NationStates Jolt Archive

Go ahead, answer the poll. If you don't see an option you like, suggest your own reasons for believing that something is trolling.

None of those have anything to do with trolling.

None of those have anything to do with trolling.

Apparently, some people here believe that the mere presentation of an opinion to which they are virulently opposed constitutes trolling.

None of those, indeed. I failed at deciphering the intent of this thread.

For me, trolling is posting with the deliberate intent of provoking violent and agressive reactions on the readers, or at least a significant amount of them.

Apparently, some people here believe that the mere presentation of an opinion to which they are virulently opposed constitutes trolling.

And if "some people" includes me, just for the record, it is virtually impossible to be virulently opposed to both Soviestan and IDF, because you would be forced to eventually side with one of the two, but well, you're new to the forums.

And if "some people" includes me, just for the record, it is virtually impossible to be virulently opposed to both Soviestan and IDF, because you would be forced to eventually side with one of the two, but well, you're new to the forums.

You could be opposed to the topic. It doesn't mean that the OP is trolling.

None of those, indeed. I failed at deciphering the intent of this thread.

For me, trolling is posting with the deliberate intent of provoking violent and agressive reactions on the readers, or at least a significant amount of them.

And why would one violently react to a post? This is the Internet.

i believe its trolling if the OP is written in the most inflamatory manner possible and the poster makes no real effort to defend his position but only responds to those who personally attack him.

MODS R TEH TRULLZ LUL!

Anyway...while the poll options may be the subconcious reason people think something is trolling, theyre not the official reason for trolling. Hopefully the mods can see past that. Sadly, of course, they are human and thus subject to the various processes by which the mind generates justifications for the actions we WANT to take
(shrug)
They dont do too badly for all that though. Nationstates is still here after all, and thats pretty much what matters.

MODS R TEH TRULLZ LUL!

Anyway...while the poll options may be the subconcious reason people think something is trolling, theyre not the official reason for trolling. Hopefully the mods can see past that. Sadly, of course, they are human and thus subject to the various processes by which the mind generates justifications for the actions we WANT to take
(shrug)
They dont do too badly for all that though. Nationstates is still here after all, and thats pretty much what matters.

You win the thread. I think a fair number of people wish that some posters could be banned on the basis of their opinions. There is, amongst all of us (free speech lovers all), an urge to silence our opponents permanently.

Apparently, some people here believe that the mere presentation of an opinion to which they are virulently opposed constitutes trolling.

You should still post the correct definition as an option, otherwise those who are interested have to keep clicking "View Poll Results" every time they want to check the statistics.

And why would one violently react to a post? This is the Internet.

Written violence? Familiar with that concept? Similar to verbal violence but involves written language. Not all violence is physical.

Being opposed to what the OP is saying doesn't mean he is trolling. If the OP is inherently trying to make you feel insulted and wish a reaction of some sort with all the intent of doing it, then he is trolling.

Written violence? Familiar with that concept? Similar to verbal violence but involves written language. Not all violence is physical.

Being opposed to what the OP is saying doesn't mean he is trolling. If the OP is inherently trying to make you feel insulted and wish a reaction of some sort with all the intent of doing it, then he is trolling.

I've been using the search function on the names you provided me, and I don't see any proof of "intent".

If you search Eve Online long enough you'll find a fairly recent post that actually says that not everything he posts he believes in.

You don't get any more naked intent than that really. Kinda like a guy covered in blood holding the gun standing next to the victim saying, "I did it!"

Do you have to believe in everything that you post? How do you prove it?

I've been using the search function on the names you provided me, and I don't see any proof of "intent".

If you search Eve Online long enough you'll find a fairly recent post that actually says that not everything he posts he believes in.

You don't get any more naked intent than that really. Kinda like a guy covered in blood holding the gun standing next to the victim saying, "I did it!"

Creating a biased poll like this and have no main purpose but to antagonize vaguely unnamed forum users....

Seems kind of like trolling!

Creating a biased poll like this and have no main purpose but to antagonize vaguely unnamed forum users....

Seems kind of like trolling!

Well, it seems as well put together as the other polls I see here - so the whole forum is trolling!

