How To Build-a-Troll. And How Not To.

[LaskyaClaren]

troll n.  [/trəʊl/]

 

Computing slang. A person who posts deliberately erroneous or antagonistic messages to a newsgroup or similar forum with the intention of eliciting a hostile or corrective response. Also: a message of this type. [OED]

 

---

Sometimes I am a troll.

Or so I have on occasion been told.

Mostly, it's an accusation that has been thrown at me by isolated posters who were, for some reason, annoyed at me, or particularly disliked what I have said. But when, many aeons ago (and with a different account) I first started posting on the SL forums, I found myself perceived by pretty much the entire community there as one of these unlikable monsters, and was accordingly treated to something that, at the time, certainly felt like a full-on mob lynching. I was accused of being an alt; I was accused of using other alts to defend myself. Mostly, I was accused of deliberately being outrageous in order to provoke a reaction.

To some degree, what transpired then was my own fault. I was not new to message boards and forums, but I had never before engaged with such a diverse and open community, and I arrived with assumptions about common values, and common approaches to communicating and discussing ideas, that were simply not valid in this new context. And, what I was discussing -- feminist perspectives on Linden Lab's early public discussions about a new content rating system -- was controversial and, to a great many forum regulars, threatening.

But what was so controversial and even threatening to others seemed to me to be, if not a "given," at least a perspective that was valid enough to merit serious and respectful discussion. I was not merely not trying to provoke an outraged reaction; I was entirely unprepared for and bewildered by the one that my posts elicited. 

The definition of "trolling" that I've given above (from the Oxford English Dictionary; the Urban Dictionary says something similar) places the emphasis upon intent. A "troll" is someone who intends to provoke a firestorm. The reasons why they might wish to do so undoubtedly vary, but the key is that it is not the content, nor even the tone, that differentiates the troll from the merely incompetent or controversial, but rather the deliberate design to provoke hostility and outrage. That was, in my case, certainly not my own motivation.

The issue of "intent" seems so important to me because it can be so difficult to discern from the outside. How do we know that we are being "trolled," rather than merely encountering someone with views that seem to us outrageous, or whose verbal style seems provocative, brusque, or perhaps hostile?

The answer, I think, is that we can't know: we can only guess. And that guess is most often based upon a comparison of our own perspectives and attitudes with those of the putative troll. And where those perspectives and attitudes are, as is often the case, shared by others in our online community, they seem validated by those collectively-held values.

The point that I'm making, in my prolix way, is that "trolls" are sometimes -- perhaps often -- the actual creation of the communities within which they appear. A "troll," so-called, is in practice often someone whose views (and perhaps language, tone, and deportment) seem out of place within the online community to whom they are posting. For the SL forums, at that particular juncture in time anyway, posting the kind of "feminist" content that I was posting made me a "troll"; had many of those who hurled that label at me posted their views on some of the feminist forums in which I was more often to be found, they themselves would have undoubtedly been accused of trolling. 

I was determined (for reasons that now escape me, to be honest) to "succeed" on the SL forums, so I continued to post there, and continued to be treated for many, many months as a troll. It was only when it eventually became clear to that community that I was not merely defined by my (for them) controversial views that I became an accepted member of that community. I stopped being a troll because I was eventually no longer perceived as one.

Perhaps, then, we, as online communities, need to think twice before dismissing the trolls in our midst. I'm not suggesting that there are not people who fit the definition above, who are deliberately provocative because they crave attention or get their jollies by wreaking havoc, but I am arguing that in many cases we ourselves have created what we claim to most despise.

Perhaps, then, the success of a community can be defined by its refusal to relegate the controversial or unpopular viewpoint to the margins. Perhaps the best way to achieve a relatively "troll-free" community is not by policing and mob-action or flaming . . . but through tolerance of difference?

Or . . . maybe I'm just trolling you all now?

[LlazarusLlong]

tl;dr

[LaskyaClaren]

---

LlazarusLlong wrote:

tl;dr

---

Oh, but you will. You will.

[LlazarusLlong]

I have a feeling that you are going to confuse readers.

Not just because you use long words and complex sentences, as well as the odd complex concept - sometimes very odd.

But because your "I" is ambiguous.

Many will not know who the "I" is.

Particularly since you complicate your "identity" by saying that you have been unjustly called an alt.

When the avatar posting this IS an alt.

Maybe you would like to reread and represent your minithesis in a more cogent fashion?

[LaskyaClaren]

---

LlazarusLlong wrote:

I have a feeling that you are going to confuse readers.

Not just because you use long words and complex sentences, as well as the odd complex concept - sometimes very odd.

But because your "I" is ambiguous.

Many will not know who the "I" is.

Particularly since you complicate your "identity" by saying that you have been unjustly called an alt.

When the avatar posting this IS an alt.

Maybe you would like to reread and represent your minithesis in a more cogent fashion?

---

You, old zombie, are one of perhaps 2 or 3 people still posting here who might actually remember the events to which I am referring. And the rest won't care about those details, which refer to things that happened years ago.

 

And for many of those people, the account that I am referencing is the "alt," and this my "main."

 

[LlazarusLlong]

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

The definition of "trolling" that I've given above (from the

Oxford English Dictionary;

 the

Urban Dictionary

says something similar) places the emphasis upon 

intent

. A "troll" is someone who 

intends

to provoke a firestorm. The reasons why they might wish to do so undoubtedly vary, but the key is that it is not the content, nor even the tone, that differentiates the troll from the merely incompetent or controversial, but rather the deliberate design to provoke hostility and outrage. That was, in my case, certainly not my own motivation.

---

Notwithstanding my comments above, I will offer my focused insight on this particular paragraph.

It is that it is, as you have suggested albeit in a weak fashion, IMPOSSIBLE to determine accurately anybody's intent.

Not just online, but in real life.

So the definition is inadequate.

I won't even go into the question of whether a distinction should be made about the same post being considered trolling in an ANSWERS forum, but as a justifiable attempt to persuade participants to offer opinions in a General Discussion forum - mainly because the ToS (as interpreted by moderating automata) does not differentiate diferent contexts.

[LlazarusLlong]

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

 

And for

many

of those people, the account that I am referencing is the "alt," and this my "main."

 

---

That isn't necessarily helpful . . .

[LlazarusLlong]

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

---

LlazarusLlong wrote:

tl;dr

---

Oh, but you will. You will.

---

As you have claimed to do in the past, I have not read it, although I have read it so I can work out whether I should read it or not.

Also, don't believe everything you read on the internet, as someone I has said in the past.

[LaskyaClaren]

---

LlazarusLlong wrote:

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

The definition of "trolling" that I've given above (from the

Oxford English Dictionary;

 the

Urban Dictionary

says something similar) places the emphasis upon 

intent

. A "troll" is someone who 

intends

to provoke a firestorm. The reasons why they might wish to do so undoubtedly vary, but the key is that it is not the content, nor even the tone, that differentiates the troll from the merely incompetent or controversial, but rather the deliberate design to provoke hostility and outrage. That was, in my case, certainly not my own motivation.

---

Notwithstanding my comments above, I will offer my focused insight on this particular paragraph.

It is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to determine accurately anybody's intent.

Not just online, but in real life.

So the definition is inadequate.

I won't even go into the question of whether a distinction should be made about the same post being considered trolling in an ANSWERS forum, but as a justifiable attempt to persuade participants to offer opinions in a General Discussion forum - mainly because the ToS (as interpreted by moderating automata) does not differentiate diferent contexts.

---

It's surely not the definition that is invalid, but rather the judgements that we make about who can be said to fit it. There are undoubtedly people who do what is described here; we just can't possibly prove it.

Which, I should have thought, merely reinforced my point. The only 'trolls," in a true sense, are the ones whom we, as a community, label as such.

I think that in an "Answers" forum, 'trolling" is probably most often used as a kind of short form for "this-isn't-relevant-please-just-answer-the-damned-question-we-don't-care-about-your-opinion."

[LlazarusLlong]

I'll stop now and let someone else have a turn, otherwise there will be more complaints that we are holding a private dialogue.

Although in a public place where everyone is able to interrupt.

[LaskyaClaren]

---

LlazarusLlong wrote:

I'll stop now and let someone else have a turn, otherwise there will be more complaints that we are holding a private dialogue.

Although in a public place where everyone is able to interrupt.

---

As we are probably the only people awake here, that seems unlikely.

Perhaps I should take that as a hint, and get to bed myself. :-)

[LlazarusLlong]

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

It's surely not the definition that is invalid, but rather the judgements that we make about who can be said to fit it. There are undoubtedly people who do what is described here; we just can't possibly prove it.

---

Nah, that's like suggesting that the definition of pink is whatever people wearing rose-tinted glasses can see, is valid.

[Derek Torvalar]

The jury may infer intent based upon indirect, circumstantial evidence.

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

And, what I was discussing -- feminist perspectives on Linden Lab's early public discussions about a new content rating system -- was controversial and, to a great many forum regulars,

threatening

...

.annoying!

The issue of "intent" seems so important to me because it can be so difficult to discern from the outside.

---

Intent isn't relevant.  Results are.  

[Derek Torvalar]

Here we go.

<chuckles>

[LaskyaClaren]

---

Derek Torvalar wrote:

The jury may infer intent based upon indirect, circumstantial evidence.

---

Real juries may well do so -- but the burden of proof is supposed to be much higher, and there is a whole systematic scaffolding of the way in which evidence is presented and treated that is, obviously, not present in the Wild West environment of most online communities.

