Serious Question, Why is trolling so frowned upon?

[raptors29]

Why am I reading a short story about trolling?

 

[Methodical Management]

Some could argue drug use and trolling could be compared. But some could argue against it. Subjective as you said, so not really relevant.

All of your opinions are subjective.  Are they, therefore, irrelevant?  
There's a difference between discussion and debate.  Unfortunately, too many people tend to view internet discussions as competitive debates.  Rather than being constructive and building on each exchange toward mutual understanding, debate spirals into a series of increasingly trivial, captious disputes.  

I find that game to be wasteful and wholly uninteresting.  

Trolling is not posting DNR.gif or recycled (TIRED) memes. Trolling also isn't ALWAYS negative or detrimental. It doesn't have to hurt anyones feelings. Admittedly it is to illicit a reaction. For some it probably does all come down to attention. I'm not one to say, I have no degrees in the field of psychology.

I'm reading a lot about what trolling isn't, but very little about what trolling, in your mind, actually is.  Apparently, the underlying foundation is an almost compulsive need for attention (and whether that attention is positive or negative seems inconsequential.)  I don't think you need a doctorate in psychology to find that problematic. 

As for Truth making a case for you being a troll, I can see it and have thought it for a long time. But you are more intelligent than the average troll. Words are your weapon of choice. I just wish you'd change your sig to "Please respond.". Keep in mind I don't feel you're a negative troll. But that word comes with a certain connotation due to the actions of some. I like your style, a lot.

I appreciate the compliment, of sorts, though it seems that you haven't quite figured out what you're accusing me of.  

Trolling, to you, means what, exactly?  Provocative?  That can be stretched to the point of utter meaninglessness.  I don't think most people would consider "trolling" to include every conceivable form of expression that obtains, or seeks to obtain, any response or attention whatsoever.  

Though incomplete in and of itself, common to most definitions is a sense of selfish manipulation.  

In that sense, I don't see what a tagline of "please respond" has to do with my posts.  If I were in this for attention, I probably would've responded to at least one of our many press requests.  I'd probably post more than 4 times per day, especially since I'm here just about each day by dint of my role.

Whenever you participate in a discussion, you'd like it to be a meaningful exchange, but I don't do any of this for an extrinsic reward.  It's not about goading people into responding for my amusement, luring people into "debates," or earning praise/notoriety.  If I were in this for any of those reasons, I'd probably have quit years ago or, at the very least, changed my approach.  

So, I don't consider that a particularly substantive allegation.  If, at the end of the day, trolls are in it for attention, then it's very difficult to classify me as a troll.

Idk. It's weird to hear meth talk tough on trolling now, but thb trolled all damn day everyday for 2 ( or more ) years and it seemed like mods just ignored it.

How many different screen names did he use during that time?  He's been banned probably a dozen times - if not more - during that span.  So, it's a reach to say that we've been lenient with regard to trolling.  Compare our forums to most others and I think you'll find that we compare pretty favorably in that category given our resources.

Fortunately, our account screening process has become more sophisticated of late.  We're now better equipped to keep troublemakers out.  As it happens, I received PMs from thb last month regarding the denial of his recent application attempts.  He's complaining that we won't "let him live," but, from our perspective, we just won't let him troll.  It would be especially pitiful to consider the two one and the same. 

Why am I reading a short story about trolling?

I'm not sure if that's intended to be ironic or not - but it's a great illustration of my point either way. 

Really, why show up to take part in a thread just to say, in ten words or less, that you're uninterested?  That's the sort of abusive behavior that makes communities like ours less enjoyable to take part in.  You're on a forum filled with thousands upon thousands of discussion topics.  It's probably a more productive use of your time to find one you like and participate in that.  

 

[mister negative]

Originally Posted by MPLSdunk

darko was the greatest troll of all time

fact!

Hate to say it but this is the truth...

 

[i am that dude]

Meth why is this topic allowed to continue? http://niketalk.yuku.com/...ll-Let-the-pics-continue There are many naked butts and pure buttcracks in thongs (most are flat anyways butt besides the point) and I have seen people banned/suspended for SO MUCH less, including a previous incarnation of myself. Hell, I still remember when Holden came through and straight ethered everyone in who posted in this big booty thread, said &$*% the ban hammer and just threw the ban grenade in the topic.

 

[sonofsam]

Trolling fuuuhhnn.

 

[Shanegerous]

It is amusing if executed properly on here. However, in more cases than not, it never is.

