Is it considered abuse on boards to call some a troll?

Dudess

Used to be a mod but ages ago.

I think trolling is pretty clearcut, but sometimes it's unintentional - e.g. constantly throwing out fallacies, unsubstantiated junk and then getting tetchy and resorting to ad hominems and strawmans as defence. And being obtuse/disingenuous, using extremes to make a point, getting abusive/passive-aggressive, deliberately misrepresenting what people say. This may not be initially intended as a wind-up exercise, it may be based on a genuine view (or moreso just a "feeling" since it can't be backed up) but it's still just sh1t-stirring and getting people's backs up and just a load of loud noises - and a nuisance for moderators. Sometimes it becomes a mere wind-up because of the person knowing they haven't a leg to stand on, can't argue their position so they just spew tripe to get a rise.
Otherwise, trolling is plain and simply being on a wind-up/looking for a fight for the sake of it. Sometimes it can be funny, IMO, but a lot of the time it's just tedious.
Trolling is not simply having a contrarian view though - I can only think of one time that accusation was made by a mod. And that mod was wrong.

Galvasean

Just thought I'd pop in and say how much I regret calling that thread, "bitch about Hitchens". In my defense though, the man was not yet cold in the ground when people where kicking up a stink in a condolences thread, told by mods to start a new thread if they wanted to have a debate about Hitchens' various contentious viewpoints, point blank refused to start a new thread and continued derailing the condolences thread. (Mercy, that was along sentence).
So, in this case after being given several opportunities to air their grievances in a new thread they ignored moderator instructions and continued anyway. And they wonder why people thought they were trolling?


PS: I spotted this:

Nolanger wrote: »

They should rename that forum Empire magazine because whenever you criticise a famous director (Scorcese/Tarantino) or suggest an old black and white movie they shout Troll. They're like a bunch of global warming zealots unable to accept a counter opinion.

'the hell is this post smoking? I frequently diss Scorcese on that forum and am free to do so. Any thread that mentions Tarantino has just as many QT haters as it does fans. The majority of posters (who have posted about it) are looking forward to that new black and white film. Plus, Empire Magazine gets its fair share of criticism there too.
A tiny bit of evidence would have been useful to back up such claims.

Sad Professor

Nolanger wrote: »

I get called a troll all the time in the Films forum by the MODERATORS!

There's a difference between a user calling you a troll and a moderator telling you to stop trolling. You do troll in the Films forum. You've been warned about this. Despite your love of old classic films you have little to say about them. You seem to hate anything made after 1970 and your main contribution to the forum is trollish one liners about how much modern films suck. It's tiresome.

The Films forum is for discussing all films, old and new, but for obvious reasons contemporary films account for most of the discussion. If you don't like this you should post elsewhere.

Nolanger

Here's how it works on the Film forum. I make a comment that goes against the majority view in a thread and one of the moderators posts a sarcastic reply which then gets thanked by another moderator. It's pathetic seeing these people back up each other all the time. They think they're 'experts' on cinema agreeing with each other all the time and when a counter opinion appears they're accused of trolling. Change the name of that forum to Films in colour or Total Film readers.

Socialist_Pig

Nolanger wrote: »

Here's how it works on the Film forum. I make a comment that goes against the majority view in a thread and one of the moderators posts a sarcastic reply which then gets thanked by another moderator. It's pathetic seeing these people back up each other all the time. They think they're 'experts' on cinema agreeing with each other all the time and when a counter opinion appears they're accused of trolling. Change the name of that forum to Films in colour or Total Film readers.

you haven't provided any examples to back up that you're NOT trolling.

While there's nothing wrong with providing an opinion thats against the majority view on a thread/forum I think its how you put it across.

The last 2 posts you made wanting to change the name of the films forum would come across to me as trolling...and I dont know you from adam and dont think I've stuck my head into the films forum so have no clue to the background of your issue's with the mods.

Otis Driftwood

Nolanger wrote: »

Here's how it works on the Film forum. I make a comment that goes against the majority view in a thread and one of the moderators posts a sarcastic reply which then gets thanked by another moderator. It's pathetic seeing these people back up each other all the time. They think they're 'experts' on cinema agreeing with each other all the time and when a counter opinion appears they're accused of trolling. Change the name of that forum to Films in colour or Total Film readers.

Thats a load of bollox,seriously like.

The film forum is one of the most open and easy to leap into forums that there is on boards and I frequently disagree with peoples opinions and other people mine,it is a discussion board after all.

I challenge you to provide 3 links that support your above claims.

