What is a troll and what types are there?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

I see people posting "Troll Alert". I'm a newbie to web slang. Please share with me your definition of a "Troll". What do Trolls do. What kinds of Trolls are there? What does a Troll get out of what they do? How should you resond to Trolls? Are Trolls dangerous? And what does OT mean?

Thanks!

-- Kelly (peacefullhome@yahoo.com), July 10, 1999

Answers

If you are new to web slang, you sure picked up "newbie" in a hurry.

-- Nadine Zint (nadine@hillsboro.net), July 10, 1999.

You will get lots of opinions. (The harsh reality is that we don't even know if you are a troll.) Assuming not, some believe those who don't share their views are trolls. (This certainly is not valid.) Others may be something as silly as teenagers getting into the discussions just to have fun. Some maybe people who are little sociopathic, but otherwise harmless. My interest is in the possibility that some have the formal function of keeping this forum on its heels just enough to erode its credibility. I believe this group is real, but not everyone does. In the very least, you can probably bank on the idea that this board is being watched by silent "lurkers" who are very interesting people indeed. I'm not a big "government conspiracy" guy 'cause I don't think they are generally that competent. I do believe, however, that the national security boys must scan these sites for trouble spots. (I bet somebody has so called "killer" on their watch list, for example.) I posted a previous question on the forum about whether trolls were organized that certainly generated a lot of interest from all parties (including some trolls!). I must confess that the question of what the trolls really are up to is very interesting to me. Somebody may be able to provide a link back to Barnett's personal notes from the Naval War College discussions; they seem especially interesting given the current silence over y2k in the mainstream media.

I'm now rambling...

Sincerely Dave

-- Dave (aaa@aaa.com), July 10, 1999.


Kelly, leave it to a man (no offense, Dave) to give a long explanation and still not answer the question!

On this forum, a troll (IMO-in my opinion) is a person who disrupts, intentionally or not, the 'flow'. For instance, corrine1, is a troll. She contributes nothing to this discussion except some pretty funny one-liners. Another example is Mr. Decker. He's articulate about his opinions but he seems to contradict himself at times and also seems to delight in goading people into a rage. (troll-baiting?)

There are also trolls whose sole contribution is filth, Jimmy Bagga Doughnuts (sp?) comes to mind.

On the whole, I think that trolls probably don't add much to this forum. OTOH-on the other hand, they are often good for a laugh.

You can decide for yourself, of course, after reading a few posts, whether the trolls around here add anything of value. (Of course, I often think that I don't add much of value, so I try to just lurk and learn.)

Glad you're aboard. Linda

PS. OT means off topic.

-- newbiebutnodummy (Linda@home.com), July 10, 1999.


the d&d monster manual lists at least 5 more types,some even have regenerative powers,norm/sista must be that type

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), July 10, 1999.

Zoobie is a good example of a troll. He posts often but offers nothing of value. He is harmless though and occassionally says something funny.

-- nada troll (papist@kube93.com), July 10, 1999.


Actually, I think zoobie's posts are pretty good..

I think 'Troll' is just another label like 'Pollyanna' or 'Doomer'. It's a substitute for really thinking about another persons viewpoint. In effect, it's a shut-out.

Bryce

-- Bryce (bryce@seanet.com), July 10, 1999.


Nada, what makes you think Zoobie is a troll?

-- Jonathan Pilpat (jpilpat@mailexcite.com), July 10, 1999.

I'm probably wrong. I guess I'm the troll.

-- Nada Troll (papist@kube93.com), July 10, 1999.

" It's a substitute for really thinking about another persons viewpoint. In effect, it's a shut-out."

Wrong Bryce, the true trolls are not offering a valid viewpoint. They are here only for the purpose of disrupting or enraging. Can you tell me what Jimmy Bagga Dougnuts viewpoint is? or y2kpro? or Mutha?

Even Decker puts forward a viewpoint only for the purpose of eventually exposing those who reply to him to ridicule when he runs back to BIFI or debunker to laugh at us. What viewpoint is that?