 

[chopperville]

Originally Posted by I AM THAT DUDE

 

[chopperville]

Yuku smh

 

[sonunox34]

What Method is describing doesn't even sound like trolling to me at all. He's talking about roasting & recycled jokes/phrases/memes.
Exactly. Most NTers don't really get what trolling is. Go on 4chan for a while and figure it out.

Originally Posted by 0cks


A troll in the classic sense is THB/Shynop...

A TRUE LEGEND 

 

[jd214]

I agree trolling is funny but not when it's a serious topic.

THB and Darko

Can't remember Shynop though.

 

[chopperville]

Originally Posted by sonunox34

What Method is describing doesn't even sound like trolling to me at all. He's talking about roasting & recycled jokes/phrases/memes.

Exactly. Most NTers don't really get what trolling is. Go on 4chan for a while and figure it out.

Originally Posted by 0cks


A troll in the classic sense is THB/Shynop...

A TRUE LEGEND 

HT

 

[truthgetsbusy]

G.T.O.A.T has been revealed

 

I see you homie

 keep doing your thang

 

[Clyde Frog]

Originally Posted by Hop

Originally Posted by Jay02

Method Man wrote:
You can say "it doesn't bother me," but you can't tell the rest of the world "it doesn't bother you."  

It's not all that different from the type of teasing common among schoolchildren.  Not everyone subjected to schoolyard teasing goes on a shooting spree, but I doubt you'd find too many people who enjoyed the experience of being teased, either.  

You have to consider how these issues scale, too.  You may think it's a good idea to stand up to get a better view at a concert or sporting event, but what about the people behind you?  You can see a little better, but now their view is obstructed entirely.  If they're similarly selfish, they'll stand up and obstruct the view of the people behind them.  Suddenly, everyone's standing for the duration - which is less comfortable than sitting - and nobody has a better view.  

Is that "affecting people's lives in the worst way possible?"  No, but we're better off avoiding it - and that requires both an understanding of the problem and a concerted effort to avoid its recurrence.  

We're better off finding a constructive way to satisfy the "craving" that people currently seek to satiate through trolling.  

First off, where in the hell do you get all these analogies 

 
Second off, your cant use analogies with the term trolling. Its too broad of a term. Maybe if you specified a certain type or way of trolling than sure.

Look at the example i gave you. The breaking KNECKS thread isnt teasing anyone. No shooting sprees are about to pop off because of it. No one is offended. Just someone looking for attention and it happened to be very funny.

It doesn't matter whether or not you like the man on stage at the concert. He's probably on stage so everyone can see him because he needs attention. Everyone looking at the man on stage at the concert because its funny. He gets the attention he needs, they get the laughs they want. Win-Win.

Point is, there can be good trolling. It can be funny, and it can be funny without harming or offending anyone. It can even make peoples days better. Your looking solely at how it can be done negatively.

Your only proving his point, as much as you would like to try you can't tell what offends one person but doesn't offend the other. And to use your own stage analogy, most of the time when an individual is trolling he just runs up on stage and starts screaming. Some people will find it funny others will just find it annoying.



The point I was making is that not all trolling has to offend someone. Not all of it is negative. Meth is only only looking at the bad side.
There is such thing as good trolling. And there is such thing as bad trolling. It can go both ways.

 

[sonunox34]

HT is why I like 4chan so much (and why I am such a bad person). 

 

[james earl zones]

There is no debate here, friendly discussion to me. Just a difference in opinion I guess. I agree completely that people too often turn what could be a simple discussion into a pointless debate. I'm trying to see your view as I'm hoping youre trying to see mine, but you seem to have already come to a conclusion on all trolls. That theyre maladjusted bullies. Just not true.

Trolling is anything done purposely to illicit a response. Good or bad. When its witty or serves a real purpose I enjoy it plenty, but the kind you seem to be speaking of is the kind I loathe. Recycled jokes, tired memes, and flaming. There are plenty of types of trolls, be it the atheist troll who goads christians into angrily defending their beliefs, or the intellectual troll who uses wordy sentences, veiled insults, and a holier than thou attitude to garner a response. Then there's the "derp I spell wrong on purpose and use completely illogical arguments and outlandish statements to make you pay attention" ones. I can go on.

I know exactly what I'm accusing you of. Trolling in its greatest form, too me at least. Its so slight that you can't even tell. You use words as your weapons as I stated. You say things in a way that could be offensive but in a manner just vague enough. As if you WANT someone to respond. Baits the slow ones right in, more than once I've seen posters lose their cool speaking to you.

