E-Z Trolling: What are the rules?

February 2, 2002 8:38 PM

E-Z Trolling: What are the rules? [Nothing else inside, fuckwits!]
posted by MiguelCardoso to General Weblog-Related at 8:38 PM (34 comments total)

Is it my impression or does trolling seem to be on the increase here at MetaFilter and - gasp! - at MetaTalk too? Four rules I've surmised are saying:

1. This is not a troll.
2. I don't give a fuck what others think.
3. Some variation of "I hate this place and everyone who comes here and I'm outta here".
4. Something unfathomably mysterious, yet aggressive(Definitely the upcoming thing, IMO)

So what are the new, 2002 roles for successful, comment-sucking trolls? Specially as evidenced here at MeFi. And confessed by suckers like me...
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:47 PM on February 2, 2002

Fortified wine is the opiate of the blastocysts, you Bush-loving, meat-eating, abortion-inducing, excessively-corpulent devout christian!

Discuss.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:55 PM on February 2, 2002

I'm not trolling here or anything, and I don't give a fuck what you or your Portuguese dipshit friends think, but I can't take this whining anymore, so I'm heading off to ancient lost city of Izula, where the Barbapapas run free, bitch.
posted by Kafkaesque at 8:56 PM on February 2, 2002

"Oh, kirkaracha," Miguel said, "We could have had such a damned good time together."

Ahead was a MeFi policeman in khaki directing traffic. He raised his baton. The site slowed suddenly pressing Miguel against me.

"Yes." I said. "Isn't it pretty to think so?"

fin
posted by kirkaracha at 9:09 PM on February 2, 2002

This is not a troll...


posted by jonmc at 9:14 PM on February 2, 2002

Of what use is a philosopher who doesn’t hurt anybody’s feelings?

Diogenes of Sinope
posted by y2karl at 9:15 PM on February 2, 2002

This is a troll
posted by Lynsey at 9:47 PM on February 2, 2002

Miguel, I've got your troll right here! (Battery operated, too.)
posted by bragadocchio at 10:14 PM on February 2, 2002

I'd type something about my bare ass hanging out of some leather pants here, but I'm not quite certain how to work it in as seamlessly and smoothly as I did last thread.
posted by dong_resin at 10:20 PM on February 2, 2002

This is a troll

Why does ( . ) ( . ) come to mind?
posted by y2karl at 10:37 PM on February 2, 2002

2. I don't give a fuck what others think.

Which is obviously true with this freaking waste of a post. Christ man, could you please TRY to follow some fucking rules around here. Miguel, as I'm sure everyone around here has said before, you seem like a nice enough guy, but SHUT UP. Honestly, this post is the most worthless piece of crap I've seen (FWIW, I've been reading MeFi for over a year, I just never really cared to join until recently). How about we use MeFi for what it is worth; I hate to bring up y6y6y6's earlier post, but hell if you aren't pissing all over the fucking place around here. Flame away if you'd like, but this is ridiculous.
posted by BlueTrain at 1:03 AM on February 3, 2002

Oh, and BTW, I get the "irony" of my post; I have an e-mail address if you care to discuss my "troll".
posted by BlueTrain at 1:10 AM on February 3, 2002

I.. I .. I can't tell if that's ironic or not.

1. It is post-modern
1.1 Thus, it does not reference history without referencing itself in the process
1.2 Thus, if it references history, it reference itself.
1.3 I've been reading MeFi for over a year, thus it references history
2. Thus, it references itself. Which is obviously true with this freaking waste of a post.

How about we use MeFi for what it is worth
I hate to be the one to do this, but this is MeTa, for discussing issues on MeFi.. There have been a lot of trolls lately, a trend, even. Trends are something on MeFi (a meta-thing, true). Thus, trolls are to be discussed in MeTa.
posted by j.edwards at 3:26 AM on February 3, 2002

Bluetrain:

::yawn::

j.edwards:

What you said.
posted by y2karl at 3:40 AM on February 3, 2002

As my old pappy used to say, I don't know whether to shit or go blind.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:47 AM on February 3, 2002

Why choose one or the other when you can do both?

Re: trolls
4. Something unfathomably mysterious, yet aggressive

Yah, I've been seeing a lot of this lately -- it's basically an argument by non sequiter, just like most trolls, only it tends to elict a response because either people aren't sure what it means, or they think it has worthy content. The troll can then respond with either "you didn't get it, suckas! it was a troll!" or with "obviously, you are all stupid because I am so far above you," either of which degrades the overall tone around here because people lose faith in posts overall. My two sense.
posted by j.edwards at 4:27 AM on February 3, 2002

Miguel!

