Trolls, in my opinion, are those who attempt to hurt and put down others
not their opinions.
This is bullying, not trolling.
It got off track because you created your own definition of the word that has a different common understanding on internet message boards. Trolling is often considered coming to a thread and derailing it with nonsense too -- Like my example that you ignored about a response Like "Death Penalty" in the abortion thread... THAT is trolling too. see the difference?
Trolls, in my opinion, are those who attempt to hurt and put down others
not their opinions.
This is bullying, not trolling.
It got off track because you created your own definition of the word that has a different common understanding on internet message boards. Trolling is often considered coming to a thread and derailing it with nonsense too -- Like my example that you ignored about a response Like "Death Penalty" in the abortion thread... THAT is trolling too. see the difference?
This is my opinion on what and who are trolls.
This my exact point... it is still on topic. But called derailed because
someone does not agree with a definition.
Another poster has mentioned ...
we all have our own definition of what trolling is and who are trolls in our own opinion
from our own experience.
This oh so true. And a point that should be made.
I have explained who are the trolls to me, those you are harmful and hurtful to other posters and to thread integrity in that order.
It seems some here do not care that others ridicule, insult, etc they even promote it.
As long as its not directed towards someone they click with.
In my opinion those are the trolls to be shamed for the mistreatment of other posters.
I don't believe you directed anything to me about abortion or the death penalty ...
but I think I have made it clear on what my definition of a troll is
and I assume your example of bringing up a subject that a poster
felt was a related subject would not fall under
being harmful or hurtful to others
Thread integrity might be more in the eyes of the beholder.
It would depend on what that poster's point was at that moment in the debate
I would probably not judge that poster nor cry derail just cause it was inflammatory.
Trolls, in my opinion, are those who attempt to hurt and put down others
not their opinions.
This is bullying, not trolling.
It got off track because you created your own definition of the word that has a different common understanding on internet message boards. Trolling is often considered coming to a thread and derailing it with nonsense too -- Like my example that you ignored about a response Like "Death Penalty" in the abortion thread... THAT is trolling too. see the difference?
You know, some of you really need to lighten up. You even says that that "trolling is often considered coming to a thread and derailing it with nonsense too"
So, the definition of trolling has changed? Or been added too? By whom? Time to stop taking yourself so seriously and recognize that lots of people have a different opinion of who is and who is not a troll and it's based on what they believe trolling to be. Just like you added a new one about gibberish.
Another poster has mentioned ...
we all have our own definition of what trolling is and who are trolls in our own opinion
from our own experience.
This oh so true. And a point that should be made.
But if 20 people have the same definition of a word, and your is completely different, can you not understand how the objective was to discuss something other than BULLYING? You might consider having an open mind to another idea, that trolling and bullying arent synonymous in this example? Your definition simply doesnt fit the bill.. its not opinion.
I don't believe you directed anything to me about abortion or the death penalty ...
but I think I have made it clear on what my definition of a troll is
and I assume your example of bringing up a subject that a poster
felt was a related subject would not fall under
being harmful or hurtful to others
Did you click the link in my last post? its an example of trolling.
Thread integrity might be more in the eyes of the beholder.
It would depend on what that poster's point was at that moment in the debate
I would probably not judge that poster nor cry derail just cause it was inflammatory.
The OP's point was to ignore people who post nonsense who aim to derail a thread, not how to fight bullying. But if you want to be that one person on the outside, possibly derailing a thread, I guess that's your prerogative.
The OP's point was to ignore people who post nonsense who aim to derail a thread, not how to fight bullying. But if you want to be that one person on the outside, possibly derailing a thread, I guess that's your prerogative.
See, I thought it was more about him ignoring people that do post on topic but specifically antagonistic and without backing substance. Not just nonsense. But then again, neither one of us are him, so how could we know.
The OP's point was to ignore people who post nonsense who aim to derail a thread, not how to fight bullying. But if you want to be that one person on the outside, possibly derailing a thread, I guess that's your prerogative.
See, I thought it was more about him ignoring people that do post on topic but specifically antagonistic and without backing substance. Not just nonsense. But then again, neither one of us are him, so how could we know.
Did you click my link about the abortion thread with the example of trolling?
Isnt it obvious who Byrzie butts heads with around here?
Either way, we know Byrnzie cant ignore trolling or bullying.
Another poster has mentioned ...
we all have our own definition of what trolling is and who are trolls in our own opinion
from our own experience.
This oh so true. And a point that should be made.
