Overuse of the term "trolling" on Boards

Roger_007

The words 'troll' and 'trolling' started out on the internet as meaning something mischievous or someone acting mischievously.
In recent times they have come to mean something altogether more sinister, i.e. abusive, bullying and harassing type of content which is intended to cause distress.
It looks odd when you see the term being used on boards when someone goes a bit off-topic when the previous time you've heard it in connection with internet bullying or possibly a suicide.
If someone is off-topic, they are just that: off-topic. There is no need to accuse them of being a 'troll' because that in itself could be regarded as abusive.

seamus

Many forums have specific rules against calling people trolls on-thread. If you do encounter someone being called a troll, report the post and the mods can deal with it.

dharma200

I'm pretty sure I've seen mods say 'trolling' quite a lot... I reckon trolling is jsy writing posts for a reaction, without adequate facts or backup in the issue they are pushing... I don't think troll is that indicative to bullying,,suicide etc anymore, the word has moved on to a specific behaviour, as opposed to an anonymous person creating an identity just to piss people off, it is now any user who repeatedly makes a point or opinion to cause a reaction, and is unable to have a balanced debate about that opinion.... Meaning all of us have a bit of troll about us........

dharma200

And I also think taking away the ability for a person to say they feel a poster is a troll is not good... Sometimes trolling can be very subtle and takes a while to spot, and being called a troll is definately not the worst thing to be called presuming the person isn't. A lot of people don't actually realise they are trolling either until it is pointed out, and a lot of people are completely fooled by trolls causing annoyance etc, until it is pointed out.

I think in this day and age we have to worry more about people employed to peddle opinion, people paid to post on forums such as these to garner support for political social agendas... Which is more and more obvious as censorship of the Internet becomes a reality.

dharma200

dharma200 wrote: »

A lot of people don't actually realise they are trolling either until it is pointed out, and a lot of people are completely fooled by trolls causing annoyance etc, until it is pointed out.

.

I completely disagree. If you don't realise you are trolling then you are not a troll.

Trolls know what they are doing, trolls specifically post to get a reaction, whether or not they believe the points they are making is irrelevant to them. Trolls post to wind people up.

Calling people out as trolls because they have a different opinion to you is not only a really bad defence, but causes thread derailment.

If you think someone is trolling, ignore and report. If you think they just have a very different opinion to you - then use your arguments to have a civil discussion.

Roger_007

Deleted User wrote: »

I completely disagree. If you don't realise you are trolling then you are not a troll.

Trolls know what they are doing, trolls specifically post to get a reaction, whether or not they believe the points they are making is irrelevant to them. Trolls post to wind people up.

Calling people out as trolls because they have a different opinion to you is not only a really bad defence, but causes thread derailment.

If you think someone is trolling, ignore and report. If you think they just have a very different opinion to you - then use your arguments to have a civil discussion.

My main point was that the terms 'troll' and 'trolling' have taken on a more sinister meaning, particularly in the wider media. I was really questioning whether it is appropriate to be using these terms at all except in cases of abusive content.
I totally agree that expressing a different opinion in a civil manner should not cause offence. That's what discussion sites are for, and throwing the odd 'curve ball' into a discussion generally does no harm.
Lest I be accused of 'trolling', (on my own thread), that is all I have to say on the matter

Roger_007

Roger_007 wrote: »

My main point was that the terms 'troll' and 'trolling' have taken on a more sinister meaning, particularly in the wider media. I was really questioning whether it is appropriate to be using these terms at all except in cases of abusive content.
I totally agree that expressing a different opinion in a civil manner should not cause offence. That's what discussion sites are for, and throwing the odd 'curve ball' into a discussion generally does no harm.

I was responding directly to the poster I quoted who claimed that trolls often don't know that they are trolling.

I agree with your points for the most part, the term troll is thrown around too often - in the forums I mod it is often mis-used to describe posters who have an opinion that goes against the grain when that is not how the word should be used at all. Unless the poster is deliberately going against the viewpoints of the majority just to get a reaction and to rile others, then they aren't trolling.

Bullying, and being abusive are not necessarily trolling, although the two can certainly be linked at times.