At which point you usually post something enlightening but slightly malicious, making even the simplest of simpletons stop and think about what just occurred, and get angry. Soft trolling is the best kind. Are you doing this purposely? Maybe not.

Nonetheless, you's trollin.

Although trolling can hurt ones feelings, the trolling I'm familiar with is used to prove some type of point. Its not intended to tear down anyone. I'd rather make you think than make you mad, but if I pull the right strings and notice your temper flaring... Its all over. DNR.gif strike throughs are the tools of the new breed of lulz dependant trolls. That life, I'm not about.

I realize you deal with a lot of fail trolls here. So I understand your feelings towards it. But don't generalize us all as unintelligent, unoriginal, maladjusted bullies.

That's just unfair bro.

 

[i am that dude]

Originally Posted by ChopperVille

Originally Posted by I AM THAT DUDE

Rules were broken, therefore that thread did not deserve to be here. You are on the internet, there is a bevy of skantily clad, heck even naked, females right at your disposal a mere google search away and it doesn't even matter what you type in the searchbar as long as you have safesearch off. You don't know the females personally, so what is the difference? To further validate my point, he didn't even win. As grandma would say, "God don't like ugly." It's like when someone makes a bad call in a pickup game and everyone protests but still allows them to have ball up top. What inevitably happens? It's either a live ball turnover and transition bucket for the team who was just cheated, or the cheating team loses it out of bounds and everybody yells "Ball don't lie!" Same here, ball don't lie. Dude lost, even after bribing an infinite pool of red blooded males who have never seen/heard him DJ with pictures of longbacked 5s and 6s in swimwear.

 

[veryanalytical85]

Originally Posted by ThrowedInDaGame

Trolling in real life is more annoying.

People who enter into arguments with not intention of winning or even proving a point. People who are simply talking to irritate others....smfh.

Preach.
Don't get me wrong, I could take a trolling joke here and there like anybody else. We get it you're trying to get a rouse, out of a person. To make yourself, feel good because you feel like you really "gave it to them"

But when you take it too far sometimes, I feel the only need to cease the trolling is to knock the $%$$@$*%#$@! out. Especially this one person I know, I feel like one of these days if they get really $%###@ up in life, I feel like laughing in their face and trolling the hell out of them under the worst possible circumstances.

 

[Methodical Management]

Originally Posted by I AM THAT DUDE

Meth why is this topic allowed to continue? http://niketalk.yuku.com/...ll-Let-the-pics-continue There are many naked butts and pure buttcracks in thongs (most are flat anyways butt besides the point) and I have seen people banned/suspended for SO MUCH less, including a previous incarnation of myself. Hell, I still remember when Holden came through and straight ethered everyone in who posted in this big booty thread, said &$*% the ban hammer and just threw the ban grenade in the topic.

It shouldn't be.  Unfortunately, we don't have the time to review every thread.  At first, it seemed like the usual "help a NTer win a contest" thread and no user reports about its content were ever submitted to us.  
I've locked the thread.

Nonetheless, you's trollin. 

According to arguably the loosest and most meaningless definition imaginable, I suppose, though I'd be in plentiful company:  a category including but not limited to every sentient life form on earth, Pottery Barn catalogs, and most unicellular organisms.  Paramecium have been trollin' heavy for about 65 million years.  Top that, Shynop. 

In seriousness, I think your definition contains an element of what most of us would agree constitutes "trolling," but what you've laid out strikes me as insufficient in and of itself.

Specifically:

Trolling is anything done purposely to illicit a response.

Anything done to elicit a response?  What, then, do you qualify as a response?  Earlier, you seemed to include momentary attention in that category and, if so, every single communicative act could constitute "trolling" by your definition.  Buying your mom flowers on her birthday with the goal of making her happy is "trolling" by your definition.  Does that sound right?  

I actually think your examples are more telling and, perhaps coincidentally, they all tend to involve a certain degree of intentional, gratuitous, and often selfish disruptiveness.  

When we think of someone "trolling in real life," people are more likely to refer to photo bombing or a flash mob than an infant requesting a bottle.  

Let's say you enjoy playing basketball.  Every week, you stop by the local gym for a regular pickup game.  One day, in the middle of the game, three guys run onto the court and start go-go dancing.  They have no intention of leaving, and the more upset you get the more they seem to enjoy it.  Of course, they find the whole thing hilarious and, in all likelihood, some of the onlookers surrounding the court do as well.  Having so successfully trolled your pickup game, they will, of course, continue to do so at every opportunity.  

This isn't the same activity as go-go dancing at a club or even in the confines of someone's living room.  That wouldn't be trolling by most definitions, though dancing with others, in any context, could be described as an attempt to evoke a response.