But if 20 people have the same definition of a word, and your is completely different, can you not understand how the objective was to discuss something other than BULLYING? You might consider having an open mind to another idea, that trolling and bullying arent synonymous in this example? Your definition simply doesnt fit the bill.. its not opinion.
I don't believe you directed anything to me about abortion or the death penalty ...
but I think I have made it clear on what my definition of a troll is
and I assume your example of bringing up a subject that a poster
felt was a related subject would not fall under
being harmful or hurtful to others
Did you click the link in my last post? its an example of trolling.
Thread integrity might be more in the eyes of the beholder.
It would depend on what that poster's point was at that moment in the debate
I would probably not judge that poster nor cry derail just cause it was inflammatory.
The OP's point was to ignore people who post nonsense who aim to derail a thread, not how to fight bullying. But if you want to be that one person on the outside, possibly derailing a thread, I guess that's your prerogative.
I did click on the link I did see death penalty and I chuckled
sorry
what's and where's the beef?
Like I said I wouldn't cry derail over that
In fact, just me, but I wouldn't cry derail ever...
each person was given 2 ears and one mouth so we could listen more than we speak
I try to listen to whatever people post and learn from it and more about them
I don't try to shut them up most especially those I do not agree with.
I would hope like a said before kindness would prevail even
when there is a lack of fondness.
But unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case, perhaps too much to ask
my definition sticks for me ...
bullies are trolls I do not care if 20 people don't define it the same
things change ...
maybe others will find they feel the same as I when it happens to them
and they will expand their definition to include the 'harmful and hurtful to other posters'
not just those who compromise thread integrity.
I see that this thread is the perfect example of trolling. I believe the trolls know who they are, but of course, won't admit to it. Good job. :thumbdown:
And either Byrnzie isn't around, or he's doing a fantabulous job at ignoring...
i don't see how someone can change a nearly universally accepted definition of something and not understand why people don't see it the way they do.
that would be like me changing the definition of "up" to include "up and slightly to the right". yes it is technically up, but it is in a lateral direction, not stright up. they are different things. the we have to use the terms that we have all agreed upon as a society/internet community or communication suffers.
i am sticking with the definition i posted and that is what i am going by.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted".
While the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels subjective, with trolling describing intentionally provocative actions and harassment outside of an online context. For example, mass media has used troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."[5][6] The "trollface" (pictured right) has become a well-recognized icon of Internet trolling. It was drawn by deviantArt user Whynne and uploaded to the site in 2008."
Looks like as with most newer terms, it continues to evolve. That's all I'm saying. Well, that and the fact that people can interpret internet messages differently causing them to have a different opinion of what is trolling.
I do find it funny that this thread went this direction. The reality is everyone knows who they think is a troll here and the message still applies...try to not feed your trolls.
Well, I hope my troll ignores me finally .... that would be stupendous!
I have not fed this troll ... I have ignored though offensive unsolicited hateful remarks
continued. I would call that not only trollish behavior but spiteful and vengeful too.
Ugly stuff.
Again we have the power for kindness even without fondness ...
and thats growing up and being a civil adult even with those we don't agree with,
most especially with those we don't agree with.
I see that this thread is the perfect example of trolling. I believe the trolls know who they are, but of course, won't admit to it. Good job. :thumbdown:
And either Byrnzie isn't around, or he's doing a fantabulous job at ignoring...
Yep, he must have decided we were all trolls.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
I see that this thread is the perfect example of trolling. I believe the trolls know who they are, but of course, won't admit to it. Good job. :thumbdown:
And either Byrnzie isn't around, or he's doing a fantabulous job at ignoring...
Yep, he must have decided we were all trolls.
its not even 9am in china.. give him a chance to wake up.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Well, I hope my troll ignores me finally .... that would be stupendous! I have not fed this troll ... I have ignored though offensive unsolicited hateful remarks
continued. I would call that not only trollish behavior but spiteful and vengeful too.
Ugly stuff.
Again we have the power for kindness even without fondness ...
and thats growing up and being a civil adult even with those we don't agree with,
most especially with those we don't agree with.
who are you kidding? you feed this "troll" every single time you blather on about ignoring them, yet you mention them at every chance you get! that is the VERY DEFINITION OF A TROLL!
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
it seems to be based on posting a different opinion but funny thing is that is debate
No, it has nothing to do with someone posting an opinion. It's about someone posting a deliberately provocative comment designed merely to cause insult and provoke anger.
Actually its a core belief and not the least bit baiting in my opinion...
no personal attack, no disrespect
no personal ridicule... did not attack another poster or rile them
people feel strongly about their core beliefs their words show this
and they are rarely effected by others opinions, rarely changed and why debating those subjects
can be rather futile.
Is this also a core belief that exhibits no baiting, personal attack, or disrepect?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29 In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
Pandora, do you think that your own personal opinion on the meaning of a word stands above the dictionary definition of that same word?
we all have our own definition of what trolling is and who are trolls in our own opinion
from our own experience.
This oh so true. And a point that should be made.
but I think I have made it clear on what my definition of a troll is
You miss the point completely Pandora. Your definition of the word is irrelevant. I've posted the dictionary definition above, and it has nothing to do with your definition. Stop pretending to be 'God'.
You just missed all the action that led to this thread being made!
Occasionally there are people that arrive here just to say hateful things and to start hateful threads.
That's why someone wrote this thread.
It was in response to that!
By the morning, the trollish stuff is gone so you're arriving and wondering "What happened?" :geek:
Well, luckily, you didn't see it so you don't know what we're all referring to as "trolls." But, just so it's clear...
Trolls are posters that only come to cause trouble and say mean disruptive things. Often they start nasty threads about Ed's voice being gone or about the band's families or about any stupid thing. (!)
Sometimes angry people arrive just trying to cause trouble. Who knows why they need to come here? These are the trolls that need to be ignored.
I think it's clear that trolling is not defined by a difference of opinion, and I'd like to point out that one of the troll tactics is to try to legitimize bullshit by calling it a difference of opinion. (That usually comes after the tactic of repeatedly screaming the bullshit has failed to convince people that it's true.)
Also, in the case of hateful bigots, for example, I think one is often giving them the benefit of the doubt by calling them trolls. It's almost as if the person is saying, "I know you're not THAT evil or stupid to really believe all that stuff you're saying, so you must just be antagonizing."
I think it's clear that trolling is not defined by a difference of opinion, and I'd like to point out that one of the troll tactics is to try to legitimize bullshit by calling it a difference of opinion. (That usually comes after the tactic of repeatedly screaming the bullshit has failed to convince people that it's true.)
Also, in the case of hateful bigots, for example, I think one is often giving them the benefit of the doubt by calling them trolls. It's almost as if the person is saying, "I know you're not THAT evil or stupid to really believe all that stuff you're saying, so you must just be antagonizing."
yeah.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
it seems to be based on posting a different opinion but funny thing is that is debate
No, it has nothing to do with someone posting an opinion. It's about someone posting a deliberately provocative comment designed merely to cause insult and provoke anger.
That's the definition of 'troll'.
my opinion is different than some here but not all
I say being harmful and hurtful to other posters IS being trollish
that is my opinion
you can ignore and put me on foe but you do not :?
Comments
I think what he's possibly talking about is -- the misunderstood use of the internet term "troll"
Ie:
This is bullying, not trolling.
It got off track because you created your own definition of the word that has a different common understanding on internet message boards. Trolling is often considered coming to a thread and derailing it with nonsense too -- Like my example that you ignored about a response Like "Death Penalty" in the abortion thread... THAT is trolling too. see the difference?
Example of trolling (see the first response):
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=180116
This my exact point... it is still on topic. But called derailed because
someone does not agree with a definition.
Another poster has mentioned ...
we all have our own definition of what trolling is and who are trolls in our own opinion
from our own experience.
This oh so true. And a point that should be made.
I have explained who are the trolls to me,
those you are harmful and hurtful to other posters and to thread integrity in that order.
It seems some here do not care that others ridicule, insult, etc they even promote it.
As long as its not directed towards someone they click with.
In my opinion those are the trolls to be shamed for the mistreatment of other posters.
I don't believe you directed anything to me about abortion or the death penalty ...
but I think I have made it clear on what my definition of a troll is
and I assume your example of bringing up a subject that a poster
felt was a related subject would not fall under
being harmful or hurtful to others
Thread integrity might be more in the eyes of the beholder.
It would depend on what that poster's point was at that moment in the debate
I would probably not judge that poster nor cry derail just cause it was inflammatory.
You know, some of you really need to lighten up. You even says that that "trolling is often considered coming to a thread and derailing it with nonsense too"
So, the definition of trolling has changed? Or been added too? By whom? Time to stop taking yourself so seriously and recognize that lots of people have a different opinion of who is and who is not a troll and it's based on what they believe trolling to be. Just like you added a new one about gibberish.
But if 20 people have the same definition of a word, and your is completely different, can you not understand how the objective was to discuss something other than BULLYING? You might consider having an open mind to another idea, that trolling and bullying arent synonymous in this example? Your definition simply doesnt fit the bill.. its not opinion.
