<Trollish Post>

Post Reply New Topic

You're quite good. *chuckle*

As I said, I don't think I can give a line - and I'm glad that pattern of behavior helped, Claire333. Having taught, I know the value of mistakes... one doesn't learn without them. If someone does something, even if it seems blatant at first, I have to give them the benefit of the doubt. But I can give some examples - posting the same thread in every forum; rampant cursing, vulgarities and insult to a specific person or group - especially in locations that by design will cause problems; posting repeated inflammatory posts designed to provoke responses without any further involvement in the thread save observation... and the list goes on. [edit] Or the screaming "Fire!" in a theatre, such as a thread directly attacking a person's or a group's beliefs is a reason for my concern, though not always my action - I greatly appreciate those who take those own initiative to make the appropriate corrections on their own or do so willingly upon suggestion. And, again I am talking here as a member first... most of my experience with these matters is in that capacity alone. [/edit] May I ask why you need such an analytic answer when the simple matter of following the guidelines pretty much covers all the bases?


M.

I find it interesting that there are unwarranted assumptions about what might be called normal human behavior. Somewhere in there are the unsubstantiated Kantian beliefs that each one of us is endowed with the unassailable stabilities which form the foundation of proper human interaction. The mentioned psychological experiment in which random subjects were designated as either prisoners or guards and the subsequent elicitation of extraordinary cruelty from the "guards" was mirrored in the current news about the behavior of guards in Iraqi prisons under US supervision, in Guantanamo where medical personal participated in supplementing torture procedures and going back to the analyses of Hannah Arendt in her observation that the Nazi guards in concentration camps who performed their official duties with blatant cruelty yet in their daily private lives were no less kind than any of us in our personal relationships. The lesson to be gained from these observations is that social circumstance is of prime importance in determining patterns of behavior. In the understanding of the antisocial acts of trolling I think it is of prime importance to consider that the troll in question is operating out of no special circumstances that would condone such misbehavior and it is entirely proper to consider such behavior as the result of exceedingly tortured mental conditions that delights in some form of social sadism. The behavior itself is sufficient evidence of a mental disability.

How many trolls have you researched? How do you know the circumstances? Not only that, but how do you know the pleasure that the troll gets out of life in general compared to the average population? "Exceedingly tortured" suggests a measure of relative pleasure. Not only that, but honestly, to measure a mental disability, it seems to me that what would be necessary would be context, as prank calling somebody seems to be on the same level as trolling is, perhaps even worse, but I do not think any reasonable person considers that to be a sign of mental disability. You might, but if so, I'd just consider you unreasonable for doing so.

Well, it doesn't though. You've already brought in metrics that aren't in the guidelines, but that seem useful for determining troll vs non-troll. Not only that, but the guidelines are not for determining trolls, but just a particular annoying action. In any case, a non-troll can still violate the guidelines while not being a troll, like a particularly pugnacious poster could be repeatedly insulting but still not a troll despite this continual violation because they were providing information in the thread, an perhaps willing to apologize for mistakes. They might still get banned, but they weren't the same as a troll.

There are pranks, and pranks. In all probability you might consider Madoff's financial antics under the category of a prank although the social acceptance of widespread corruption that now pervades the entire financial, business and political community of the USA is probably sufficient social grounds for justifying Madoff. As they say, the only American crime is getting caught. Nevertheless I would contend that under the general condition that humanity gathers in association to the benefit of all, any blatant social misbehavior may be considered as evidence of a mental disability and minor excursions in this area must, out of practical necessity and basic decency to be excused, but that, at least to my mind, does not dismiss that it is something of a mental twist, however negligible.

In addition it might be worthwhile to indicate that anyone who indulges in a personal pleasure to the discomfort of everybody else with no motivation of rectification of social conditions or attitudes but merely for the sadistic satisfaction of the action is quite reprehensible.

What discretion I use must be somewhat arbitrary; I try to give some latitude, and depend on others to let me know when something is offending them... some things are surprising at first, not obvious at first glance. I don't think as a moderator I would be doing my job if I only commented on or acted upon posts that bothered me personally... that's not fair in my mind. Trolling is something not allowed on WP, so that would be a part of following the rules. I will acknowledge that someone who admits their mistakes earns some respect from me - but respect doesn't buy exemption from following the rules. And there is a difference between someone getting banned and being a troll. I've watched people behaving oddly and provocatively become fantastic members despite some initial trouble, and others who suddenly do thing(s) that are in direct violation of the rules. Grey areas are an interesting place.


M.

ORWELL IS A TROGLODYTE AND A CHARLATAN!

Oh man, that makes me a double troll doesn't it?

Eh, bashing people for their views is pretty low, but I don't think you can top all caps.

What if I was bashing someone for being a christian, while using all caps?

EDIT: I guess the guy above me already mentioned something like that