Arranging and participating in a respectful interfaith discussion wouldn't be considered "trolling" by most meaningful definitions.  Barging into a bible study class and calling the participants "sheep," on the other hand, would likely qualify.

The fake Syrian blogger could serve as another example, as could most any hoax.  Don't these acts have more in common than the goal of inciting a reaction?

If you just wanted to dance, if you just wanted to discuss religion, if you just wanted to write about social issues, you could do so without violating others.

Trolling appears to represent this extra, intrusive step toward disrespecting and imposing oneself on others in a way that defies their wishes.  The difference between bullying and boxing is informed consent.  Trolling practically requires the defiance or denial of informed consent.  In short, it requires victims or targets.  If everyone's "in" on a practical joke, then it ceases to be a joke.  Trolling is always done at someone else's expense.

It troubles me that you consider it the "height of the art" to inflict subtle torment on others, that "winning," in your mind, entails reducing people to anger - after baiting them in to a conflict they never sought.  That sounds an awful lot like bullying to me.

Why is that necessary, let alone desirable, on a forum like NikeTalk?  Is there a better, more respectful, alternative? 

 

[size twelve]

if you guys really want to troll, there's many many other places on the internet to do so.


there's a difference between being funny and being antagonistic for the sake of a few

s..

 

[hop]

This is how you're supposed to troll in real life:

 

[hop]

�

 

[raptors29]

I'm abusive because I typed that Method Man? WOW! I just didn't think trolling was that important.

 

[james earl zones]

@ the thread being locked

Sasha is one of the best IRL trolls ever. Almost as good as the guys from Jack @$%.

But yeah that's the thing though, trolling is a made up word with a super loose definition. That's part of the joke. If you fit the description then you fit the description. Trollin is trollin is trollin. I already said I feel like you trolled me.

"Trolling appears to represent this extra, intrusive step toward disrespecting and imposing oneself on others in a way that defies their wishes."

Some trolls do go about it this way. But not all. Certainly not myself. I like to make people think but the way I tend to do it generally creates anger more than reflection. This only applies to the types who think that internet discussions equal debates though. They are the easiest to troll because theyre so ready to attack another, be it name calling or just general disrespect.

It troubles me that people allow their anger to get the best of them so easily. The SECOND you disagree with some people, temper tantrums become their only option for defense. That's hilarious to me, I can't help it.

Trolling is everywhere. It's inescapable as long as human beings have to interact with one another. Its not necessary on NT but you can't avoid it when you have 13 to 35 year old males with incredibly different views and moral standards all interacting in one place. The only alternative is for everyone to somehow mature overnight. For people to realize that different views and opinions exist, and that its okay. That's not happening though.

As long as this is the average NTer:

Then trolling will exist here. Not saying its desirable. But sometimes its necessary. Not all trolling is like super disruptive go go dance parties on basketball courts. Sometimes its as simple as pissing off a bigot, or a hyper-Christian who believes you're immoral scum for not going to church.

It troubles me that you consider it the "height of the art" to inflict subtle torment on others, that "winning," in your mind, entails reducing people to anger -after baiting them in to a conflict they never sought. That sounds an awful lot like bullying to me.

Have you not been trolled softly, sir?

Sorry, I couldn't resist. But as I said earlier, I get your points. Time and a place for everything, and I'm aware of what the staff wants this site to be. I abide by your rules, I enjoy it here. I love the fact that you guys moderate the site, it keeps things tidy. Other boards I spend time on have a different stance on the issue, so I go there to indulge in the activities I can't here.

You can't place the blame solely on the trolls though. Trolling doesn't exist because of trolls. It exists because of those that feed into it. The self righteous hypocrites, the bigots, the argumentative, the illogical. Feeding a troll is like feeding a stray animal. But the argument can be made that bigots are trolls. That those same illogical, hateful people only do it for a response (Westboro baptists as an example).

Is it wrong to combat them with more trolling?

 

[tennhouse2]

Originally Posted by I AM THAT DUDE

Originally Posted by ChopperVille

Originally Posted by I AM THAT DUDE

Rules were broken, therefore that thread did not deserve to be here. You are on the internet, there is a bevy of skantily clad, heck even naked, females right at your disposal a mere google search away and it doesn't even matter what you type in the searchbar as long as you have safesearch off. You don't know the females personally, so what is the difference? To further validate my point, he didn't even win. As grandma would say, "God don't like ugly." It's like when someone makes a bad call in a pickup game and everyone protests but still allows them to have ball up top. What inevitably happens? It's either a live ball turnover and transition bucket for the team who was just cheated, or the cheating team loses it out of bounds and everybody yells "Ball don't lie!" Same here, ball don't lie. Dude lost, even after bribing an infinite pool of red blooded males who have never seen/heard him DJ with pictures of longbacked 5s and 6s in swimwear.

