Jinn

I've always resented the "troll" labels casually used in forums alike because the label itself seems to be vague or somehow misleading. What is a troll exactly?

That is about the best definition I can find online. Through this definition, I would argue that a troll is a very effective communicator, if he can compose a thread or post so craftily that it incites anger in many other board members. A poor communicator, on the other hand, would be summarily ignored. A post that "provokes flames" obviously contains subtance that merits discussion, even if angrily discussed.

Oftentimes in TFP and other forums, I hear the word 'troll' used to identify someone defending a position they do not believe. In the formal Debates I've participated in, the best way to prepare for a "meet" was to present the opposition's case. Through doing this, your personal bias of "being right" destroys your hatred for the opposition's position. You also more clearly see their weaknesses and can use them in presenting your original case. While I wouldn't compare TFP to the structured rigor of a debate, there is a certain value to being the "devil's advocate." I personally believe that everything I have learned, I've done so by challenging my own beliefs. I do this by attempting to validate the beliefs directly contrary to my own. For someone who is pro-abortion, attempting to argue a pro-life standpoint is very valuable in seeing the other sides' position -- and solidifying their own.

Similarly, I pondered posting a thread in Philosophy or Politics vehemently defending a belief not held by myself, but the last person to do so was labeled a troll. Is it the motivation for the thread that seperates a troll from a devil's advocate? I personally enjoy defending something I do not believe in, because it gives me a valuable perspective -- but I do not wish to be labeled a troll. My vacous explanation aside, what qualities seperate a troll from someone who is playing a "devil's advocate?"

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Glory's Sun

A troll is simply someone who seeks out sensitive areas and makes comments that he knows will get a huge reaction.

Jinn

I realize this, but I fail to see how one can distinguish between an attempt at reminding the viewers that another position exists and being a "troll".

Why are the areas sensitive? Is it not a fear of the critical assessment key for making a board like this operate?

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Glory's Sun

the distinction is usually in the way the poster portrays his/her self and how they pose their feelings/thoughts. A troll will usually make a snide comment or a one sentence observation without any sort of backing or rationale. The Devil's Advocate has the media to back up his claim.

roachboy

i dont see any basis on a message board for assuming that the people posting are not always acting as devil's advocate--or the contrary, really: both assumptions seem to me equal in their arbitrariness.

i mean, these spaces function to the side of most types of social interaction and are not substitutes for them--they are obviously pretty abstract--it would seem to me that a messageboard is an open field for experimenting with identity (authorfiction) and positions. and i assume that most posters i read here are, to one extent or another, experimenting when they write. that tfp, for example, has developed some dimensions of community that would be kinda absurd if you didnt assume that what people wrote says something about who they are is simply a choice that segments of the folk who post here have made. think about moe's taven in the trampoline forum, for example. we get to go to the thread and act as though we are getting trashed in a tavern, and, like most taverns for many folk, a significant motive for being there in the first place is sex. so you get that there too. so long as there is a general agreement amongst the people who post there about what they are doing, it is fine--but at the same time, if you think about it, it is a very strange idea.

what do any of us know about anyone else, really, in this place?
i know the dominant mode of interacting through a messageboard works with the illusion of transparency at their center--but i have never believed that this transparency was operational--more that it was something that folk simply preferred to believe about it that may be binding on them but which says nothing about the nature of this kind of space. you can see these assumptions working in how many of the journals are written here too--most are written as though they were telephone calls--not by replicating the form, but by replicating the assumption that a disembodied voice at one end of the line can let a second disembodied voice at the far end of the line into the detail of their life simply by talking as though that detail was available. now this is not a criticism, and maybe the problem is mine--when other folk post, maybe the think they really are talking to friends here who are friends in the same way as 3-d friends are--and maybe they're right--because they happen within particular speech communities that form within this board. either way, i simply notice that this stuff happens all the time.
when i post, i see a white square inside a green square.
when i send the post, i see a green square scratched up with white letters. and those scratches are all that anyone here knows of me.
and i can manipulate those stratches as i like.
so you know what i want you to know.
or what i decide would be interesting to float, to add to a mix of what you know.
or whatever--you cant account for motive here at all.
so i am not sure that there is a distinction in principle in a space like this between devil's advocate any any post, since all posts are equally experiments with identity, with staging experience in a curious written format, etc.

so if there is a difference between d.a. and troll, it is rhetorical--a troll is a form of devil's advocacy that you dont like. for whatever reason. or that the mods dont like, for whatever reason.
there is a rhetoric of sincerity and there is a rhetoric of experimentation, maybe--and there are folk who use the first to do the second or whose mode is to move from the second and give the impression of moving from the first.
and you cant tell.
one can always flip into the other.
in fact, posts probably are characterized by a continuous shuttle between the two. abstraction makes such things safe.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

stevie667

A troll deliberatly goes out of their way to stir up trouble by posting or replying to subjects in a way they know will cause a reaction.
Someone arguing a position doesnt (at least not usually).