Lest I be accused of 'trolling', (on my own thread), that is all I have to say on the matter

I don't see any reason you would be accused of trolling for giving feedback.

dharma200

I didn't mean it like that, I meant someone who has an opinion, reiterates it, them reiterates it again, other people dispute that opinion or ask questions about it, and all the response is is to state the opinion again and again... With out acknowledging the questions posed or even attempting to justify... I am talking in the case of people who have extreme opinions and repeat them over and over... Without realising that this indeed can be seen as trolling... Like me saying on this thread I think trolls should be allowed... And not engaging atall with anything else, all my posts saying the same thing over, me not doing it to purposely get a rise, but in the end that is what it would do... This I would have been a troll without intentionally being a troll... People can have strong opinions or views but must also have a bit of a responsibility to justify them if they repeat them over and over and these views cause a hostile reaction... This is apparent on the more contentious threads, like religion etc etc... That's what I meant by people. Not realising they are displaying troll like behaviour because they are not engaging atall and repeating the same things over and over.. Probably doesn't make sense...

5starpool

Roger_007 wrote: »

My main point was that the terms 'troll' and 'trolling' have taken on a more sinister meaning, particularly in the wider media. I was really questioning whether it is appropriate to be using these terms at all except in cases of abusive content.
I totally agree that expressing a different opinion in a civil manner should not cause offence. That's what discussion sites are for, and throwing the odd 'curve ball' into a discussion generally does no harm.
Lest I be accused of 'trolling', (on my own thread), that is all I have to say on the matter

In my opinion the wider media is misusing the word, at least in the context of how it has been used on the internet for years. It is them that should stop using a word they don't understand, not boards that should change due to the word being misused over the last number of years.

Bullying or being nasty on social media is a different thing to trolling imo, far more sinister, and the word trolling should not be used for that.

Dades

I actually saw a magazine cover this morning in a shop using the word trolling - badly. But just because certain elements of the media are now using the word either wrongly, or correctly but in more 'sinister' cases, doesn't change years of internet usage.

The less on-thread calling out of trolls by non-mods, the better, however.

oscarBravo

dharma200 wrote: »

I didn't mean it like that, I meant someone who has an opinion, reiterates it, them reiterates it again, other people dispute that opinion or ask questions about it, and all the response is is to state the opinion again and again... With out acknowledging the questions posed or even attempting to justify... I am talking in the case of people who have extreme opinions and repeat them over and over... Without realising that this indeed can be seen as trolling... Like me saying on this thread I think trolls should be allowed... And not engaging atall with anything else, all my posts saying the same thing over, me not doing it to purposely get a rise, but in the end that is what it would do... This I would have been a troll without intentionally being a troll... People can have strong opinions or views but must also have a bit of a responsibility to justify them if they repeat them over and over and these views cause a hostile reaction... This is apparent on the more contentious threads, like religion etc etc... That's what I meant by people. Not realising they are displaying troll like behaviour because they are not engaging atall and repeating the same things over and over.. Probably doesn't make sense...

I tend to call that "soapboxing". Some forums (such as Politics) have an explicit rule against it in the charter.

hullaballoo

I hate the way idiot "journalists" completely misunderstand words and phrases and then by over-using them in their stupid inane articles, people get bludgeoned into adapting their arseways meaning.

- A troll is basically a wind-up merchant. That's all.


Also;

Sarky

I miss the days when trolling meant something besides "You don't agree with me! That's illegal! I'm calling the authorities!" There's artistry in a good troll which even the victim can appreciate.

No more, it seems. The masses have taken the word and perverted it beyond all reason

hullaballoo

Sarky wrote: »

I miss the days when trolling meant something besides "You don't agree with me! That's illegal! I'm calling the authorities!" There's artistry in a good troll which even the victim can appreciate.

No more, it seems. The masses have taken the word and perverted it beyond all reason

And here we have a perfect example, folks! :pac:



I'm here all week.

K-9

oscarBravo wrote: »

I tend to call that "soapboxing". Some forums (such as Politics) have an explicit rule against it in the charter.

