NationStates Jolt Archive

[This would be a mod decision, but I'm looking for the opinion of the broader NSG culture]

So, somebody suggested a certain detachment between gravity and mass and I posted this:

"Oh, nonsense.

If that were true, the predictive models for gravity would have terms that reflect mass.

And again, as I recall, the formula is G times some other things I can't remember, divided by the distance squared between some other things.

Get it?"

And a poster responded with a rolleye and link to the formula, presumably to devastate me by pointing out that the terms of the formula I left out were, in fact, mass (which was obviously my point).

My question is this: if the satire is clear, but still missed, is that trolling?

[This would be a mod decision, but I'm looking for the opinion of the broader NSG culture]

So, somebody suggested a certain detachment between gravity and mass and I posted this:

"Oh, nonsense.

If that were true, the predictive models for gravity would have terms that reflect mass.

And again, as I recall, the formula is G times some other things I can't remember, divided by the distance squared between some other things.

Get it?"

And a poster responded with a rolleye and link to the formula, presumably to devastate me by pointing out that the terms of the formula I left out were, in fact, mass (which was obviously my point).

My question is this: if the satire is clear, but still missed, is that trolling?

Personally, I would say no.

[This would be a mod decision, but I'm looking for the opinion of the broader NSG culture]

So, somebody suggested a certain detachment between gravity and mass and I posted this:

"Oh, nonsense.

If that were true, the predictive models for gravity would have terms that reflect mass.

And again, as I recall, the formula is G times some other things I can't remember, divided by the distance squared between some other things.

Get it?"

And a poster responded with a rolleye and link to the formula, presumably to devastate me by pointing out that the terms of the formula I left out were, in fact, mass (which was obviously my point).

My question is this: if the satire is clear, but still missed, is that trolling?

I gave my opinion on the subject in another thread, but I'd say if your intent is clear to anyone who is actually paying attention, then I'd say no. You're not trying to fool anyone. You're simply making a point through sarcasm and satire. When you do it, it's clear what your true beliefs are and often by the end you point them out and defend them, sometimes very seriously.

Now, if you're trying to convince people you're from the other side of the argument in order to insult that side and avoid having to actually support your real point, then that's trolling, in my opinion.

The fact that some people can't see satire doesn't mean that the satire ceases to exist (contrary to what my posts in the "some questions for Christians" thread might suggest). ;)

@ Dyakovo: cool.

@Jocabia: I might be misreading your second sentence. Should it read "You're not trying to fool anyone?

@Poli: cool.

No id say not...

Sometimes I have a tendency to be expecting an attack after a post and miss read satire and sarcasm...

But that doesnt mean youd be intentionally trolling...itd mean that i was being paranoid, lol...

[This would be a mod decision, but I'm looking for the opinion of the broader NSG culture]

So, somebody suggested a certain detachment between gravity and mass and I posted this:

"Oh, nonsense.

If that were true, the predictive models for gravity would have terms that reflect mass.

And again, as I recall, the formula is G times some other things I can't remember, divided by the distance squared between some other things.

Get it?"

And a poster responded with a rolleye and link to the formula, presumably to devastate me by pointing out that the terms of the formula I left out were, in fact, mass (which was obviously my point).

My question is this: if the satire is clear, but still missed, is that trolling?

You, trolling? Nah, you´re just a master satirist and some people don´t see that. Heck, the other day, while we were arguing on the Darwinism thread, you fooled me throughout a few posts. But it´s clear that here you´re just being satirical. If this person is accusing you of trolling, then this person has a bit if a problem.;)

No id say not...

Sometimes I have a tendency to be expecting an attack after a post and miss read satire and sarcasm...

But that doesnt mean youd be intentionally trolling...itd mean that i was being paranoid, lol...

Skalvia, you know that chronic makes you paranoid, g.

I know how to talk with the young people!

You, trolling? Nah, you´re just a master satirist and some people don´t see that. Heck, the other day, while we were arguing on the Darwinism thread, you fooled me throughout a few posts. But it´s clear that here you´re just being satirical. If this person is accusing you of trolling, then this person has a bit if a problem.;)

No, no accusation of trolling...my worry was, though, since they totally missed the satire, they might take it as trolling.

As I recall, I didn't have you going for long.

@ Dyakovo: cool.

@Jocabia: I might be misreading your second sentence. Should it read "You're not trying to fool anyone?

@Poli: cool.

Yeah, I do that a lot. It's not like that "not" was important to the meaning of the sentence or anything.

No, no accusation of trolling...my worry was, though, since they totally missed the satire, they might take it as trolling.

As I recall, I didn't have you going for long.

N, you didn´t had me going for long, but you did get me pretty angry.:D

Yeah, I do that a lot. It's not like that "not" was important to the meaning of the sentence or anything.

Well, the correct word is ain't, anyway.

Or, in the past tense, wuddin't.

N, you didn´t had me going for long, but you did get me pretty angry.:D

Well, its not impossible that there are some on the forum that are actually like what I satirize.

Stephen Baldwin is coming, Nan. Coming for you.

Stephen Baldwin is coming, Nan. Coming for you.

Oh noes! Not teh Stephen Baldwin! Him iz comin´ after me!!:eek:

[This would be a mod decision, but I'm looking for the opinion of the broader NSG culture]

So, somebody suggested a certain detachment between gravity and mass and I posted this:

"Oh, nonsense.

If that were true, the predictive models for gravity would have terms that reflect mass.

And again, as I recall, the formula is G times some other things I can't remember, divided by the distance squared between some other things.

Get it?"

And a poster responded with a rolleye and link to the formula, presumably to devastate me by pointing out that the terms of the formula I left out were, in fact, mass (which was obviously my point).

My question is this: if the satire is clear, but still missed, is that trolling?

I would hope not.

Yeah, I do that a lot. It's not like that "not" was important to the meaning of the sentence or anything.
No, not at all... :D
Oh noes! Not teh Stephen Baldwin! Him iz comin´ after me!!:eek:

http://images.eonline.com/eol_images/Profiles/20061007/244.baldwin.stephen.100606.jpg

No, not at all... :D


http://images.eonline.com/eol_images/Profiles/20061007/244.baldwin.stephen.100606.jpg

*does the ¨The Scream¨ pose*

Oh, man...that picture of Stevie B...now I got a half chub...and bile on my keyboard...

Oh, man...that picture of Stevie B...now I got a half chub...and bile on my keyboard...

ROFL!

Oh, man...that picture of Stevie B...now I got a half chub...and bile on my keyboard...

He's so hot it makes you sick?

He's so hot it makes you sick?

I'm what my Reclamation Ministry accountabilibuddy calls "conflicted".

I'm what my Reclamation Ministry accountabilibuddy calls "conflicted".

LMAO

Oh noes! Not teh Stephen Baldwin! Him iz comin´ after me!!:eek:

I just realized something. You've only been here since February and you already have nigh 3,000 posts. Why is this?

I just realized something. You've only been here since February and you already have nigh 3,000 posts. Why is this?

Easy. I don´t have a life.:p

Is me having 2,828 posts already bad?:confused:

Easy. I don´t have a life.:p

Sure you do. It's just occupied with being on here.

In all fairness, I'm much the same, in that I have more-or-less unlimited free time. (Which I am in the process of enjoying as much as I can until it is taken away from me...)

I have to say, also, that you're one of the most interesting posters on here and NSG really does improve by your presence. :)

I just realized something. You've only been here since February and you already have nigh 3,000 posts. Why is this?

Trained monkeys. :D

Easy. I don´t have a life.:p

Is me having 2,828 posts already bad?:confused:

Oh, and no, it's not bad at all. I was just curious.

Sure you do. It's just occupied with being on here.

In all fairness, I'm much the same, in that I have more-or-less unlimited free time. (Which I am in the process of enjoying as much as I can until it is taken away from me...)

I have to say, also, that you're one of the most interesting posters on here and NSG really does improve by your presence. :)

Hehe. No life´s in vogue.;)
No, seriously, NSG is, currently, the only place I can have meaningful conversations that do not involve fashion and what´s the latest make-up trend or which of the security agents of Parliament is the best looking. That´s all I hear my co-workers talk about at the office.

Thanks for the compliment.:)

Sarcasm, otherwise know as ironic wit, is the single most overused form of witticism. Wherever possible, it is better to let your argument rest on merit. Regardless of the ability of the other party to detect sarcasm (and sometime all the better for it) done right, irony can be a great source of humour for the speaker (at least) and in that sense does not really require the other party to acknowledge the ironic or satirical nature.

Sarcasm, otherwise know as ironic wit, is the single most overused form of witticism. Wherever possible, it is better to let your argument rest on merit. Regardless of the ability of the other party to detect sarcasm (and sometime all the better for it) done right, irony can be a great source of humour for the speaker (at least) and in that sense does not really require the other party to acknowledge the ironic or satirical nature.

Yeah, because you'll become a famous satirist with that attitude. ; )

In my opinion, no, it's not trolling. It's wit, which a great many people lack and also lack a concept of. And don't listen to Rotovia. Everyone knows he has no sense of humor. :p

I wouldn't consider missed satire trolling, but the forum at large seems to.

[This would be a mod decision, but I'm looking for the opinion of the broader NSG culture]

So, somebody suggested a certain detachment between gravity and mass and I posted this:

"Oh, nonsense.