...it constitutes as trolling under the definition provided by Frisbeeteria in the one-stop rules shop.

Well, it seems as well put together as the other polls I see here

No, not at all.

You seem to thrive on being unspecific. "Some people here" apparently believe that disagreement = troll. But you won't name names or cite examples. And now "other polls" are like yours. I bet you won't cite examples there either.

Well, it seems as well put together as the other polls I see here - so the whole forum is trolling!

So youre saying that by trolling a person you beleive to be trolling and thus accusing the entire forum of trolling the act of trolling is, in fact, perpetrated by every person on the forum thus rendering ALL of us trolls in the end? That sounds pretty trollish to me.
Also...does this mean we cant have any goats?

No, not at all.

You seem to thrive on being unspecific. "Some people here" apparently believe that disagreement = troll. But you won't name names or cite examples. And now "other polls" are like yours. I bet you won't cite examples there either.

Apparently, I have to name names and cite examples, while the rest of the forum does not - I've asked for links and examples of this trolling, and have been given none.

This seems to be the standard here - should I be held to a higher standard?

Others have stated "I can't be arsed" when asked for a link. Others say they can't be bothered. They also appear to thrive on being unspecific.

So, I'll make you a deal.

You post exact links to what you believe constitutes trolling as Aelosia gave a list of "trolls". Using those names - find me the links.

Then I'll give you some links to similarly crude polls.

Deal?

So youre saying that by trolling a person you beleive to be trolling and thus accusing the entire forum of trolling the act of trolling is, in fact, perpetrated by every person on the forum thus rendering ALL of us trolls in the end? That sounds pretty trollish to me.
Also...does this mean we cant have any goats?

I hear there are three goats, but that means we're all under the bridge.

In this case I can point to the post where he said, "I don't 100% believe in everything I post" as my proof. Sure, he could be lying, but then it would actually make his statement true again, so it's a good bet.

Often a foundation of trolling is posting something you don't believe in for the purpose of rilling other posters up, so it is a promenent element of trolling. There is a difference between 'devils advocate' and trying to piss people off because you think it's funny.

How can you prove it is one, and not the other?

Do you have to believe in everything that you post? How do you prove it?

In this case I can point to the post where he said, "I don't 100% believe in everything I post" as my proof. Sure, he could be lying, but then it would actually make his statement true again, so it's a good bet.

Often a foundation of trolling is posting something you don't believe in for the purpose of rilling other posters up, so it is a promenent element of trolling. There is a difference between 'devils advocate' and trying to piss people off because you think it's funny.

Apparently, I have to name names and cite examples, while the rest of the forum does not - I've asked for links and examples of this trolling, and have been given none.

Examples of WHAT trolling? Any? All? You seem to think there is never any trolling on these forums, and you need others to provide example?

You know, I don't think the sky is blue. Please give me an example.

You post exact links to what you believe constitutes trolling as Aelosia gave a list of "trolls".

Sorry, I am not Aelosia. I'm going to argue MY points... and you can either refute them, or if you choose not to, concede.

That's how it works. People who respond to your (by now, obviously trolling) threads do not have a hive mind.


Then I'll give you some links to similarly crude polls.

Either you can specify what you say, or you can't. It appears you can't. As I predicted.

Examples of WHAT trolling? Any? All? You seem to think there is never any trolling on these forums, and you need others to provide example?

I was told that (roughly four) posters were trolls. I wasn't saying that there is never any trolling.

It's pretty clear that some people think that certain posters are trolls - and yet the mods appear to have not considered it so.

So, I wanted specific examples of what Aelosia (and a few others) believed was trolling.

You know, I don't think the sky is blue. Please give me an example.
The reductio ad absurdum doesn't work here.

Sorry, I am not Aelosia. I'm going to argue MY points... and you can either refute them, or if you choose not to, concede.

If others don't have to post links to substantiate their points, neither do I.

Maybe you should lay into them as well for failing to substantiate their points.

How can you prove it is one, and not the other?

Critical reading skills and a pattern over time.

I Believe It Is Trolling If:

If I see the signature of a GNAA authorized or otherwise recognized professional trolling operator.

This poll fails, trying to prove a point with what is supposed to be a sampling method is worse then those that make just crappy polls.