Indeed. There's a difference between genuinely holding a controversial opinion, constantly repeating it, waving away or ignoring any contrary opinions, and trolling, though it can be hard to tell at first glance. A soap boxer would tend to dogmatically believe what they are posting to such a degree that they end up monopolising the discussion and derailing it, there is no point discussing or debating the subject with them, you'd have more luck talking to the brick wall.

Overheal

I would personally consider the Media the farthest thing from an authority on - anything. I don't give a damn how they choose to mutilate the term. A troll is a pretty well understood term around here. You're thinking of Cyber-bullying.

If you really want to get Merriam-Webster about it I feel that the biggest difference aside from how each operates, is what kind of reaction each is trying to illicit. A troll usually sets out to wind people up and get their knickers in a twist, getting them up into a keyboard rage. The most they're looking to do is flamebait someone, tempting others to break the rules of the forum in order to take a shot at them and watch those users get carded or banned for giggles.

A cyberbully meanwhile will single out a victim to expressly provoke emotional harm, up to and including suicidal impulse.

Theres a subtle commonality between the two and the psychological satisfaction they get out of their actions, but a huge difference in their end results/goals.

MadsL

I'm totally confused about reporting posts on AH now. I report posts that are blatant trolls and nothing happens other than perhaps a mod slap on the wrist, other times (un)funny threads not aimed at anyone end up getting the thread and the user respectively deleted (why not locked?) and banned which seems totally over the top.

In my view if the intention is to piss off another specific user or group of users - then that is trolling. Trying to be funny and failing should not be punished more harshly than people deliberately setting out to get a rise out of people. However I see people getting away with this behaviour regularly on AH.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

I completely disagree. If you don't realise you are trolling then you are not a troll.

Trolls know what they are doing, trolls specifically post to get a reaction, whether or not they believe the points they are making is irrelevant to them. Trolls post to wind people up.

Calling people out as trolls because they have a different opinion to you is not only a really bad defence, but causes thread derailment.

If you think someone is trolling, ignore and report. If you think they just have a very different opinion to you - then use your arguments to have a civil discussion.

To be fair, Daisy, I've lost count of the amount of times I've reported a post for torllign only for nothing to happen. Some may have been a bit borderline, fair enough, but one or two were pretty safe bets.

Overheal

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

To be fair, Daisy, I've lost count of the amount of times I've reported a post for torllign only for nothing to happen. Some may have been a bit borderline, fair enough, but one or two were pretty safe bets.

Not to speak for doodle, but some times action is taken that is not visible on thread. Users can still be banned without an on thread notification by the mod, or a yellow/red card being issued.

Beasty

Sometimes it's a matter of discussing "posting styles" with users via PM. On occasions posters simply do not realise they are winding others up. Reported posts help identify particular problem posters and a "friendly" PM to the user in question can often get them to adjust their posting style appropriately

If they do not adjust their posting style though, they will have been warned leaving less scope for complaint should future action be taken

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Overheal wrote: »

Not to speak for doodle, but some times action is taken that is not visible on thread. Users can still be banned without an on thread notification by the mod, or a yellow/red card being issued.

Beasty wrote: »

Sometimes it's a matter of discussing "posting styles" with users via PM. On occasions posters simply do not realise they are winding others up. Reported posts help identify particular problem posters and a "friendly" PM to the user in question can often get them to adjust their posting style appropriately

If they do not adjust their posting style though, they will have been warned leaving less scope for complaint should future action be taken

Fair points, but I have seen a few that continued regardless with no action taken. It also makes me less likely to report though and call the poster up on it directly which, while i accept might be unhelpful, sometimes can have teh same effect as the PM.

Beasty

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Fair points, but I have seen a few that continued regardless with no action taken. It also makes me less likely to report though and call the poster up on it directly which, while i accept might be unhelpful, sometimes can have teh same effect as the PM.

It's better if you continue reporting posts as it helps mods to see if a pattern emerges. This is particularly the case with some of the busier forums where it's practically impossible for the mods to read everything

MadsL

Beasty wrote: »

It's better if you continue reporting posts as it helps mods to see if a pattern emerges. This is particularly the case with some of the busier forums where it's practically impossible for the mods to read everything

More mods?

Beasty

MadsL wrote: »

More mods?

