Board index › Coping in life › The Haven

How many people think I'm a troll?

Page 3 of 3 [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Previous topic | Next topic

?
Yes: 44%  44%  [ 8 ]
No: 56%  56%  [ 10 ]
Total votes : 18

janicka
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,911
Location: Mountain Paradise

24 Nov 2006, 3:31 pm

jaguars_fan wrote:
In regard to number 2, I just have my way with the trolls. Much more fun than just ignore them.


I think that can be problematic for the following reasons.

True internet trolls thrive on the recognitizion that they receive from others. This is why I think that EVERYONE (not just you) should stay away from threads in the News forum that the controversial thread originator starts.

Internet trolls also have the goal of damaging the relationships between others posting in the online community. I think that the person I originally accused of trolling has actually been successful with this, to some extent. I'm assuming that all of the people that posted in the original thread that I am referring to (with the exception of the thread originator) are distinct individuals (meaning real members, not people who sign up with multiple identities to piss us off) who wanted to have a legitimate discussion about current events. This being the case, I think that it is damaging and counterproductive to do anything other than trying to have a legitimate discussion (legitimate discussion != flaming for having different political views). I would have avoided flaming the individual who started the thread due to the fact that I do not want to recognize the presence of a troll. However, he was the only person who really deserved it. In other words, it is my opinion that your remarks targeted people who I would not consider trolls.

Check out http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm for an interesting discussion about how to deal with trolls.

My advice for the future is that you refrain from responding to someone for an hour after you get really pissed off. Then, ask yourself if it is worth it to get in a flamewar.



One-Winged-Angel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,860
Location: Under your bed, in your closet, in your head

24 Nov 2006, 3:48 pm

Kahazidhea wrote:
One-Winged-Angel wrote:
j00 r troll. But Lord Greyhelium is right. Sometimes trolls are needed to keep a forum interesting. Just try not to get banned.


I'll do my best OWA, may the blessings of all trolls of the present, past, and future be with you. :heart:


With the power of this blessing, I can now summon Meteor without the Black Materia. I hope Sephiroth doesn't take over my body again.


_________________
You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.


jaguars_fan
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 342

24 Nov 2006, 4:36 pm

janicka wrote:
jaguars_fan wrote:
In regard to number 2, I just have my way with the trolls. Much more fun than just ignore them.


I think that can be problematic for the following reasons.

True internet trolls thrive on the recognitizion that they receive from others. This is why I think that EVERYONE (not just you) should stay away from threads in the News forum that the controversial thread originator starts.

Internet trolls also have the goal of damaging the relationships between others posting in the online community. I think that the person I originally accused of trolling has actually been successful with this, to some extent. I'm assuming that all of the people that posted in the original thread that I am referring to (with the exception of the thread originator) are distinct individuals (meaning real members, not people who sign up with multiple identities to piss us off) who wanted to have a legitimate discussion about current events. This being the case, I think that it is damaging and counterproductive to do anything other than trying to have a legitimate discussion (legitimate discussion != flaming for having different political views). I would have avoided flaming the individual who started the thread due to the fact that I do not want to recognize the presence of a troll. However, he was the only person who really deserved it. In other words, it is my opinion that your remarks targeted people who I would not consider trolls.

Check out http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm for an interesting discussion about how to deal with trolls.

My advice for the future is that you refrain from responding to someone for an hour after you get really pissed off. Then, ask yourself if it is worth it to get in a flamewar.


Still much more fun to kick them.



Kahazidhea
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 9 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 306

24 Nov 2006, 5:29 pm

janicka wrote:
jaguars_fan wrote:
In regard to number 2, I just have my way with the trolls. Much more fun than just ignore them.


I think that can be problematic for the following reasons.

True internet trolls thrive on the recognitizion that they receive from others. This is why I think that EVERYONE (not just you) should stay away from threads in the News forum that the controversial thread originator starts.

Internet trolls also have the goal of damaging the relationships between others posting in the online community. I think that the person I originally accused of trolling has actually been successful with this, to some extent. I'm assuming that all of the people that posted in the original thread that I am referring to (with the exception of the thread originator) are distinct individuals (meaning real members, not people who sign up with multiple identities to piss us off) who wanted to have a legitimate discussion about current events. This being the case, I think that it is damaging and counterproductive to do anything other than trying to have a legitimate discussion (legitimate discussion != flaming for having different political views). I would have avoided flaming the individual who started the thread due to the fact that I do not want to recognize the presence of a troll. However, he was the only person who really deserved it. In other words, it is my opinion that your remarks targeted people who I would not consider trolls.

Check out http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm for an interesting discussion about how to deal with trolls.

My advice for the future is that you refrain from responding to someone for an hour after you get really pissed off. Then, ask yourself if it is worth it to get in a flamewar.


That definition characterized trolls more so than any other definition I've read so far. That was a nice definition! By reading that, I think don't I fit the description of a troll, since I never posted with the intent of emotionally hurting other users. I consider myself a low-caliber troll.


_________________
Despair is always darkest just before it goes pitch black.


janicka
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,911
Location: Mountain Paradise

24 Nov 2006, 5:37 pm

Kahazidhea wrote:
That definition characterized trolls more so than any other definition I've read so far. That was a nice definition!


Thanks!! ! :-)


Kahazidhea wrote:
By reading that, I think don't I fit the description of a troll, since I never posted with the intent of emotionally hurting other users. I consider myself a low-caliber troll.


Actually, I think that the word "troll" is overused. Flaming would be a more accurate description of the things that have been said lately that have upset me. Not that I am excusing flaming - I just don't think that the people engaging in the flamewars have set out to deliberately hurt people.