Marc Riddell wrote
The word "trolling", the phrase "to troll", and what defines "a troll" all seem to have different meanings to different people in the Community. One person, writing in this thread, defined it as "stirring shit up".
A troll, to translate, is a provocateur. There are numerous ways of doing the provocation. I suppose the classification is roughly into those who value the attention, and those who value the mischief. Either way, the non-feeding advice is always the soundest. I'm afraid meditations on essentialism for trollness, tenable or not, fail that test.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
On 8/28/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote
The word "trolling", the phrase "to troll", and what defines "a troll" all seem to have different meanings to different people in the Community. One person, writing in this thread, defined it as "stirring shit up".
A troll, to translate, is a provocateur. There are numerous ways of doing the provocation. I suppose the classification is roughly into those who value the attention, and those who value the mischief. Either way, the non-feeding advice is always the soundest. I'm afraid meditations on essentialism for trollness, tenable or not, fail that test.
It seems to me that a useful way to not feed the trolls is to not call them trolls.
Stephen Bain schrieb:
On 8/28/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote
The word "trolling", the phrase "to troll", and what defines "a troll" all seem to have different meanings to different people in the Community. One person, writing in this thread, defined it as "stirring shit up".
A troll, to translate, is a provocateur. There are numerous ways of doing the provocation. I suppose the classification is roughly into those who value the attention, and those who value the mischief. Either way, the non-feeding advice is always the soundest. I'm afraid meditations on essentialism for trollness, tenable or not, fail that test.
It seems to me that a useful way to not feed the trolls is to not call them trolls.
Only a troll would say such a thing.
On 8/28/07, Adrian aldebaer@googlemail.com wrote:
Only a troll would say such a thing.
Whether they're the type of troll that seeks attention or the type that seeks mischief, actually calling them a troll will just satisfy their needs.
On 8/28/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote
The word "trolling", the phrase "to troll", and what defines "a troll" all seem to have different meanings to different people in the Community. One person, writing in this thread, defined it as "stirring shit up".
A troll, to translate, is a provocateur. There are numerous ways of doing the provocation. I suppose the classification is roughly into those who value the attention, and those who value the mischief. Either way, the non-feeding advice is always the soundest. I'm afraid meditations on essentialism for trollness, tenable or not, fail that test.
on 8/27/07 7:11 PM, Stephen Bain at stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
It seems to me that a useful way to not feed the trolls is to not call them trolls.
Stephen,
Yes. Present to what the person is saying; and not speculate on why they are saying it.
Marc
On 8/27/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Yes. Present to what the person is saying; and not speculate on why they are saying it.
IMO, sometimes speculating on motives is quite productive. Although it need not be turned into posted words. For one thing, it may inform as to whether responding to what someone's saying may be productive, or not.
-Matt
on 8/27/07 9:02 PM, Matthew Brown at morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/27/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Yes. Present to what the person is saying; and not speculate on why they are saying it.
IMO, sometimes speculating on motives is quite productive. Although it need not be turned into posted words. For one thing, it may inform as to whether responding to what someone's saying may be productive, or not.
You're right, Matt. I was speaking of an actual response. But deciding whether what's been said is worth responding to or not is a good first step. And, as you say, if your gut tells you they are just trying to flame for its own sake - will any response just feed that flame. Good point.
Marc
Matthew Brown wrote:
On 8/27/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Yes. Present to what the person is saying; and not speculate on why they are saying it.
IMO, sometimes speculating on motives is quite productive.
Especially if what you are trying to produce is dissent.
Ec
On 8/27/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
It seems to me that a useful way to not feed the trolls is to not call them trolls.
You're right, a better term for this is "drama whore".