Admiral_Snackbar
Veni, vidi, Lionel Richie
One of "Da Rules of Hyde Park," is Stick with discussing issues rather than attacking individuals. I and many of my cohorts, who I now dub as The White Knights of Hyde Park (or "WhiKHyP" for short) have been brought to task on numerous occasions, often as a friendly reminder, other times with infractions or bans, regarding our use of the appellation "troll" in regard to certain "HP regulars". Mods have defined it as a derogatory, offensive or insulting term.
I would like to respond to this blanket accusation with an analysis of the phenomenon. The clearest definition is located here, which I will repost in full. I have added footnotes and emphasis where applicable:
***************************************
(1): As the phenomenon originated in the days of bulletin boards and Usenet, the term still applies to web, social media and other forums online.
(2): While bandwidth considerations are less of an issue in today's online environment due to broadband speeds, there is a matter of consumption of file hosting space on the forum servers. Per a recent discussion it is obvious some of the posters archive the media on their private image databases and simply hotlink from there.
---
In response to item #1, this issue applies mainly to image macros or political cartoons which tend to distort, satirize or otherwise create a caricature of the subject at hand. Satire is First Amendment-protected speech, so it's not the use of the medium but rather the organization that some of us object to. These are discussion forums for the most part, and to insert a picture wall of editorial cartoons into a back and forth, hopefully organized debate seems at best an attempt to derail the discussion, and at worst an inability to form one's own opinions. When you have so much content at your disposal that you literally organize a hierarchical folder structure to accommodate the subject matter, and the content doesn't necessarily add to the discussion, it tends to become irritating. It hearkens to the image of someone sitting, PC at the ready, responding with a folder full of dead baby images to an emotional discussion of abortion--in a way the image poster is making his/her point, but it comes off as complete asshattery and an appeal to emotion which is otherwise in conflict with the subject at hand. I tend to be a quoter as well, but when I have to post a 3-paragraph letter from Thomas Jefferson to make my point INSTEAD OF MAKING MY OWN POINT, it's easier just to post a link and move on. This is the visual example of the "too long; didn't read" response.
Secondly, while the cartoons are not always foolish contradiction of fact, they add little to the discussion at hand besides get someone's particular political jab into the debate. Imagine if you are having a discussion about attention deficit disorder and your opposition is doing nothing but speaking in extended quotes from Yoda. Relevant? Possibly? Irritating as fuck? Definitely.
In response to item #2, the content of various posts is fairly well-controlled here. I could probably name on one hand the number of threads where entire series of posts were redacted because of racist, sexist or offensive overtones. There are subtle workarounds to this issue, the most common of which I've seen are debates about gender roles where one group posits a quasi-sexist position, but because it involves a significant part of the discussion platform, you can't easily claim that it's offensive or insulting, wherein the subsequent posts dissects the subtleties of the language.
Item #3 is the most common element I see on HP, because at some point the thread derails into scope creep, or someone initiates a circular argument with no real resolution. This is often where you get your 'raspberry' or "nanny-nanny-boo-boo" response, where instead of agreeing to disagree one person (or group) goes off in an unresolved huff.
The problem with labeling a troll is in itself difficult, because many HP members thrive on it. It's exhilarating to make a point and have it recognized, and I personally admit to a certain satisfaction when a poster paints themselves into a corner where I get to drop science on them or decimate their argument via a witty or reasoned retort. We're all attention whores to some degree on this forum.
One issue with trolling at large is that some see it as an insult, and others as a simple aspect of human debate. It's impressive to keep up a discussion for six pages without ever adding anything constitutive to the argument, blowing through logical fallacies one after another like they're a carnie shooting gallery. It's like political Silly Putty: You can stretch it, twist it, pull it across the room, use it to lift a panel of Beetle Bailey but in the end it literally does nothing useful.
Trolling is an art, in some forums it's a literal badge of honor to trick someone or get your smarmy point across--think of the Rickroll, for chrissakes. It's the boy who cried wolf, but the people just keep on falling for it ad infinitum because he uses subtly different means to cry for help each time. Trolling is also a science, because you have to be creative, opinionated and sometimes irritating without crossing the line (hopefully) into bad taste, insults, racism or sexism. I could see how the latter labels definitively constitute an offense on HP, but trolling in general? I simply don't see where calling a spade a spade in the former case crosses the line.
My point is not to get someone banned, but we do need some level of redefinition for the thin-skinned crowd who work the system to achieve often petty methods of vengeance. Banning some people for their posts doesn't always fix the problem, and in many cases ego and alts only goad them into more creative argumentation methods. It's also a matter of reputation and public opinion. If you have one person cry troll in a crowd vs. half the people or more, or if your online persona is solidified in other forums based on your behavior, isn't it only natural to call that person out for who they are?
Perhaps the simple answer is what we keep telling those who want to ban offensive TV programs: You don't like it, there's an Ignore button or channel changer right there, problem solved.
[the ignore button works both ways, folks! --mod]
I would like to respond to this blanket accusation with an analysis of the phenomenon. The clearest definition is located here, which I will repost in full. I have added footnotes and emphasis where applicable:
***************************************
The content of a troll posting generally falls into one of several categories. It may consist of
1) an apparently foolish contradiction of common knowledge,
2) a deliberately offensive insult to the readers of a newsgroup or mailing list(1),
3) a broad request for trivial follow-up postings.
