Create an original definition of a troll

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/socia ... of-a-troll

A sad bad mad person whose hobby is spewing out unprovoked vitriol because they are sad, bad and mad.

An individual who tries to invoke an emotional response from unsuspecting people. Usually because the individual's parents never loved him/her.

A sad little person who not only has little to no people skills, they hate others for it.

I particularly liked this quote from the link: "non-materialistic vandalism of the worth of other people".

One type of person who gets the troll label is someone who tries to do rite by the forum but often post things other members do not agree with.

Yes, sometimes it is hard to tell, if it's near the beginning of a thread in particular, because there's no context around the suspect remarks. How would you define or describe a (real) troll?

it seems to me, most of the filth trolls spew out are just reflections and descriptions of themselves and their little lives, thrown at someone they disagree with or don't care about.

or towards whom they have obscene amounts of envy, that too.

They come in many flavors, but the variety I'm most familiar with is the bomb thrower, the person who doesn't actually want to contribute to a discussion but instead stands on the sidelines making inflammatory statements trying to get other people riled up for their own amusement. They can be hard to distinguish from the merely ignorant, so I don't apply the label until they've demonstrated a clear pattern.

A beast that once resided under a bridge but now lives in the mother trolls basement. Is most usually seen sporting a neckbeard and struggles to score sexual encounters. Most presumably, they neither work or study to occupy their days so they spend it online annoying people.

haha love it.

Just thought of:

Turds
Rude
On
Line
Lamely

From another website (about lexicology), this is what members may not do:

"post materials that are unlawful, threatening, harassing, profane, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libellous, deceptive, fraudulent, contain explicit or graphic descriptions or accounts of sexual acts (including but not limited to sexual language of a violent or threatening nature directed at another individual or group of individuals), invasive of another’s privacy or hateful"

Extensive as that is, it doesn't cover trolling very well. Only the hateful and harassing seem directly relevant..

This definition of cyberbullying seems to come closer to operationally defining troll behaviour.
"Examples of what constitutes cyberbullying include communications that seek to intimidate, control, manipulate, put down, falsely discredit, or humiliate the recipient. The actions are deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior intended to harm another. Cyberbullying has been defined by The National Crime Prevention Council"

(Unfortunately attempts to "put down" someone else features very regularly on WP, however as the old saying goes, one swallow doesn't make a summer...)

There is the troll who says or does something with the intent of getting a person to question or doubt their own beliefs, the misconstrued troll. And then there is the troll who is just being malicious. These two trolls are usually mistaken for one another.

That's really important point Chagya. Yes indeed. The first type is even more toxic, because the motive to actively cause mental damage to another is the driving force. It's a form of gaslighting, and narcissists (the NPD kind particularly) specialise in this. It is ugly. Some trolls are both, and switch between the two types.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/netapp/2013 ... ls-attack/

Makes some interesting points, some of which are relevant to threads that get derailed on WP, and also considering that trolling may create a feedback reward circuit in the brain, as in addictive processes.

Totally
Rotten
Oppressors
Lying
Lowdown
Snarks

I think the first kind of troll I mentioned is actually good, even though I may not have worded it effectively. I think we should all question and doubt our beliefs and ideologies and I see no problem in shocking someone into doing so as long as the [i]intent[i] is not to be toxic. People being rigid and locked into their ideas is problematic in society I am not saying people should be forced to change their ideas or agree with ideas different than their own but this inflexibility is itself the thing that brings toxicity to the table.

Someone who gets others to gang up on certain members by calling them trolls.