If that were true, the predictive models for gravity would have terms that reflect mass.

And again, as I recall, the formula is G times some other things I can't remember, divided by the distance squared between some other things.

Get it?"

And a poster responded with a rolleye and link to the formula, presumably to devastate me by pointing out that the terms of the formula I left out were, in fact, mass (which was obviously my point).

My question is this: if the satire is clear, but still missed, is that trolling?

Not at all. Trolling to me is making over-the-top, hyperbolically outrageous assertions (regardless of side) and merely repeating them when confronted, or admitting to just trying to get a rise out of people. Missed satire is, well, what it is. I've misread my share of satirical posts (and your share, and Kyronea's share, and Smunkee's share...), and it helps me sharpen my own satiradar.

Sarcasm, otherwise know as ironic wit, is the single most overused form of witticism. Wherever possible, it is better to let your argument rest on merit. Regardless of the ability of the other party to detect sarcasm (and sometime all the better for it) done right, irony can be a great source of humour for the speaker (at least) and in that sense does not really require the other party to acknowledge the ironic or satirical nature.

Also known as The Onion's M.O. -- in fact, the more people miss it (and then link to it as support for an argument...I LOVE that), sometimes, the better.

[This would be a mod decision, but I'm looking for the opinion of the broader NSG culture]

So, somebody suggested a certain detachment between gravity and mass and I posted this:

"Oh, nonsense.

If that were true, the predictive models for gravity would have terms that reflect mass.

And again, as I recall, the formula is G times some other things I can't remember, divided by the distance squared between some other things.

Get it?"

And a poster responded with a rolleye and link to the formula, presumably to devastate me by pointing out that the terms of the formula I left out were, in fact, mass (which was obviously my point).

My question is this: if the satire is clear, but still missed, is that trolling?Something like blue laws?

I'm what my Reclamation Ministry accountabilibuddy calls "conflicted".
Did not. *makes appropriate thrusting*

[This would be a mod decision, but I'm looking for the opinion of the broader NSG culture]

So, somebody suggested a certain detachment between gravity and mass and I posted this:

"Oh, nonsense.

If that were true, the predictive models for gravity would have terms that reflect mass.

And again, as I recall, the formula is G times some other things I can't remember, divided by the distance squared between some other things.

Get it?"

And a poster responded with a rolleye and link to the formula, presumably to devastate me by pointing out that the terms of the formula I left out were, in fact, mass (which was obviously my point).

My question is this: if the satire is clear, but still missed, is that trolling?

Bwahahah only if tiny little things like a rolling eye emoticon gets your back up I suppose.

a troll is a person who doesnt have a message, all he is doing is posting to piss people off no matter what it takes to do so.

you are a bit of an attention whore--one who has a need to turn the discussion of the thread to themselves--but its so funny that it seldom bothers me.

the thing that redeems you is that you can be brought into a serious (if bizarre) discussion of the topic at hand if someone breaks through your facade and gets you interested in a (semi) serious point.

you should be careful not to disrupt serious, sincere discussions on topics that the posters are engaged in. its not right to turn the topic to YOU when they are trying to make real points. its amusing to blind-side posters who are so engaged in the topic that they dont notice that you are not serious. (or that you are serious in a way that is not obvious to them) but its wrong (to some extent) to make them the butt of your joke.

no youre not trolling but i can see why you piss some people off.

Bwahahah only if tiny little things like a rolling eye emoticon gets your back up I suppose.

I wasn't referring to his response as trolling, but rather whether my satire was.

a troll is a person who doesnt have a message, all he is doing is posting to piss people off no matter what it takes to do so.

you are a bit of an attention whore--one who has a need to turn the discussion of the thread to themselves--but its so funny that it seldom bothers me.

the thing that redeems you is that you can be brought into a serious (if bizarre) discussion of the topic at hand if someone breaks through your facade and gets you interested in a (semi) serious point.

you should be careful not to disrupt serious, sincere discussions on topics that the posters are engaged in. its not right to turn the topic to YOU when they are trying to make real points. its amusing to blind-side posters who are so engaged in the topic that they dont notice that you are not serious. (or that you are serious in a way that is not obvious to them) but its wrong (to some extent) to make them the butt of your joke.

no youre not trolling but i can see why you piss some people off.

Don't think that your lucid thoughtful response is going to distract me from the fact that you called me a whore.

Sometimes, a guy just happens to be in a bus station bathroom and needs crack money. That's no reason to make value judgements.

Don't think that your lucid thoughtful response is going to distract me from the fact that you called me a whore.

Sometimes, a guy just happens to be in a bus station bathroom and needs crack money. That's no reason to make value judgements.

hey i calls 'em like i sees 'em

but why did i have to see THAT?