Theres a malicious part to trolling.

__________________
Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

Jinn

wow roach, I wasn't expecting a Philosophical explanation.. but damn.. well said. I liked this part best:

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Minx

IMHO a troll is someone who deliberately stirs up sh*t (aka....poking the Grizzly bear in spring). They do it just to get a rise out of people, regardless of the ensuing conversation.

Someone playing the Devil's Advocate role (which is something I like to do) is a person who can stand back in a debate, see both sides of the story, the pro's and con's of each and then pick and argue a side (even if it is not the one you would normally agree with). I love debates because you are dealing with another intelligent person. Someone who can suppress their emotions long enough to look at the whole story - both sides - and then comment on it. Trolls are either people that are so stubborn that they refuse to see a different view of the matter, or they are just trying to stir the pot.

I have a few acquaintances who will be receiving a ladle for Christsmas for they fall into the latter category.

__________________
You've been a naughty boy....go to my room!

Elphaba

Perhaps announcing your intention to play devil's advocate would prevent a troll accusation.

clavus

Devil's advocate:
"Envirnmentalists may not know or care that their positions have real human consquences"

Troll:
"Envronmentalists don't care about people"

Devil's Advocate:
"I hate hip-hop. How can people consider that stuff music?"

Troll
"People who listen to hip-hop don't know anything about music."

__________________
Ass, gas or grass. Nobody rides for free.

maleficent

Here's a little known fact about maleficent... She LOVES to argue... (Yeah, I know y'all thought she was nice or something...)

NOT here, because it's be against the rules... besides I wouldn't want to have to warn myself... There are places I've been known to play (though not for a while) where I could get out some of my hostilities and play devils advocate... I spent too many years debating in high school and college, when motivated, I can argue any side of any subject, and I don't have to believe it, and I can do it pretty convincingly.

As long as I don't resort to name calling or making it personal... I don't consider it trolling, if I am arguing an unpopular stance on something (Yes, I do beleive that it should be mandatory to clear the airports of tourists between the hours of 6am and 10am mon - fri because I don't want to have to deal with amateur travellers,) as long as I stick to the facts and my personal beliefs then it's OK.

Trolls tend to hit and run - and don't stick around... Devil's advocates roll up thier sleeves and settle in for the fight, and it' usually pretty fun to watch especially those that will fight to the death...

I really need to find that part of my personality again...

__________________

Mephisto2

The problem is not with those acting as Devil's Advocates, but those who throw around the label of troll when they feel threatened by the valid points raised in the debate.

You see an awful lot of this in the Politics Board.

Accusations such as "troll", "Bush-hater", "War-mongerer", "liberal", "conservative" etc all used as insults. It's sad to see valid discourse devalued by a refusal to engage in debate, but rather knee-jerk reaction and insult of your opponent.

Trolls exist, but like winning lottery tickets, they are not as common as some would have us assume.


Mr Mephisto

Elphaba

Ms. M, it's that you wish to clear the airport with an Uzi that I object to.

Elphaba

Let me amend this. I remember a fellow who claimed to be playing the role of devil's advocate, who was merely being an insistant asshole negating every other position than his. Sometimes claiming DA is just a cop-out.

Gilda

I think it isn't so much about what position you take up so much as it is in how you choose to defend it. People who consistently engage in name-calling, insulting others or belittling their opinions or ideas, who deliberately use fallacious arguments may be trolling. It's about attitude and intent. You can advocate a positon without being disrespectful and disingenuous.

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

Elphaba

Exactly.

Mephisto2

Once you "insult" anyone, or use any term in a pejorative sense, you cease to be a Devil's Advocate. Maybe a lot of people simply don't understand what the term really means?

Mr Mephisto

MSD

I love how you know-it-all American fuckers, especially North Carolina are always the first ones into the discussion trying to act like you know better than everyone else and we need to be educated by you. What's your fucking problem?

That's a troll, and cannot be confused with Devil's Advocate. Devil's Advocate was when I stretched the boundaries of ethics in politics to justify the Supreme Court's decision to ban medical merijuana that does not cross state lines on the grounds that it affects interstate commerce. (My argument was that a cheap, home-grown remedy negatively affects the profits of out-of-state pharmaceutical manufacturers and therefore has a substantial impact on interstate commerce and can be regulated by the federal government.)

It seems likely that you haven't spent a great deal of time in airports between 6am and 10am.

Elphaba

Yep, only once or twice a year. I'm one of those amateur flyers that she would be taking aim at.

maleficent

Ah - but I'm not sure at any point I ever said that the clearing should be done with an Uzi... are you perhaps, putting words into my mouth -- erm - posts?

While I may be in favor of using said Uzi's I never said it... so could trolling also be implying something that isn't there

__________________

Elphaba

I simply lied about your uzi intentions. Far worse than a troll IMO.