Do you agree with LL's Definition of Trolling?

Is the new one above better?

I think that might be covered under the "implying" part of my definition. But you're right that it's an example that DOES call for some subjective interpretation.

If someone actually did that----and left out the 'self-induced brain damage' part----it could pass as sincere. It could pass as the opinion of one of the people who genuinely believe that those who study and have curiosity are Pointy-Headed Freaks. (Sadly, their name is legion.)

WITH the 'brain damage' part, most readers would conclude--subjectively, of course---that the post is NOT sincere, but instead was made with the goal (there's that pesky Intent again) of generating hostile posts in return.


I hate to throw my hands up and say that 'the only way to deal with trolls is to decline to feed them--ignoring them instead of giving them what they want, an emotional flare-up, will cause them to go elsewhere for amusement.'

But I kinda do feel that way.

I will say that of the message boards I've spent time on, those who encourage a culture of 'don't feed the trolls' are better* than those who take a 'we define trolling broadly and ban all those we arbitrarily decide are trolls' approach.


*'better' in the sense of being more worth my time because the less-repressive approach leads to more interesting and useful and intelligent posting.

Well, it's not up to this particular troll...of course but.....

"Intentionally contrary" ....I still have a hard time with that phrase. Contrary opinion is not necessarily intentional....it's just a fact.....and some times you have to be "consistent" in presenting a contrary opinion.

I know that when I post a contrary opinion it will incite argumentative opinions....but the "intent" to why I post it....would be different from the "intent" of what most people consider a true troll would have in mind.

Yes...a good definition would be wordy.

That's all good stuff. I think that site has the right idea---succinctness is NOT the ideal, for dealing with something like trolling. A more explanatory rule, with examples, will be more effective (both for those doing the moderating and for those who want to post within the TOS) than a one-paragraph definition.




(((I thought it was 'motive, means, and opportunity'...?? I guess I would have thought 'intent' would fall under Motive. Not that it's relevant to this thread! But yes, 'intent' is mentioned in many or most legal systems. Though I'd argue that most of them try to minimize its role and maximize less-subjective elements.)))

Oh, sure, a really good Troll would start off with a post like that, and only bring in the "self induced brain damage" in a later post, if at all. Maybe they'd write something like "Oh no, man, I know exactly what he's going through. I'm recovering from... I forget what the doc called it, but it's really nasty... in the medulla oblongata from drug abuse too, and it's a major burn. When I'm having a bad day I pull out his inauguration speech and tell myself that if he can deal with it, I can too".

If you want to see a really good example there was a totally convincing Troll posting in the Adult Content thread for a while.

It's true that there are people with good minds but poor psychological health, who make a hobby of trying to get emotional reactions from other posters on message boards.

These are very, very lonely people.

I was going to give an example too.....but wouldn't that be considered trolling by some of the above definitions?

There's your definition right there!

Well, I do think that message board administrators who take the Stern Warden approach, with repressive definitions and frequent bannings, turn trolling into something glamorous and attractive.

Whereas a 'these people are pathetic, just ignore them and go about your business' attitude is more effective, because it avoids making trolling look like a romantically rebellious occupation.


((by the way, from the OP's description it was easy to guess who this was about, and having looked into it, I DON'T think that what she was doing was trollling. I know she'd hate me for saying this because it IS unavoidably patronizing, but: from all I've seen during the past year, I believe that the issues she raises are all legitimate and very much worth discussing (and NOT trolling), but she hurts her side of the argument by including personal insults. She makes herself needlessly vulnerable to the more repressively-minded LL employees. [there are always a few natural-born fascists in ANY business enterprise.]))

Yes, I do agree with that. It means concocting an opinion just for the sake of inciting people. But it doesn't have to be concocted. Anything posted with the intention of inciting people is trolling.

Sounds Like Prok lol

Any message board that I've participated in....generally take the latter approach....works itself out in the process, quite naturally. Those that take the Warden approach....are....well...Dull....and rather one-sided message boards...not entirely effective.

A few people will get hurt in the process of letting it work out naturally....most forum regulars will lend them a hand to get back on track.

ding, ding, ding. we have a winner.

From this and other posts you've made here, I'm getting the impression you mean me. The problem is, I wasn't being a troll.

1) I 100% believe the adult changes will not have the terrible effects that others do. I had and still have a right to express that opinion.

2) I did not in any way attempt to derail or belittle anyone's viewpoint, but simply to challenge the notions being treated as forgone conclusions. Some of the arguments stood up to being challenged, many did not.

3) A focused discussion is far more productive than a one sided rant. Since LL was never going to step up and defend their own side, someone had to do it. I think we made far more progress in those 50 pages, than in all of the 450 odd pages of the other thread. It was a great discussion, up until some started getting personal about it. Once it became clear people were starting to focus on tearing me down rather than my suppositions, I decided it was time to remove myself from the discussion. This only confirms I was right to do so.

intentionally contrary is awkward. But I'm lacking a better alternative.

That's quite true. Trolls, however, don't focus discussion, they promote pointless debate and waste everyone's time.

Maybe the word "contrary" isn't even needed.....I've seen people "agree".....and still be a complete one of these:



If you use "contrary"....contrary to one person.....five people....the majority....who is the majority.....are they really the majority......the majority "where?".....here??? LOL

It's tricky.

Borrowing Ponsonby's definition.

Troll = a person who incites particularly negative emotional reactions through the consistent and obvious use of blatantly ill-meaning personal attacks and personal insults...on a message board.

The problem I see with that definition is, i could then say anyone I don't like is a troll, simply because they make me feel bad when I see/hear/read something related to them. I think you can not like someone, and still respect their opinions and ideas. Personal feelings shouldn't come into play.

Lets see:


Minor tweak... ?

I agree, the JIRA should focus on technical discussion and there's nothing worse than trudging through a JIRA looking for information when 1/2 of the comments are not related, don't contribute to the issue or just blather.

I don't think "Irrelevant" to the subject comes into play.....someone just tied some relevant topic into a personal insult toward me....and I still considered the insult "blatantly ill-meaning"....regardless of topic.

This could go on forever

What's to worry about? The Lindens came out against trolling. Unfortunately, they worded it very poorly - which is pretty standard for the Lindens, as we all have come to know.

But we all know what trolling is, and now it looks like the Lindens, behind their lamentable communication skills, do too, and want to discourage it. As long as they don't get too stupid and heavy-handed about it - which they are sometimes also capable of - it should be ok.

Especially since these forums seem to have developed an ability to identify, isolate, and drive out trollers anyway.

Also maybe a sub-category of Stalker Troll.

Someone who is not considered a Troll in the sense that they repeatedly attack and insult the community at large......but have singled out one person in their trolling behaviors.

Not all antisocial and damaging behavior on a bulletin board or forum is trolling. No, trolling is a particular kind of antisocial behavior.

I think that some were trying to include "consistent....repeated" type explanations in the definition to cover that aspect.

Attack the post ... not the poster.

Violators will be given one warning, and then shown the door.