel Robinson vs Mike T. Nelson, etc etc.

Many of these types of threads have been banned on many different discussion forums because they lead nowhere and inevitably result in harsh, often hateful speech, that drags the whole experience down for everyone.

The key part of that definition is "the intent of inciting or getting argumentative opinions".. IE.. "trying to stir up stuff." Classic troll posts from these forums focus on Furries, men playing female avatars, child avatars, goreans, camping, bots, copybot, alt tracking etc.

Trolls don't need to be argumentative. They can be superficially reasonable but posted to a wildly inappropriate forum... for example posting a request for cat recipes to rec.food.cooking and rec.pets.cats, or asking for help with your Amiga on comp.sys.mac and comp.sys.ibm-pc.
This.

I guess I just have a problem with the exact wording, but probably not the spirit in which it was intended. If I get the gist of what most are saying, I think a more accurate definition would be:



Anyone disagree or have a suggestion to modify that?

No, because effective trolling pretends to be on topic.

As an expansion for clarity, that works. (^_^)y

I bow to your expertise.

Yeah... well all of you are wrong as usual.

Really good trolling pretends to be on topic. The troll can make the claim their work has bearing on the discussion.

Yes, I get the gist of what they mean by 'argumentative opinion' - but an opinion by itself isn't argumenative; it's a subjective statement. The reaction to the statement is what will cause it to be agreeable or argumentative. LL's whole statement is just lame....but that in particular is another example their cloudy and vague language.

........and put that fire out.......am nodda troll

Googling around for a suitable picture, I discovered the coolest troll ever:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FremontTroll.jpg

Claiming it is one thing, but that is where the judgement of the moderator has to come into play. That component will never be something which can be removed. Although it would be cool if there was an algorithm that could determine with 100% certainty that a post was a troll, using mathematics as a basis. That would be seriously cool.

Thanks. coming from you that means a lot

I do have to disagree. I don't think your amendment is wrong or off-base, but I do object to what it has in common with the LL original: it centers on--and is completely dependent upon--the concept of 'intent'.

Intent is impossible to prove.

What happens with enforcing rules that depend on 'intent' is that some individual (or possibly group of individuals) make an arbitrary judgment on what the accused troll's emotions and goals may have been, and then act on that arbitrary judgment.

I do agree with what someone said earlier in this thread: the judgment that trolling has taken place can't be made from a single post. It's a pattern of behavior.

And yes, to support a claim that a pattern of posting constitutes trolling, subjective and arbitrary judgments must be made. I don't think there's any way around that. But it's best to make clear in TOS definitions that to be adjudged 'trolling', conduct must meet certain requirements.

I'd suggest: 1) there must be multiple (more than 5) posts made within a set period of time, all or most of which must contain 2) personal insults.

I specify 'personal insults' as a vital part of the definition of trolling for this reason:

It is very possible for one person to, say, believe that George W. Bush was the USA's worst president, and to want to know what those on a conservative message board might be able to come up with to refute that claim. And it IS possible to go on such a board and state the claim and debate it WITHOUT including 'you guys are morons' or 'anyone who thinks Bush was an effective President is a mental defective' or whatever.

It IS possible to post a viewpoint opposite to the prevailing view---and yet NOT be a troll. You state your view without saying---or even implying---that those who feel differently are idiots/morons/evil/still dressed by their mommies/whatever.

And there you have it....no trolling.

So....yeah.

How about going on a really gung-ho Pro-Bush board and posting that Bush was the best president ever because he had serious party experience, and proves that you don't have to knuckle down and be a geek and like actually study or anything to become President, and talk about how he's such an inspiration to everyone who's suffering from self-induced brain damage?

I can see where you're coming from. Since you bring up the subject of politics, Here's a definition of Trolling from a political site I found:



In this definition they agree that it's not simply the act of disagreeing. It's more along the lines of being disruptive or attempting to 'poison the atmosphere'.

I don't know that intent is impossible to prove. Certainly in the Judicial system, intent is considered heavily at one of the 3 primary types of evidence used in trying criminal cases. Motive, Means, Intent, they all important ammo in such cases, and proving intent is often part of a prosecutor's job. In the case of a forum, I think some have said, looking at past history would probably be the only way to prove intent. So perhaps there is some need for that to be included in the definition.



I think after reading the other sites definition, it's wrong to narrow it to simply opinions, contrary or not. thus I changed that to 'content', as it may not be an opinion, it could be an ad or some such thing.

Of course, now it's getting wordy

Darien....I like the fact that you presented the definition.....without the incident or history attached. Just took it at face value.....the incident or history might have clouded judgment on the immediate interpretation.....which is vague.

Like your new wording......but definitely needs to be something that addresses personal insults....whether it be related to "on topic" or not.

Like this: