| |
|
This was inspired by LL-BIMG's comment:
As for Haus, I keep forgetting that he admitted to being a troll in his interview thread and is best ignored.
While respecting the privacy of private messages, Lawrence believed and, as far as I know, still believes this to be the case, admittedly in an increasingly rarefied way. For reference, at no point did I adnit to being a troll in my interview thread. You can take a look here, if you fancy, although it might get a bit dull. The relevant section is on page two.
However, moving on from the very obvious and factual statement "Haus did not admit to being a troll in his interview thread", or indeed the subsequent "Lawrence has not quite sorted out Lacanian separation yet", this struck me as an interesting one. What he meant, it seems, is that I had admitted to not representing myself on the board as I might do in the same situation in real life.
Is this trolling? Expressionless, for one, suggests not. But what is our definition of a troll? I noticed that being accused of it annoys me rather, although less and less with repetition of the same unsupported and nonsensical allegation. So, I hied myself to the Interwebnet to look for a definition, and founf this, which seems to be relevant, although aimed at Usenet rather than BBS in general. Extracted:
In Usenet usage, a "troll" is not a grumpy monster that lives beneath a bridge accosting passers-by, but rather a provocative posting to a newsgroup intended to produce a large volume of frivolous responses. The content of a "troll" posting generally falls into several areas. It may consist of an apparently foolish contradiction of common knowledge, a deliberately offensive insult to the readers of a newsgroup, or a broad request for trivial follow-up postings.
There are three reasons why people troll newsgroups:
People post such messages to get attention, to disrupt newsgroups, and simply to make trouble.
Or, from the jargon files:
troll v.,n.
1. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT. 2. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll." Compare kook. 3. [Berkeley] Computer lab monitor. A popular campus job for CS students. Duties include helping newbies and ensuring that lab policies are followed. Probably so-called because it involves lurking in dark cavelike corners.
Some people claim that the troll (sense 1) is properly a narrower category than flame bait, that a troll is categorized by containing some assertion that is wrong but not overtly controversial. See also Troll-O-Meter.
The use of `troll' in either sense is a live metaphor that readily produces elaborations and combining forms. For example, one not infrequently sees the warning "Do not feed the troll" as part of a followup to troll postings.
By which logic Exp's response, that a troll subverts the board for his or her own ends, seems largely correct, and suggests that Lawry's (attention-seeking, provocative and disruptive, with no real interest in the response?) statement, not only that I *was* a troll, but that I had *admitted* to being a troll (that is, a misrepresentation rather than a simple attack) is a pretty textbook troll, and my failure was to allow it to disrupt my equilibrium.
Now, I'm not expecting Lawry to apologise or even admit the possibility that he may have spoken hastily or mistakenly, because he actually did mean "the worth of boast worlds", and anyone who says different is just being pedantic.
However, I am curious as to what "trolling" means to you, and whether you feel that you are a victim of it, or a perpetrator, or what. Does it have to be intentional, or can somebody accidentally troll - that is, is "troll" a label or a behaviour, or both? What behaviour would you like to see generally disapproved of on Barbelith? Can a habitual troll be rehabilitated, and is it worht the bother? |
|
|