-- nota (nota@troll.guy), July 10, 1999.


What about all the people who post without giving a real e-mail address or even a real name? Sometimes they something valid, but their total anonymity make their posts less valuable.

-- J Pilpat (jpilpat@mailexcite.com), July 10, 1999.


I'd have to agree here with Bryce. What exactly did I do wrong in this thread to warrant George calling me a troll? I can tell you what I did wrong. I disagreed with HIM on previous threads. Lacking ANY anger-management skills, and exacerbating THAT problem with extrapolating on my intent resulted in the TROLL ALERT! Oh yes...an apology was forthcoming. I didn't spend three years on a rape/abuse hotline not to be familiar with THAT syndrome. FIRST you allow your anger to overcome your logic, THEN you lash out either physically or verbally, then you return to attempt to undo the damage. Uh-huh...

Jimmy Bag'O'donuts is quite another story, but I've seen troll alerts being issued on this forum STRICTLY because folks didn't agree with a poster.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), July 10, 1999.


Maybe it would be more helpful to distinguish between troll *people* and troll *posts*. Certainly we get many posts that are only attacks against other posters, contributing nothing to the discussion. But some of the people who do so, also contribute useful links and observations on occasion. So I'd categorize them as follows:

1) Attack trolls. These are posts where it appears that the poster ignored the content and read only the poster's name, then attacked that person. y2k pro, Andy, Ray, Will Continue, King of Spain, and Mutha Nachu are often guilty of this.

2) Diarrhea trolls. These are posts that, instead of providing links, copy in *huge* documents. These posts make threads very difficult to follow (and time-consuming to download), effectively killing discussions. Linkmeister and Diane are often guilty.

3) Dummy trolls. These are posts that attempt to stir up acrimonious debates by asking stupid questions, often based on assumptions known to be heretical to the prevailing religion here.

4) Jujitsu trolls. These are posts purporting to be from someone with detailed inside knowledge of the targets of common paranoia around here -- utilities, government agencies, etc. Their purpose is to demonstrate just how gullible some people here really are.

5) Reasonable trolls. These are posts from people who have given y2k a great deal of consideration, factored in history and knowledge of the real world, and undermine lunatic doomerism with careful and logical explanation. Mr. Decker is most guilty here.

6) Emotional trolls. These are posts from those who lash out with mindless incoherence when their authors are overcome with moods they cannot control. Their targets are posters whose contributions fail to exaggerate the urgency of extreme preparations.

7) Methodical trolls. These are posts carefully constructed to champion extreme viewpoints and discredit anything else. These posts tend to apply the Rules of Disinformation literally. 'a' and the various people he cross-posts here (Milne, Hamasaki) are examples.

I think that should cover just about everyone.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 10, 1999.


Flint, you forgot the

8) Demented organic neural pathology troll. This troll says one thing and does another. Is indecisive and wishy-washy. Fills threads with regurgitated non-relevant fluff. Can be polly, doomer, or both at the same time.

-- a (a@a.a), July 10, 1999.


'a':

I was very carefully focusing on *posts*, not people. But I accept your definition as valid nonetheless. I readily admit a certain skepticism about those who can look at a trillion-variable problem and *know* the future. You should find a bit of solace in the fact that those who are most unshakeable in their beliefs tend to have the worst track records.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 10, 1999.


What about that Killer guy. Do you think he was a Man among Men or a Troll among Trolls. What did just blow through here? Waddya thinks?

:)

-- JustMe (JustMe@just.wandering), July 10, 1999.



Kelly... I know all these answers must seem confusing, but there is a simple way to tell if a poster is a Troll. Remembering that the purpose of this forum is to uncover and discover what's going on with Y2K, including the intelligent exchange of verifiable information, a Troll is anyone who seeks to disrupt the forum by whatever means, including belittling or demeaning other posters, or by using any number of disinformation techniques to attack information presented. Stick around a while and you'll learn to ID them pretty quick.

-- Sandmann (Sandmann@alasbab.com), July 10, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