This poll fails, trying to prove a point with what is supposed to be a sampling method is worse then those that make just crappy polls.

All Internet Polls fail...

Apparently, some people here believe that the mere presentation of an opinion to which they are virulently opposed constitutes trolling.

While I agree with that, I don't believe it to be trolling.

To me, trolling is being a jackass without validating your statements.

All Internet Polls fail...

Some more then others

Dis is not a troll...

DIS is a troll, mon:

# (internet) Someone who posts to a newsgroup, bulletin board, etc., in a way deliberately intended to anger other posters and draw arguments, or otherwise disrupt the group's intended purpose.
# (internet) Such a deliberately inflammatory post itself.
# (gay slang) A relatively unappealing older man who seeks out the company of younger men.

...it constitutes as trolling under the definition provided by Frisbeeteria in the one-stop rules shop.

You win :)

All right, let's clarify some things around here. The thread we were before this one, and that I suppose clearly provoked this one, was about the labeling of a certain poser, called FreedomAndGlory, as a troll, and on what exactly trolling is, at least here in the Nationstates forums.

What I remarked, is that the opening post of FreedomAndGlory wasn't too much different of other posters active on these forums, namely and mainly, as examples, those of Soviestan, the IDF, and Eve Online. I must say that I never clarified if I was in agrrement to any of those three posters I named, just marking the fact that those three use a language and resources pretty similar to the one displayed by FreedomAndGlory. In other words, either they all are trolls, or none of them are. I am happy with any of those statements, but not with a mixed decision.

I also highlighted that, given the similarity, if FreedomAndGlory was a troll, then Soviestan, Eve Online and IDF, for example, were trolls too, if we are willing to apply the same standard. I added that perhaps their "age" posting around here in Nationstates General perhaps makes them inmune to that "troll" label that we apply so happily to newcomers.

Out of nowhere, Lord Jehovah comes and writes this thing, visibly aimed at me, with a extremely biased poll without the RULE deifinition of trolling or any neutral options, accusing me, openly, of qualifying of "trolls" any poster who I don't agree with. Clearly, he didn't get my point about criteria, standards and labeling, but focused on an entirely different topic and (sadly successfully) dragged me into it.

Given the provocation, that I so eagerly bit to feed him good quality food, I say that this thread is written deliberately trying to bait me, and thus provoking me into a somewhat opposite and fierce response. According to the rules, and given the intent of Lord Jehovah, he is quite trolling on this thread. Of course, we have moderators, as final authorities about the rules, so they can be the ultimate judges of these situations, and so they will revise the case and make their judgment. Again, this thread is a clear show of what trolling is, and how a troll behaves.

As I said, I'm not in the mood of perusing the forums looking in the archive for a link that might satisfy you. Do it yourself, and if you are not convinced of my statement, then you may reject it, of course, but it isn't polite to start another thread wishing to bait someone into feeding your trolling.

That said, I won't continue giving you the pleasure to be fed at my expense, but I am sure there are lots of people here who will gladly continue the argument and the discussion.

All right, let's clarify some things around here. The thread we were before this one, and that I suppose clearly provoked this one, was about the labeling of a certain poser, called FreedomAndGlory, as a troll, and on what exactly trolling is, at least here in the Nationstates forums.

What I remarked, is that the opening post of FreedomAndGlory wasn't too much different of other posters active on these forums, namely and mainly, as examples, those of Soviestan, the IDF, and Eve Online. I must say that I never clarified if I was in agrrement to any of those three posters I named, just marking the fact that those three use a language and resources pretty similar to the one displayed by FreedomAndGlory. In other words, either they all are trolls, or none of them are. I am happy with any of those statements, but not with a mixed decision.

I also highlighted that, given the similarity, if FreedomAndGlory was a troll, then Soviestan, Eve Online and IDF, for example, were trolls too, if we are willing to apply the same standard. I added that perhaps their "age" posting around here in Nationstates General perhaps makes them inmune to that "troll" label that we apply so happily to newcomers.

Out of nowhere, Lord Jehovah comes and writes this thing, visibly aimed at me, with a extremely biased poll without the RULE deifinition of trolling or any neutral options, accusing me, openly, of qualifying of "trolls" any poster who I don't agree with. Clearly, he didn't get my point about criteria, standards and labeling, but focused on an entirely different topic and (sadly successfully) dragged me into it.

