Do you agree with LL's Definition of Trolling?

Flamers, forum vampires, and other destructive forum posters all engage in repeated misbehavior... but I wouldn't call them trolls. The Troll is all about diverting the discussion and if possible starting fights between otherwise uninvolved participants, not simply making people angry, beating them into submission, or eliciting sympathy and attention.

Argent isn't the only one who thought that.

He's not allowed to do that, which is something I disagree with Linden Lab on, others who were here when he was allowed to post may well disagree with me.

Yes...well aware of that type of behavior

But it would seem that "repeated misbehavior"....diverts a discussion. In that case, I would consider them a Troll by the majority of definitions above. Just a personal observation and opinion. No offense.

well then he wasn't the only one who was mistaken.

As you wish.

I just think that trying to define all kinds of misbehavior as variants of one kind of misbehavior is less useful. And only a nazi would disagree with me.

I"m getting that impression too. I think the problem is, the definition of trolling is probably as wide, varied, and individual as say, the definition of adult content is. It's very hard to nail down in a cut and dried way that satisfies everyone.

That being said, I think the last definition is sufficiently better than where we started. It may behoove LL to think about updating their own definition to something along those lines.

I know i'll be using that one in my own forums

Oh dear.



Much better than where it started.

It's reassuring to see that the Lindens are just as clueless as most when it comes to identifying trolls as anyone that doesn't agree with them and has the temerity to be able to make a reasoned argument in defence of their position.

Pep (They should adopt Mo's definition: "A troll is anyone who doesn't play nice"

Does Aristotle have a Troll Verification Scheme they can sell to LL?

I agree with everybody..

It's close, but no - it's not a clear enough definition for me. So in it's current form, that could easily be applied to a healthy argument or an emotionally charged discussion, which, ultimately, could have led to a positive resolution. But a troll isn't interested in that.

I reckon there does need to be some observed, repeat behaviour, or consistency, which is sometimes tricky to spot - unless one is following a thread closely.

Certainly, inflammatory remarks or replies, sometimes not always thought through, can get a bit emotional and messy - but hey, that's life... folk can always agree to disagree and still maintain a level of respect which is mature - but a 'purebreed' () troll often plays with the other posters' minds in regards to what they are trying to convey. They certainly rely on personal attacks or constant 'slights' at particular communities, sometimes appearing to have come out of nowhere to provoke an emotional response - gauging the other posters' sense of anger, confusion or bewilderment. The also love to post persistently, usually in short volleys, firing indiscriminately, before calling the topic/argument 'won' and leaving - only to return with more venom.

Their main aim, I feel, is to get off by disrupting a serious topic (especially one where their are already people disagreeing healthily) or belittling an individual's or community's efforts/beliefs. They rarely have any other poster's defending them, even those on the other side of an argument (to oneself), who at first sight may appear to hold a similar viewpoint.

They hardly ever apologise, argue why they're not trolling or make a statement to clarify what may have appeared to have been trollish behaviour. They often don't appear to ever want/need any support from anyone - regardless of 'sides' - they like to just come in, disrupt and state - in no uncertain terms - an opinion, which is commonly misinformed or deluded.

You seem to get sophisticated trolls and unsophisticated ones, too. It's usually good practice not to feed either.

Trolling (a post with an intentionally contrary opinion written with the intent of inciting or getting argumentative opinions)

to me this says..even though you may agree you intentionally still post to disagree to get a flame out of people..
pretty much sounds like a troll to me..

You're just trolling now.

because EVERYBODY actually agrees on all the hot button topics.

if i agree with something or disagree with something it's one thing..

but if i agree with something and post that i don't just to be controversial and piss people off i am trolling..

is intentionally having an opposite opinion to incite an argument not trolling?

it isnt so easy to determine actual intent as it is to assume one cannot possibly have such an opinion and thus must be trolling.

anymore a 'troll' is one that is able and willing to argue a seemingly minority opinion.

Fixed.

oh it's definitely not a full definition of a troll by no means..but it is used and easy to spot out in say something like a troll tailgating someone from thread to thread or throwing up threads to a forum over and over that they know are going to get people coming in that thread posting on the warm side.lol

a troll is someone looking to cause controversy no matter if they agree or disagree.they enjoy seeing people get bent out of shape..
it's really kind of hard to actually get a troll in trouble unless they are actually harassing someone because they can fall back on it actually being their true opinion..

my definition of a troll is an ass hat out of slapping range and they know it lol

I voted yes, cuz it is in the intention, it's easy to write that you don't agree in a nice way.

the problem is that there are people that do just this and are not considered trolls!

Are you Joking???

It's not acceptable to express a contrary opinion in this forum? That makes you a Troll?

LOL

Q: WHAT DO YOU WANT?
M: Well, I was told outside that...
Q: Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!
M: What?
Q: Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!
M: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!
Q: OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse.
M: Oh, I see, well, that explains it.
Q: Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.
M: Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.
Q: Not at all.
M: Thank You.
(Under his breath) Stupid git!!

oh i agree totally..
without moderators in here it can sometimes get like the wild wild west gone wild on crack lol

it's easy to fall into it all and become one too...i've caught myself chiming in a few times..that's when i take a break from posting and just get back to making stuff in sl like i should have been doing at the time in the first place

Ephraim Kappler roars laughing: I'll settle for this definition even though it probably applies to me from time to time.

The term is certainly over-used and even abused, often in a high-handed holier-than-thou manner. The Linden description is ridiculously general: it could easily justify blocking anyone the who doesn't post "yeprightfinezackly" or words to that effect on these forums.