What is a troll really?

[Geronimo]

Here on Apolyton I've always assumed that posts have to be insincere to fit with the usual notion of "Trolling".

It seems however that every definition of trolling I can find on the web ignores the part about sincerity and defines trolling as some variation on:

"posting bad things to bait people into responding"

Meaning that it is possible to be a "troll" simply because your posts made someone upset.

Is anybody here well enough acquainted with internet lore to be able to verify if originally the sincerity of a posting had anything to do with whether it can be considered a troll or not?

[Pekka]

A troll is you.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Pekka
A troll is you.

I considered that definition but then the word becomes totally useless.

[ZEE]

this thread is an example of this:

"posting bad things to bait people into responding"

meh... ive made my point.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by AAHZ
this thread is an example of this:

"posting bad things to bait people into responding"

meh... ive made my point.

Actually I'm not interested in responses for responses sake. I want something that will lead me to a better sourced definition than the crappy wikipedia one. Then I'll register and replace the offending definition with one properly sourced.

Of course the big hole in those plans at present is that I'm not entirely certain that trolling is or has had anything to do with the sincerity of the poster.

[Lord Avalon]

OK, how about this?

troll
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll

Edit: I just quoted the first definition; there are more.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Pekka
A troll is you.

good example of a troll.

[Hercules]

Originally posted by Lord Avalon
OK, how about this?
troll
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll

Edit: I just quoted the first definition; there are more.

I 'll go with that plus an underlying intention to spam.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Actually I'm not interested in responses for responses sake. I want something that will lead me to a better sourced definition than the crappy wikipedia one. Then I'll register and replace the offending definition with one properly sourced.

Of course the big hole in those plans at present is that I'm not entirely certain that trolling is or has had anything to do with the sincerity of the poster.

Depends on the context of the situation.

Say we have a nazi poster who loved Hitler. He posts a thread saying how great Hitler is. Knowing most people hate Hiter, he does this to provoke a reaction out of us. This is a troll, even though he is sincere in his love for Hitler.

but if he posted his Hitler admiration thread on a nazi board, it would not be a troll.

The thing about it is, "we" don't know if the poster is sincere. Either way he's trolling. But we just don't know if he believes the crap he's posting about Hitler.

That's the best I can come up with.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Lord Avalon
OK, how about this?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll

Edit: I just quoted the first definition; there are more.

I found tons that are equivalent to that.

The thing that doesn't sit well with me about that is that it suggests that if someone posts something that seems stupid/inflammatory whatever then it makes them a troll even if they themselves honestly don't see how it is stupid or inflammatory.


It makes no sense to debate someone whose posts are insincere but debate can be justified if they are honestly trying to make a case.

If the element of sincerity is removed from the notion of trolling the definition seems a lot less useful.

[Pekka]

Originally posted by Dis


good example of a troll.

he is, isn't he?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Dis


Depends on the context of the situation.

Say we have a nazi poster who loved Hitler. He posts a thread saying how great Hitler is. Knowing most people hate Hiter, he does this to provoke a reaction out of us. This is a troll, even though he is sincere in his love for Hitler.

but if he posted his Hitler admiration thread on a nazi board, it would not be a troll.

That's the best I can come up with.

Ok for that example let's imagine two nazi apologists had some kids and home schooled them and steeped their childhood in their Nazi BS. The kids eventually start thinking for themselves and maybe post on the internet starting with their whackjob preconceived notions.

Are they trolls even though we might expect that contact and discussion with rational people might bring them around? Suppose they are actually willing to honestly debate the merits of their ****ed up ideology?

[Hercules]

and/or to continue the Troll by arguing provocatively against each poster who raises reasonable points.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Ok for that example let's imagine two nazi apologists had some kids and home schooled them and steeped their childhood in their Nazi BS. The kids eventually start thinking for themselves and maybe post on the internet starting with their whackjob preconceived notions.

Are they trolls even though we might expect that contact and discussion with rational people might bring them around? Suppose they are actually willing to honestly debate the merits of their ****ed up ideology?

It depends on their motivations. Which makes it difficult to discern what is and isn't a troll.

If their intentions are to honestly debate the merits of Hitler, or even to try to sway our opinions of him, then it is not a troll.

But if their motivations are to go on a normal board (assuming they know normal people are vehemently opposed to Hitler), and start spouting off how great Hitler was in an effort to get a reaction, it is at a troll.

[Lord Avalon]

Originally posted by Geronimo

I found tons that are equivalent to that.

The thing that doesn't sit well with me about that is that it suggests that if someone posts something that seems stupid/inflammatory whatever then it makes them a troll even if they themselves honestly don't see how it is stupid or inflammatory.


It makes no sense to debate someone whose posts are insincere but debate can be justified if they are honestly trying to make a case.

If the element of sincerity is removed from the notion of trolling the definition seems a lot less useful.

IMO "deliberately provocative" excludes sincere posts. Other people may call a sincere poster a troll, but he's not really, because the intent to provoke wasn't there. He's just ignorant, and possibly stupid.