The result of such postings is frequently a flood of angry responses. In some cases, the follow-up messages posted in response to a troll can constitute a large fraction of the contents of a newsgroup or mailing list for as long as several weeks. These messages are transmitted around the world to thousands of computers, wasting network resources and costing money for people who pay to download email or receive Usenet news(2). Troll threads also frustrate people who are trying to carry on substantive discussions.
1) an apparently foolish contradiction of common knowledge,
2) a deliberately offensive insult to the readers of a newsgroup or mailing list(1),
3) a broad request for trivial follow-up postings.
The result of such postings is frequently a flood of angry responses. In some cases, the follow-up messages posted in response to a troll can constitute a large fraction of the contents of a newsgroup or mailing list for as long as several weeks. These messages are transmitted around the world to thousands of computers, wasting network resources and costing money for people who pay to download email or receive Usenet news(2). Troll threads also frustrate people who are trying to carry on substantive discussions.
(1): As the phenomenon originated in the days of bulletin boards and Usenet, the term still applies to web, social media and other forums online.
(2): While bandwidth considerations are less of an issue in today's online environment due to broadband speeds, there is a matter of consumption of file hosting space on the forum servers. Per a recent discussion it is obvious some of the posters archive the media on their private image databases and simply hotlink from there.
---
In response to item #1, this issue applies mainly to image macros or political cartoons which tend to distort, satirize or otherwise create a caricature of the subject at hand. Satire is First Amendment-protected speech, so it's not the use of the medium but rather the organization that some of us object to. These are discussion forums for the most part, and to insert a picture wall of editorial cartoons into a back and forth, hopefully organized debate seems at best an attempt to derail the discussion, and at worst an inability to form one's own opinions. When you have so much content at your disposal that you literally organize a hierarchical folder structure to accommodate the subject matter, and the content doesn't necessarily add to the discussion, it tends to become irritating. It hearkens to the image of someone sitting, PC at the ready, responding with a folder full of dead baby images to an emotional discussion of abortion--in a way the image poster is making his/her point, but it comes off as complete asshattery and an appeal to emotion which is otherwise in conflict with the subject at hand. I tend to be a quoter as well, but when I have to post a 3-paragraph letter from Thomas Jefferson to make my point INSTEAD OF MAKING MY OWN POINT, it's easier just to post a link and move on. This is the visual example of the "too long; didn't read" response.
Secondly, while the cartoons are not always foolish contradiction of fact, they add little to the discussion at hand besides get someone's particular political jab into the debate. Imagine if you are having a discussion about attention deficit disorder and your opposition is doing nothing but speaking in extended quotes from Yoda. Relevant? Possibly? Irritating as fuck? Definitely.
In response to item #2, the content of various posts is fairly well-controlled here. I could probably name on one hand the number of threads where entire series of posts were redacted because of racist, sexist or offensive overtones. There are subtle workarounds to this issue, the most common of which I've seen are debates about gender roles where one group posits a quasi-sexist position, but because it involves a significant part of the discussion platform, you can't easily claim that it's offensive or insulting, wherein the subsequent posts dissects the subtleties of the language.
Item #3 is the most common element I see on HP, because at some point the thread derails into scope creep, or someone initiates a circular argument with no real resolution. This is often where you get your 'raspberry' or "nanny-nanny-boo-boo" response, where instead of agreeing to disagree one person (or group) goes off in an unresolved huff.
The problem with labeling a troll is in itself difficult, because many HP members thrive on it. It's exhilarating to make a point and have it recognized, and I personally admit to a certain satisfaction when a poster paints themselves into a corner where I get to drop science on them or decimate their argument via a witty or reasoned retort. We're all attention whores to some degree on this forum.
People post such messages to get attention, to disrupt discussion, and to make trouble. The best response to a troll is no response. If you post a follow-up message, you are contributing to the resulting clamor and most likely delighting the troller. Before posting a response, consider the following questions:
- Have responses already been posted by others?
- Will my post add any information that others are not likely to be aware of already?
- Is the issue resolvable, or will discussion turn into name-calling?
- Should I send private email instead of posting publicly?
- Will I later regret the contents of what I am posting?
One issue with trolling at large is that some see it as an insult, and others as a simple aspect of human debate. It's impressive to keep up a discussion for six pages without ever adding anything constitutive to the argument, blowing through logical fallacies one after another like they're a carnie shooting gallery. It's like political Silly Putty: You can stretch it, twist it, pull it across the room, use it to lift a panel of Beetle Bailey but in the end it literally does nothing useful.
Trolling is an art, in some forums it's a literal badge of honor to trick someone or get your smarmy point across--think of the Rickroll, for chrissakes. It's the boy who cried wolf, but the people just keep on falling for it ad infinitum because he uses subtly different means to cry for help each time. Trolling is also a science, because you have to be creative, opinionated and sometimes irritating without crossing the line (hopefully) into bad taste, insults, racism or sexism. I could see how the latter labels definitively constitute an offense on HP, but trolling in general? I simply don't see where calling a spade a spade in the former case crosses the line.
My point is not to get someone banned, but we do need some level of redefinition for the thin-skinned crowd who work the system to achieve often petty methods of vengeance. Banning some people for their posts doesn't always fix the problem, and in many cases ego and alts only goad them into more creative argumentation methods. It's also a matter of reputation and public opinion. If you have one person cry troll in a crowd vs. half the people or more, or if your online persona is solidified in other forums based on your behavior, isn't it only natural to call that person out for who they are?
Perhaps the simple answer is what we keep telling those who want to ban offensive TV programs: You don't like it, there's an Ignore button or channel changer right there, problem solved.
[the ignore button works both ways, folks! --mod]
