Trolling study

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.news.com.au/technology/anony ... 6080815072

Wow. I'm an alcoholic and I guess I do sound like a troll sometimes when I am only saying what is on my mind. It does not always sound pretty. I am sick of pretending and being in denial about flaws that I can actually change and at the worst point of my addiction I did sound very troll-ish on Facebook. You don't have to like what I say, if you don't like it, simply ignore it. I am more careful about what I post now. I do not try to blatantly disrespect others. I'm directing this at everyone who happens to read this post. And I do realize that I tend to sound arrogant, but you would have to talk to me in person to really know what I am like. The handful of true friends that I have in real life understand that.

If people could just learn to ignore trolls, then they would all atrophy and die from lack of attention. But, instead, for inexplicable reasons, trolls often get the most attention than any other intelligent comments.

So anyone who comes online and says things they wouldn't say in real life or act different than they do in real life are trolls?

Wow I guess I'm a troll then since I feel I do better online and the majority of other people, including members here. No I don't go around saying things to people I wouldn't say in real life, that is just being a coward.

I don't fully agree with the article.

Trolls are strange creatures. There are at two or three on WP at the moment we are keeping an eye on. I find it curious that a troll can create a thread with a provocative title and it gets several pages of posts. Provided the threads don't develop into flame wars I let them run on. However, if the trolling gets out of hand or is nasty then the trolls get the boot from the site. Trolls seem to come in all flavours from funny, to dull, to provocative to downright nasty. All seem to have strong narcissistic traits and like to be the centre of attention one way or another.

Well I do not feel like an alcoholic or a dictator, and I admit I have done what people refer to as trolling.....not on this site, as it does not seem like an appropriate place for that but it happens.......I don't try to degrade people though because that is taking it too far but the internet is not always a place for seriousness so yeah.

I try not to troll. Sometimes I will say something that may look like a troll, but if it upsets folks then I just let it go....but I am more out going online and more articulate than in person, but that because I am a very visual person, also am a writer. so I think this dual personaliy this is wrong cause they are not talking into account visual thinkers.

I'm curious to what criteria you use to classify somebody as a troll?

It is often clear-cut, so if someone only creates threads of an inflammatory nature and little or no posts related to autism or other topics created by the members. Such trolls often don't engage in conversation with other members either after creating hot threads, they just sit back and watch the threads burn. Sometimes trolls are less blatant or simply members who like to troll a little as well as make "normal" posts. If a member becomes too disruptive to the harmony of the site then the moderators discuss the member with a view to warnings or banning.

So I am required to participate in a thread I post if it gets lot of responses. But what if I had nothing to say in it or to contribute? Am I supposed to respond nonetheless by going "thanks for all your responses" so people won't think I'm trolling?

What if a member hardly posted about autism and contributed to autistic topics and only posted in other sections like random or politics or anything that isn't related to autism?


Sorry I just don't agree with your criteria of a troll. I think it's absurd.

I should have expressed myself better... all the posts a member makes (including random, off the wall, PPR etc) gives a picture that indicates if the member is here to participate in the community one way or another, or here to cause trouble. Most members manage to spot such trolls themselves quite easily and either openly accuse them in their threads or contact the moderators asking us to check them out in more detail.

Hmm I can see in theory how this would be a good rule of thumb. However there are plenty of topics that are worthy of intellectual discussion or sharing of experience that could be construed as "inflammatory". Secondly people join WP with a DX along the ASD spectrum but may just want to make friends or just talk. They may not necessarily want to discuss autism per say.



I've started plenty of threads where I engage responses but find that 95% of posters do not follow up with a response and so the discussion terminates. I am left wondering why they ran away, lack of interest or shyness?



I do appreciate as a moderator you have discretionary power to take action, when appropriate, when a poster is crossing WP boundary of conduct and this is perfectly acceptable, but within reason.

I abandon threads once they become un-interesting, even when I've started them myself.

It's hard to ignore a thread topic that is blatantly wrong - full of faith-based claims, assumptions, deceptions, innuendos, irrationality, opinions, rumors, and other silliness - but I'm getting better.

I will only abandon a thread if nobody responds directly to me. The threads may continue where others communicate to each other although I have a observed a tendency for the discussion to drift away from the thread.



LOL! yes we know.