Given the provocation, that I so eagerly bit to feed him good quality food, I say that this thread is written deliberately trying to bait me, and thus provoking me into a somewhat opposite and fierce response. According to the rules, and given the intent of Lord Jehovah, he is quite trolling on this thread. Of course, we have moderators, as final authorities about the rules, so they can be the ultimate judges of these situations, and so they will revise the case and make their judgment. Again, this thread is a clear show of what trolling is, and how a troll behaves.

As I said, I'm not in the mood of perusing the forums looking in the archive for a link that might satisfy you. Do it yourself, and if you are not convinced of my statement, then you may reject it, of course, but it isn't polite to start another thread wishing to bait someone into feeding your trolling.

That said, I won't continue giving you the pleasure to be fed at my expense, but I am sure there are lots of people here who will gladly continue the argument and the discussion.

So, if you disagree with the poster, he's a troll, and if you don't like his posts or his polls, he's a troll, and unlike everyone else on the forum, you are above having to post links to prove your points - they are proven just because you say them, and you don't have to back anything up. Of course, anyone else who doesn't post a link to back up their argument, is therefore, a troll.

I think I understand.

So, if you disagree with the poster, he's a troll, and if you don't like his posts or his polls, he's a troll, and unlike everyone else on the forum, you are above having to post links to prove your points - they are proven just because you say them, and you don't have to back anything up. Of course, anyone else who doesn't post a link to back up their argument, is therefore, a troll.

I think I understand.

Not even a little bit.

Not even a little bit.

Quite.

OH TEH DRAMA!

Anyways, what is actually the purpose of this poll?

101st Fighting Keyboarders Reporting For Duty!

\

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/vonbek/dreamrig.jpg

I'd say Soviestan is a troll because sometimes he posts and he sounds like the President of Iran and sometimes he posts and he sounds like everyone else, which would be a clue that sometimes he's trying to piss people off and sometimes he's not.
IDF is not a troll because he actually believes what he posts. Nobody else does, but he does and that's what counts.
Eve Online might be a troll, but he's not good at it if he's trying.
No idea who FreedomAndGlory is, so I can't possibly say if he's a troll, can I?
I'd also say you're trolling, just because of that poll.
Your poll is loaded, which means that you assume that everyone on the board agrees with a strawman you destroy in your first post and nobody has since agreed with.
And I assume you realize nobody does agree with that strawman.
But when you made your poll you worded it so everyone who voted in it would have to agree.
Which means you want to piss off everyone on NSG.
Which of course is classic troll.

I'm definitely a troll, then. I often post things I don't believe in, particularly in the International Incidents. Furthermore, I have different styles of speech, ranging from solid statement or soft sarcasm to corporate evil or fast-pace comedic story.



IMHO a good definition of a troll could be: "A troll is someone posting views both you and the local groupthink disagree with".

"You" and "local" are essential, because "troll", as it's used most often, is a purely subjective term, sort of censor-safe substitute. There are real trolls, but nowhere as many, and they are way more distinctive.

Trolls are the ones deliberately causing an argument by making extremely inflammatory statements. I disagree with many members of this forum (atheists/conservatives) but they aren't trolls. I just dislike their views because they conflict with mine.

I've seen real trolling, and its really obvious.

Trolling is more about style than content. If you're style is to use inflammatory language general paint a topic as being as simple as good and evil and basically attempt to stifle debate all the while riling people up, you might be a troll.

None of the above / Mix of LG (healthy dose preferable) and Myrth

So, if you disagree with the poster, he's a troll, and if you don't like his posts or his polls, he's a troll, and unlike everyone else on the forum, you are above having to post links to prove your points - they are proven just because you say them, and you don't have to back anything up. Of course, anyone else who doesn't post a link to back up their argument, is therefore, a troll.

I think I understand.

No.

Flamebaiting is trolling. That's what you did (or are leaning dangerously towards). That's not what he did.

Disagreement with a poster does not a troll make.

No, trolling is simply posting random, very offensive, mean things to cause a huge arguement.