Brown Bomber

Galvasean wrote: »

Just thought I'd pop in and say how much I regret calling that thread, "bitch about Hitchens".

Good of you to say.

Galvasean wrote: »

In my defense though, the man was not yet cold in the ground when people where kicking up a stink in a condolences thread, told by mods to start a new thread if they wanted to have a debate about Hitchens' various contentious viewpoints, point blank refused to start a new thread and continued derailing the condolences thread.

Hang on! This is a total misrepresentation.

This is the timeline:

I'd only posted in total about 5 posts in that thread and found myself insulted by Zillah after my very first post. Which I did not respond in kind to hardly the action of a "troll". Dades interjected at post 206 to censor any future discussion of Hitchens' views on the Iraq war. Which I respected. I only posted once more in that thread, post 210 and that was to comment on a biography of Thomas Paine, which another user Lucy had brought up.

My final "Iraq War" post in that thread came at : 19-12-2011, 04:41
Dades warning came at 19-12-2011, 11:44
Your thread opened at: 19-12-2011, 12:16

Galvasean wrote: »

So, in this case after being given several opportunities to air their grievances in a new thread they ignored moderator instructions and continued anyway. And they wonder why people thought they were trolling?

Hopefully you'll now re-evaluate your trolling claims now that I've taken the time to present you with the facts...

Galvasean

Where did I say I was referring to you specifically and.or exclusively?
Something you might need to think about before accusing people of misrepresenting you and demanding apologies.

Brown Bomber

Galvasean wrote: »

Where did I say I was referring to you specifically and.or exclusively?
Something you might need to think about before accusing people of misrepresenting you and demanding apologies.

Well whoever you were referring to you are still wrong. Nobody posted in that thread on the Iraq war after Dades warning.

Galvasean

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well whoever you were referring to you are still wrong. Nobody posted in that thread on the Iraq war after Dades warning.

While I'm not ruling out the possibility of me being incorrect, are you certain about this? IIRC several posts were later moved from that thread (and also the 'favourite quotes' one) after said warning was served.

Brown Bomber

Galvasean wrote: »

While I'm not ruling out the possibility of me being incorrect, are you certain about this? IIRC several posts were later moved from that thread (and also the 'favourite quotes' one) after said warning was served.

The quotes thread is a seperate issue. Of course it's possible that posts were moved from "The Hitch is dead" thread that I am not aware of. If not, you should withdraw this statement though:

So, in this case after being given several opportunities to air their grievances in a new thread they ignored moderator instructions and continued anyway. And they wonder why people thought they were trolling?

Galvasean

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The quotes thread is a seperate issue.

Actually it is a symptom of the exact same issue - thread derailment.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Of course it's possible that posts were moved from "The Hitch is dead" thread that I am not aware of. If not, you should withdraw this statement though:

I'll correct myself if/when someone in the know confirms that I was indeed mistaken. Until such time I'm done with this thread as it appears to be fast becoming a place for people with various axes to grind to come in and vent.

Dades

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The quotes thread is a seperate issue. Of course it's possible that posts were moved from "The Hitch is dead" thread that I am not aware of. If not, you should withdraw this statement though:

I'm suspect Robindch moved some stuff from one to the other over the Christmas period. Though I was too busy eating Chocolate Kimberly's (Kimberlies?) and can't tell what (if anything) was moved now.

Nolanger

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

I challenge you to provide 3 links that support your above claims.

Post 32
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056501310&page=3
Post 7 (on Xmas day!)
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=76174400
Post 14
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056328409

Insect Overlord

Nolanger wrote: »

Post 32
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056501310&page=3
Post 7 (on Xmas day!)
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=76174400
Post 14
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056328409

You totally deserved the first one and the third one. Cop on to yourself.

johnny_ultimate

Just like to say that Nolanger has frequently proven himself unable to engage in discourse on any sensible level on the film forum. Almost every post is either pitifully disparaging modern cinema for god knows what reason, or mentioning some obscure b&w film in a failed attempt to be humourous. We have frequently suggested if he wants to discuss classic cinema he can start threads to do so. But instead he just bursts into random threads and makes absurd statements that he is unwilling to follow up with any discussion or back-up with anything resembling logic. There are tonnes of great posters in film with diverse opinions on everything from Battleship Potemkin to Martin Scorcese (who Mr. Langer has proven himself to have a particular bee in his bonnet about).

We mods, like every single regular in films, are well aware that Nolanger is trolling, and pretty much choose to ignore him.