And, one could argue (and I'm sure it has been argued) that "criminality" is itself a function of social norms and community standards.

[LaskyaClaren]

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

And, what I was discussing -- feminist perspectives on Linden Lab's early public discussions about a new content rating system -- was controversial and, to a great many forum regulars,

threatening

...

.annoying!

The issue of "intent" seems so important to me because it can be so difficult to discern from the outside.

---

Intent isn't relevant.  Results are.  

---

I'm not sure, really, what that means, because the "results" in question are often nothing more than the holding of unpopular views, and/or their articulation in a form that may not conform to the particular standards of a community.

I'd have thought that a libertarian would be upholding the right of an individual to articulate her or his views, however unpopular (or annoying!), in the face of a pile-on by the community?

[Derek Torvalar]

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

---

Derek Torvalar wrote:

The jury may infer intent based upon indirect, circumstantial evidence.

---

Real juries may well do so -- but the burden of proof is supposed to be much higher, and there is a whole systematic scaffolding of the way in which evidence is presented and treated that is, obviously, not present in the Wild West environment of most online communities.

And, one could argue (and I'm sure it 

has

been argued) that "criminality" is itself a function of social norms and community standards.

---

Burden of proof is, 'beyond a reasonable doubt' for criminal proceedings, and 'based on a preponderance of the evidence' for civil proceedings.

How the evidence is presented in the 'Wild West' is wholly dependant on the individual(s) making the accusation so there is bound to be some discrepancy there as not all have the ability to formulate and peresent a case/argument of that nature. However, itemizing the aspects or situations  in which the circumstantial evidence has occurred is not all that difficult.

I think the point you are trying to make with your discussion is differentiating between General Intent and Specific Intent.

PS Good morning, sleep well?

PPS And trying to derail this discussion into a debate on the relative merits of Sociological Theory is a classic tactic of the troll. ;P

[LaskyaClaren]

---

Derek Torvalar wrote:

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

---

Derek Torvalar wrote:

The jury may infer intent based upon indirect, circumstantial evidence.

---

Real juries may well do so -- but the burden of proof is supposed to be much higher, and there is a whole systematic scaffolding of the way in which evidence is presented and treated that is, obviously, not present in the Wild West environment of most online communities.

And, one could argue (and I'm sure it 

has

been argued) that "criminality" is itself a function of social norms and community standards.

---

Burden of proof is, 'beyond a reasonable doubt' for criminal proceedings, and 'based on a preponderance of the evidence' for civil proceedings.

How the evidence is presented in the 'Wild West' is wholly dependant on the individual(s) making the accusation so there is bound to be some discrepancy there as not all have the ability to formulate and peresent a case/argument of that nature. However, itemizing the aspects or situations  in which the circumstantial evidence has occurred is not all that difficult.

I think the point you are trying to make with your discussion is differentiating between General Intent and Specific Intent.

PS Good morning, sleep well?

---

What you are describing is surely a much more elaborate process than happens, in practice, in places like this?

I don't think that the individuals who comprise online communities "deliberate" in any meaningful fashion, and even more rarely do they discuss. I think the tendency (and I'm sure there are exceptions) is to respond in a pretty unthinking and visceral fashion to posts that violate expectations about content or decorum. 

 

I slept very well, thank you, although possibly not long enough. I may need a nap. :-)

[Derek Torvalar]

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

---

Derek Torvalar wrote:

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

---

Derek Torvalar wrote:

The jury may infer intent based upon indirect, circumstantial evidence.

---

Real juries may well do so -- but the burden of proof is supposed to be much higher, and there is a whole systematic scaffolding of the way in which evidence is presented and treated that is, obviously, not present in the Wild West environment of most online communities.

And, one could argue (and I'm sure it 

has

been argued) that "criminality" is itself a function of social norms and community standards.

---

Burden of proof is, 'beyond a reasonable doubt' for criminal proceedings, and 'based on a preponderance of the evidence' for civil proceedings.

How the evidence is presented in the 'Wild West' is wholly dependant on the individual(s) making the accusation so there is bound to be some discrepancy there as not all have the ability to formulate and peresent a case/argument of that nature. However, itemizing the aspects or situations  in which the circumstantial evidence has occurred is not all that difficult.

I think the point you are trying to make with your discussion is differentiating between General Intent and Specific Intent.

PS Good morning, sleep well?

---

What you are describing is surely a much more elaborate process than happens, in practice, in places like this?

I don't think that the individuals who comprise online communities "deliberate" in any meaningful fashion, and even more rarely do they discuss. I think the tendency (and I'm sure there are exceptions) is to respond in a pretty unthinking and visceral fashion to posts that violate expectations about content or decorum. 

 

I slept very well, thank you, although possibly not long enough. I may need a nap. :-)

---

Not really.

True, it is a rarity. That is why it is so refreshing to see it actually occur and why we cultivate those individuals who are capable of that.