Some days the Soccer Forum can have upwards of 3,000 posts. It's simply not practicable to carve up threads or allocate time slots to particular mods. (A couple of years ago we were getting maybe 100-150 posts a day in the Cycling forum - in those days I tried to keep up with everything - nowadays we get 2 (and sometimes 3) times as many and I have given up any thought of attempting to read everything (I do have a life outside Boards though);) The reported post system is the safety net here

MadsL

Beasty wrote: »

Some days the Soccer Forum can have upwards of 3,000 posts. It's simply not practicable to carve up threads or allocate time slots to particular mods. (A couple of years ago we were getting maybe 100-150 posts a day in the Cycling forum - in those days I tried to keep up with everything - nowadays we get 2 (and sometimes 3) times as many and I have given up any thought of attempting to read everything (I do have a life outside Boards though);) The reported post system is the safety net here

So why not have 2 -3 times the amount of mods?

This has always baffled me, boards does not seem to be growing the amount of mods in line with the growth of the site. Or am I wrong?

Beasty

MadsL wrote: »

So why not have 2 -3 times the amount of mods?

This has always baffled me, boards does not seem to be growing the amount of mods in line with the growth of the site. Or am I wrong?

Seriously?

If you had 5 times as many in the Soccer Forum it probably would not be enough to review everything. The site works better with smaller teams that are generally on the same page. Mods are primarily posters who are helping out but still look to get enjoyment out of the site themselves. Introduce that many mods (and let's be clear there is not actually a particularly large pool of appropriate candidates out there - I know because I am continually on the lookout for them for certain forums) and there will be regular feedback threads complaining of inconsistent modding

But then what's the point? - the reported post function is perfectly adequate.

MadsL

Beasty wrote: »

Seriously?

If you had 5 times as many in the Soccer Forum it probably would not be enough to review everything. The site works better with smaller teams that are generally on the same page. Mods are primarily posters who are helping out but still look to get enjoyment out of the site themselves. Introduce that many mods (and let's be clear there is not actually a particularly large pool of appropriate candidates out there - I know because I am continually on the lookout for them for certain forums) and there will be regular feedback threads complaining of inconsistent modding

But then what's the point? - the reported post function is perfectly adequate.

Yes, I am being serious. Not in terms of reading everything but it does strike me that some forums are very busy and there are very few mods compared to the size of the forum.

I don't really see how having say 10 mods is any different than having 5, except for the fact that it would halve the work.

I would be surprised if every reported post in very busy forum does in fact get looked at, or would I be wrong on that.

seamus

You're assuming there's a relative structure in the way that mods work. In theory it would seem that 3,000 new posts / 20 mods is better than 3,000 / 10, but when 60% of those posts occur in a handful of popular threads, inevitably what happens is that those 20 mods all end up reading the same 60% of new posts and not seeing the other 40% that have already slipped off the front page.

It's not an issue where simply throwing more mods at it will solve it. In fact it'll likely make it worse because more mods are harder to co-ordinate without toes getting stepped on everywhere.

MadsL

seamus wrote: »

You're assuming there's a relative structure in the way that mods work. In theory it would seem that 3,000 new posts / 20 mods is better than 3,000 / 10, but when 60% of those posts occur in a handful of popular threads, inevitably what happens is that those 20 mods all end up reading the same 60% of new posts and not seeing the other 40% that have already slipped off the front page.

It's not an issue where simply throwing more mods at it will solve it. In fact it'll likely make it worse because more mods are harder to co-ordinate without toes getting stepped on everywhere.

Fair enough, I've never modded so have never seen under the hood. Do reported posts also slip off the front page? I understand reported posts generate a thread.

Insect Overlord

MadsL wrote: »

Fair enough, I've never modded so have never seen under the hood. Do reported posts also slip off the front page? I understand reported posts generate a thread.

All the mods of the forum that generated the report receive an e-mail alert, and the CMods get one too, so they're never missed.

MadsL

Insect Overlord wrote: »

All the mods of the forum that generated the report receive an e-mail alert, and the CMods get one too, so they're never missed.

How are reported posts tracked?

I thought they generated a thread on Reported Posts, and that thread is locked when a mod has dealt with it? Is that the case?

Surely mods on AH or Soccer must be getting hundreds of emails a day?