Nolanger

Well if I'm trolling why not temporarily ban me from the Films forum instead of posting sarcastic replys to my posts with your moderator pals thanking you? Making valid points on a thread is not trolling. Check out yesterday's Hitchccock thread where someone said they prefer Hitchcock films from the womb. THAT IS TROLLING. If you or your moderators pals disagree with my posts then ask me to clarify what I'm on about and I'll reedit the post. Instead you post sarcastic comments.

johnny_ultimate

If you keep posting sarcastic, pointless rubbish like you always do than we will respond in kind. I think you'll find it's far from just the mods who reply to your posts in this manner. It is you and you alone that has invited the manner of response. And the Hitchcock reply was a reply to another trolling post from you, which you failed to mention (and don't argue that it wasn't - we've put up with your nonsense for long enough to be able to spot it a mile off). I think you'll find you are the only poster who this is a problem with.

Well if I'm trolling why not temporarily ban me from the Films forum

Happy to oblige in that regard if you'd prefer, since our frequent warnings asking you to participate have done little good.

EDIT: Have also taken the liberty of undeleting your unhelpful posts in this thread to show the level of your 'contribution'.

K-9

Maybe its such an obvious question it's stupid, but why don't you just ban that poster then? Looks like childish tit for tat nonsense from the replies here.

johnny_ultimate

K-9 wrote: »

Maybe its such an obvious question it's stupid, but why don't you just ban that poster then? Looks like childish tit for tat nonsense from the replies here.

It has been discussed, but not acted upon for various reasons. It's only during the last week or two that it has gotten bad enough to have actively spoiled a number of threads.

Anyway, we've said what we need to here, and Nolanger is perfectly entitled to continue this discussion in PM with the film nods. Posting more constructively would negate the need for this conversation in the first place

Nolanger

They won't ban me because they know I'm not trolling and are only using that as an excuse to insult me. For example on the Hitchcock thread recently I posted:
Some of his British films from the 1920s are impressive e.g. Blackmail.
which is considered trolling.
Those Film forum moderators have their heads stuck so far up each other's arses they should be in charge of the Rugby forum.

Delirium

Nolanger wrote: »

They won't ban me because they know I'm not trolling and are only using that as an excuse to insult me. For example on the Hitchcock thread recently I posted:
Some of his British films from the 1920s are impressive e.g. Blackmail.
which is considered trolling.
Those Film forum moderators have their heads stuck so far up each other's arses they should be in charge of the Rugby forum.

Link to the post in question

Nowhere after that post are you accused of trolling on that thread.

Nolanger

I wasn't directly accused of trolling on that thread. I got accused of trolling on that thread here on this page (post 79) where the moderator says:
And the Hitchcock reply was a reply to another trolling post from you, which you failed to mention (and don't argue that it wasn't - we've put up with your nonsense for long enough to be able to spot it a mile off).

Delirium

But then all you're highlighting is that the mods aren't punishing you for trolling. Prior to this thread, no one would know that your post was considered trolling, yourself included.

And even now, only readers of this thread would be aware of that. Are you asking for them to infract/ban you for posts they're unhappy with?

Nolanger

But it's not trolling, that's the point! Those moderators on the Films forum are using this trolling excuse because they don't like my posts. I fail to see how recommending a Hitchcock film from the 1920s is trolling?

johnny_ultimate

Because it is a further pointless generalisation of a one-liner where you actively fail to engage with the debate that is going on within the thread, instead soapboxing and calling further attention to your preference for all things pre-1950 - I could use the same description for 90% of your other posts in the forum. The other 10% is reserved for the times you go on an 'all new films are crap / you're all Empire readers for liking a Scorcese film' rant. I defy anyone to have a glance at your posting history and come up with a different conclusion. It's been going on for long enough that we're more than able to spot the sarcastic, bitter tone inherent in all of your posts. It's more than telling that there are a number of other non-mod posters who frequently call you up on this nonsense, and we have received a number of reported posts in the past accusing you of trolling. We don't like your posts / classic films? I think you'll find that all the mods of the film have a bias towards classic cinema as well: we just happen to like modern films too, and aren't endlessly bitter that some people care for Martin Scorcese films.

To repeat a point I made earlier, you are the only poster in films this sort of thing is a problem with. It's not us, it's you.

I'm not going to endlessly repeat my points here - if you have a problem, discuss it with us in PM form or since we have made it abundantly clear with our problems with your posts are, try to act upon them and engage in the forum.