See my PPS above.

[LaskyaClaren]

I like to differentiate between "derails" and possibly fruitful and interesting digressions.

Perhaps, again, we too often leap to unwarranted conclusions about the intent and value of so-called "derails"?

[Derek Torvalar]

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

I like to differentiate between "derails" and possibly fruitful and interesting digressions.

Perhaps, again, we too often leap to unwarranted conclusions about the intent and value of so-called "derails"?

---

One would then necessarily question the nature of the fruit you are trying to harvest.

Again, it becomes a question of General or Specific. Value judgements are irrelevant.

[LaskyaClaren]

---

Derek Torvalar wrote:

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

I like to differentiate between "derails" and possibly fruitful and interesting digressions.

Perhaps, again, we too often leap to unwarranted conclusions about the intent and value of so-called "derails"?

---

One would then necessarily question the nature of the fruit you are trying to harvest.

Again, it becomes a question of General or Specific. Value judgements are irrelevant.

---

Either of those presupposes the deliberate violation of some kind of code that the accused does, or should, know about. Most online communities have no such "code" in an accessible form. So, determining the unwritten norms that govern how a community behaves becomes an act of interpretation on the part of the poster. 

 

It would be like not having written laws, but arguing that a criminal should have known by hanging around long enough that this or that was against what a community generally allowed.

That seems to imply something that goes well beyond 'due diligence" from the putative troll. And again, it suggests that the troll is only a troll because she or he doesn't fit in with the norms exhibited by other members of the community, rather than an intent to violate specific codes. 

[Derek Torvalar]

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

---

Derek Torvalar wrote:

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

I like to differentiate between "derails" and possibly fruitful and interesting digressions.

Perhaps, again, we too often leap to unwarranted conclusions about the intent and value of so-called "derails"?

---

One would then necessarily question the nature of the fruit you are trying to harvest.

Again, it becomes a question of General or Specific. Value judgements are irrelevant.

---

Either of those presupposes the deliberate violation of some kind of code that the accused does, or should, know about. Most online communities have no such "code" in an accessible form. So, determining the unwritten norms that govern how a community behaves becomes an act of interpretation on the part of the poster. 

 

It would be like not having written laws, but arguing that a criminal should have known by hanging around long enough that this or that was against what a community generally allowed.

That seems to imply something that goes well beyond 'due diligence" from the putative troll. And again, it suggests that the troll is only a troll because she or he doesn't fit in with the norms exhibited by other members of the community, rather than an intent to violate specific codes. 

---

I disagree, as 'most' online communities do indeed have codes of conduct. Whether they are readily accessible may be of question and is probably determined more by the abilities of each individual to navigate.

The codes themselves may be open to interpretation which depends of  course on the ability to concisely present them in a manner that communicates their intent. It isn't an easy task to write in concrete language and as is demonstrated here every day, most are obstinately opposed to adhering to its content, preferring instead to behave in childishly defiant behaviour characterizing emotional dysregulation.

[LaskyaClaren]

---

Derek Torvalar wrote:

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

---

Derek Torvalar wrote:

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

I like to differentiate between "derails" and possibly fruitful and interesting digressions.

Perhaps, again, we too often leap to unwarranted conclusions about the intent and value of so-called "derails"?

---

One would then necessarily question the nature of the fruit you are trying to harvest.

Again, it becomes a question of General or Specific. Value judgements are irrelevant.

---

Either of those presupposes the deliberate violation of some kind of code that the accused does, or should, know about. Most online communities have no such "code" in an accessible form. So, determining the unwritten norms that govern how a community behaves becomes an act of interpretation on the part of the poster. 

 

It would be like not having written laws, but arguing that a criminal should have known by hanging around long enough that this or that was against what a community generally allowed.

That seems to imply something that goes well beyond 'due diligence" from the putative troll. And again, it suggests that the troll is only a troll because she or he doesn't fit in with the norms exhibited by other members of the community, rather than an intent to violate specific codes. 

---

I disagree, as 'most' online communities do indeed have codes of conduct. Whether they are readily accessible may be of question and is probably determined more by the abilities of each individual to navigate.

The codes themselves may be open to interpretation which depends of  course on the ability to concisely present them in a manner that communicates their intent. It isn't an easy task to write in concrete language and as is demonstrated here every day, most are obstinately opposed to adhering to its content, preferring instead to behave in childishly defiant behaviour characterizing emotional dysregulation.

---

It took me some searching to find the community guidelines for this place. I doubt very much that any but a very few fairly frequent posters have ever read them. So arguably they don't explain the phenomenon that I've tried to describe.

Your last comment kind of embodies the sort of subjective response to other people's posts that I've also been describing. But it also raises an interesting question: if the majority of posters don't adhere to the written "rules," in what sense are the written rules a valid description of the social interactions in that place?