Dude did lose, but that thread was helping him get exposure after the fact. i know for a fact i put at least 5 of my friends onto his facebook page, and i know who im hitting up next time i go to miami. The thread didnt affect your life one bit, but you want to ruin it for him and everyone else that was enjoying the thread 

 

[Methodical Management]

But yeah that's the thing though, trolling is a made up word with a super loose definition. That's part of the joke. If you fit the description then you fit the description. Trollin is trollin is trollin.

There's a substantial gap between your definition of 'trolling' (i.e. every interactive gesture in the world) and how you seem to use that word in context.  When you say things like "if you fit the description then you fit the description," and "trollin is trollin is trollin," you're relying on the assumption of a mutual definition.  (That, trolling is something distinct and recognizable as opposed to everything.)  On one hand, you're leaning on a mutual definition without which many of your statements are meaningless, but, on the other, you're disavowing that definition and replacing it with one so nebulous as to be meaningless.  

Language can't function without shared meanings.  It's hard to cook with somebody who thinks an apple is "anything capable of being ingested."  

Case in point:

Have you not been trolled softly, sir?

I chose to participate in this discussion and I've decided to discuss your views.  It's like you consider it a competitive victory to achieve interaction.  "HA!  HE TALKED TO ME!!  I WIN AGAIN!!!  U GOTZ TROWLED LULZZ000RRRZZZ!!!"  

Again, although your stated definition of trolling involves all forms of communication, the implied definition contradicts this.  More accurately, it seems, you consider trolling as something done to, rather than with, someone.  You have to somehow get over one someone in the context of a discussion to "troll" them.  Otherwise, the entire discussion is trolling, and all participants are trolls.  The theory doesn't fit the model here. 

You can't place the blame solely on the trolls though. Trolling doesn't exist because of trolls. It exists because of those that feed into it. The self righteous hypocrites, the bigots, the argumentative, the illogical. Feeding a troll is like feeding a stray animal. But the argument can be made that bigots are trolls. That those same illogical, hateful people only do it for a response (Westboro baptists as an example). 

Is it wrong to combat them with more trolling?

That's like claiming "two wrongs make a right." 
Someone who 'feeds into' trolling by your definition could be an innocent bystander.  Trolling, by most definitions, can include randomly picking on others just to irritate them.  

Your "high art" of holy trolling strikes me more or less as vigilante justice, wherein you think that someone "deserves it."  You may like to think of it as "bullying the bullies," but the intended goal is less a respectful discussion than to cause distress/anxiety to someone who "has it coming."  

Even this supposes that trolling is something of an attack.  Trolling isn't a respectful interfaith discussion with willing participants.  Your beliefs regarding religion merely inform your choice of targets.  You decide that certain people deserve harassment and your means of harassment will involve tweaking what you perceive to be their pressure points with the goal of causing their "anger to get the best of them."  You find that amusing.  

Reducing people to anger is pleasurable to you, though perhaps, ethically, you need to convince yourself that they deserve the experience or could potentially "learn something" from it as justification.  That's a rationalization for attacking them, not an illustration of trolling as a benign, mutually-desired interaction.

"Trolling appears to represent this extra, intrusive step toward disrespecting and imposing oneself on others in a way that defies their wishes."

Some trolls do go about it this way. But not all. Certainly not myself. I like to make people think but the way I tend to do it generally creates anger more than reflection.

Your goal, when "trolling" is to bait people into confrontations they don't wish to have and "make them think" by causing them distress (though this positive outcome of provoking thoughtfulness is inessential, as, previously, you indicated that the type of attention doesn't matter so much as the troll's ability to gain any acknowledgement whatsoever.  Successfully trolling, according to this definition, can be making someone think OR making them angry.  Either way, the goal seems to be to impose yourself on others and force them to react to you.  If you're simply ignored, and your attempts don't faze anyone, then you've failed.)  

I suppose it could be said that this is merely "one form" of trolling and others may differ.

What, then, would "positive, respectful trolling" look like?  How do you troll in a way that doesn't require you to break frame and defy the wishes of others?  

Can you "troll" someone who's in on the "joke" (in which case you can't provoke them to anger), or does it require victimizing someone?