Nolanger

Well explain this: How come none of the moderators on the other Forums/Fora complain about my one-line posts there and accuse me of trrrrooooollling? It's just you heads in the Film forum who don't want to read counter opinions about your favourite films/directors. Why don't you change the rules in the charter that only films made after 1970 are allowed for discussion then? Ever wonder why the Film moderators like Scorcese so much? It's because he rips off/is influenced by old movies from the 1940s and '50s. The ones which the Film moderator eejits aren't aware of? Films forum my ass? It's like having the Music forum for bands after 1990!

Socialist_Pig

Nolanger wrote: »

Well explain this: How come none of the moderators on the other Forums/Fora complain about my one-line posts there and accuse me of trrrrooooollling? It's just you heads in the Film forum who don't want to read counter opinions about your favourite films/directors. Why don't you change the rules in the charter that only films made after 1970 are allowed for discussion then? Ever wonder why the Film moderators like Scorcese so much? It's because he rips off/is influenced by old movies from the 1940s and '50s. The ones which the Film moderator eejits aren't aware of? Films forum my ass? It's like having the Music forum for bands after 1990!

well why dont you start a thread/s on the older movies(as advised by the forum mods).

Calling the Forum mods eejits isnt helping your case either

Otis Driftwood

Nolanger wrote: »

Well explain this: How come none of the moderators on the other Forums/Fora complain about my one-line posts there and accuse me of trrrrooooollling? It's just you heads in the Film forum who don't want to read counter opinions about your favourite films/directors. Why don't you change the rules in the charter that only films made after 1970 are allowed for discussion then? Ever wonder why the Film moderators like Scorcese so much? It's because he rips off/is influenced by old movies from the 1940s and '50s. The ones which the Film moderator eejits aren't aware of? Films forum my ass? It's like having the Music forum for bands after 1990!

So how many threads have you started in the film forum about older movies?

I did a quick search there and as far as I can see you started 4 threads in the film forum,3 about the IFTA's and one asking why Zsa Zsa Gabor is famous.

If you are that interested in classic cinema maybe try,ya know,starting a thread about it rather than making snarky comments that are posted for no other reason than to try and get a rise.You can say that you arent trolling but its pretty clear that you are.I know,other users know it and the mods know it.

Iwannahurl

Dudess wrote: »

I think trolling is pretty clearcut, but sometimes it's unintentional - e.g. constantly throwing out fallacies, unsubstantiated junk and then getting tetchy and resorting to ad hominems and strawmans as defence.

And being obtuse/disingenuous, using extremes to make a point, getting abusive/passive-aggressive, deliberately misrepresenting what people say.

This may not be initially intended as a wind-up exercise, it may be based on a genuine view (or moreso just a "feeling" since it can't be backed up) but it's still just sh1t-stirring and getting people's backs up and just a load of loud noises - and a nuisance for moderators. Sometimes it becomes a mere wind-up because of the person knowing they haven't a leg to stand on, can't argue their position so they just spew tripe to get a rise.

Otherwise, trolling is plain and simply being on a wind-up/looking for a fight for the sake of it. Sometimes it can be funny, IMO, but a lot of the time it's just tedious.

Trolling is not simply having a contrarian view though - I can only think of one time that accusation was made by a mod. And that mod was wrong.

I'm not a troll. But then I would say that, wouldn't I?!

However, I don't believe the definition/label is clearcut at all.

I would contend that fallacies, unsubstantiated claims, tetchiness, ad hominem attacks, Strawman arguments, misrepresentation, distortion and playing to the gallery are commonplace.

AFAIK, there are only a few forums where a good standard of discussion is expected, eg Humanities and various forums in Science.





In general, civil discussion is expected, but not necessarily rational debate. There has to be room for personal opinion and impassioned argument, and not all subject matter lends itself to evidence-based reasoning.

However, in my experience of some forums, attempting to support an argument with reference to evidence or authoritative sources -- where such is possible and appropriate, but not the usual style -- is not welcomed.

This gets back to the Regulars/Natives comment made by a Mod earlier in this thread (and not revisited or justified since). Some Regular Natives just want a good chinwag about the usual Forum subject matter, which may include a good moan about certain things taken for granted, and if a noob/interloper pops up posting "contrarian" views, especially in a style not previously approved by the de facto Welcoming Committee, the accusation of trolling can be made very early in the thread. This can be supported by Mods, especially those whose own views are broadly similar to those of the Regular Natives.

The notion of "contrarian" is also a moveable feast. What may be regarded as contrarian by Regular Natives in one forum may be considered common sense or established fact in another forum or IRL.