Did you click the link in my last post? its an example of trolling.
The OP's point was to ignore people who post nonsense who aim to derail a thread, not how to fight bullying. But if you want to be that one person on the outside, possibly derailing a thread, I guess that's your prerogative.
See, I thought it was more about him ignoring people that do post on topic but specifically antagonistic and without backing substance. Not just nonsense. But then again, neither one of us are him, so how could we know.
Godfather.
Did you click my link about the abortion thread with the example of trolling?
Isnt it obvious who Byrzie butts heads with around here?
Either way, we know Byrnzie cant ignore trolling or bullying.
sorry
what's and where's the beef?
Like I said I wouldn't cry derail over that
In fact, just me, but I wouldn't cry derail ever...
each person was given 2 ears and one mouth so we could listen more than we speak
I try to listen to whatever people post and learn from it and more about them
I don't try to shut them up most especially those I do not agree with.
I would hope like a said before kindness would prevail even
when there is a lack of fondness.
But unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case, perhaps too much to ask
my definition sticks for me ...
bullies are trolls I do not care if 20 people don't define it the same
things change ...
maybe others will find they feel the same as I when it happens to them
and they will expand their definition to include the 'harmful and hurtful to other posters'
not just those who compromise thread integrity.
And either Byrnzie isn't around, or he's doing a fantabulous job at ignoring...
that would be like me changing the definition of "up" to include "up and slightly to the right". yes it is technically up, but it is in a lateral direction, not stright up. they are different things. the we have to use the terms that we have all agreed upon as a society/internet community or communication suffers.
i am sticking with the definition i posted and that is what i am going by.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted".
While the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels subjective, with trolling describing intentionally provocative actions and harassment outside of an online context. For example, mass media has used troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."[5][6] The "trollface" (pictured right) has become a well-recognized icon of Internet trolling. It was drawn by deviantArt user Whynne and uploaded to the site in 2008."
Looks like as with most newer terms, it continues to evolve. That's all I'm saying. Well, that and the fact that people can interpret internet messages differently causing them to have a different opinion of what is trolling.
I do find it funny that this thread went this direction. The reality is everyone knows who they think is a troll here and the message still applies...try to not feed your trolls.
I have not fed this troll ... I have ignored though offensive unsolicited hateful remarks
continued. I would call that not only trollish behavior but spiteful and vengeful too.
Ugly stuff.
Again we have the power for kindness even without fondness ...
and thats growing up and being a civil adult even with those we don't agree with,
most especially with those we don't agree with.
Yep, he must have decided we were all trolls.
"With our thoughts we make the world"
its not even 9am in china.. give him a chance to wake up.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Didn't like the wiki definition huh?
who are you kidding? you feed this "troll" every single time you blather on about ignoring them, yet you mention them at every chance you get! that is the VERY DEFINITION OF A TROLL!
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
no, derailed because you went off topic.
AGAIN.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
No, it has nothing to do with someone posting an opinion. It's about someone posting a deliberately provocative comment designed merely to cause insult and provoke anger.
That's the definition of 'troll'.
Is this also a core belief that exhibits no baiting, personal attack, or disrepect?:
No it isn't.
Here's the definition of 'troll':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
Pandora, do you think that your own personal opinion on the meaning of a word stands above the dictionary definition of that same word?
No, it isn't oh so true. It's oh so bullshit.
You miss the point completely Pandora. Your definition of the word is irrelevant. I've posted the dictionary definition above, and it has nothing to do with your definition. Stop pretending to be 'God'.
You just missed all the action that led to this thread being made!
Occasionally there are people that arrive here just to say hateful things and to start hateful threads.
That's why someone wrote this thread.
It was in response to that!
By the morning, the trollish stuff is gone so you're arriving and wondering "What happened?" :geek:
Well, luckily, you didn't see it so you don't know what we're all referring to as "trolls." But, just so it's clear...
Trolls are posters that only come to cause trouble and say mean disruptive things. Often they start nasty threads about Ed's voice being gone or about the band's families or about any stupid thing. (!)
Sometimes angry people arrive just trying to cause trouble. Who knows why they need to come here? These are the trolls that need to be ignored.
Also, in the case of hateful bigots, for example, I think one is often giving them the benefit of the doubt by calling them trolls. It's almost as if the person is saying, "I know you're not THAT evil or stupid to really believe all that stuff you're saying, so you must just be antagonizing."
yeah.
I say being harmful and hurtful to other posters IS being trollish
that is my opinion
you can ignore and put me on foe but you do not :?
one would think you like having a foe not on foe
hmmmm
I wonder why?