To answer your question.... have you considered The Pancake Troll? It's a troll just past its infancy, yet not quite into its prime. It's a troll that reminds me of those scenes in wonderful teenagers' movies, where a 'nerd' attempts to integrate, and the 'cool' kids ignore the nerd, talking as if they didn't exist, laughing at in-jokes and basically saying, "You don't have a clue. Go away."

I've seen it often in the past few weeks; when somebody knows about the pancakes reference and they want to stamp their disapproval or condescension on a post, then they mention pancakes. Post derailment! Poster ignored.

So how about those Mets?

I think I need me some more cowbell.
posted by kv at 5:20 AM on February 3, 2002

Posting a nonsense link as a cheap excuse to start a discussion is worse than trolling.
posted by rcade at 6:27 AM on February 3, 2002

I dispute "worse than", but you're on the right track. A sort of positive troll. And yes, it would have been more helpful if examples of points 1-4 had been provided, rather than a "nonsense link". I liked the jaws music though.
posted by walrus at 6:54 AM on February 3, 2002

Nothing good will come of this thread.
posted by crunchland at 6:55 AM on February 3, 2002

You've forgotten the "Steve Martin" trolls. Smack in the middle of an actual discussion, somebody who has yet to participate with anything substantial, will stand up and bray an obnoxious, sarcastic response, excuuuuuuuuuuuse me, then disappear. Fortunately, most everybody seems to be ignoring them, so it doesn't seem to be a very effective trolling method.
posted by headspace at 8:46 AM on February 3, 2002

Would I be out of place to comment on Miguel's link?
As someone who likes kayaking, there simply isn't enough room to hold a bucket for fish caught between the legs. Perhaps an attachment to hang a net or bucket over the side would be useful.
Carry on...
posted by G_Ask at 10:02 AM on February 3, 2002

Miguel, I've got your troll right here! (Battery operated, too.)

About 200 metres to my right is a 3 story statue of that thing

...gives me nightmares.
posted by holloway at 12:39 PM on February 3, 2002

And here in Seattle, we have the Fremont Troll. That's right, Fremont Troll. And note: he's under a bridge. Can't get more trolly than that.
posted by y2karl at 1:43 PM on February 3, 2002

From a troll, not a troll.
posted by eyeballkid at 1:58 PM on February 3, 2002

Mad props to Miguel for using the word "fuckwits".
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:51 PM on February 3, 2002

Nobody's going to build cities around this thread.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:19 PM on February 3, 2002

Heh. And I tried to salvage it. you fuckwits
posted by j.edwards at 6:23 PM on February 3, 2002

Hey, cheers you guys. But why can't trolling be discussed? I've just been reading cryofan's sickening trolls and continue to feel we're more troll-vulnerable than we used to be. It's as if we now give trolls the benefit of the doubt or something...
posted by MiguelCardoso at 6:47 PM on February 3, 2002

So, Miguel, are some trolls sickening and others laudable?
posted by darukaru at 7:33 PM on February 3, 2002

This thread was operating under a bit of a handicap from the start with the ez-trolling link, and the attempt to describe various types of trolls as "rules."

Often, the best response to a troll is to move on, and continue discussion as if the troll didn't happen, or to bring it here, where it could be discussed further and not be allowed to derail the thread in progress.

As for rules regarding trolls:
(1) don't feed the trolls.
(2) you can cut trolls up into pieces, but they just regenerate and come back for more.
(3) introduce the trolling new comer to metatalk, where a discussion about commenting in a civil manner can take place.
(4) expect some degree of non sequiter comments; they are bound to happen in any community. I've seen quite a bit of attempts at socializing here by people posting comments that don't reflect the original link, or the discussion that is related to it.
(5) some people don't know how to discuss issues, and argue critically. The Something unfathomably mysterious, yet aggressive types of trolls Miguel describes are often based upon a logical fallacy
(6) some people find themselves removed from any social restraints by being able to post under an anonymous user name, and behave badly. I've seen Matt try to contact these people off board, and that might be the last recourse for trollish behavior.

It's also probably easier to discuss trolling with a specific example in question, than in a general manner.

OK, Miguel, am I on the right track here (as opposed to the link to the LOTR cave troll)?
posted by bragadocchio at 11:26 PM on February 3, 2002

So, Miguel, are some trolls sickening and others laudable?

You're right - it's personal. But it's still true that cryofan's comments are simple sentences saying he hopes the WSJ reporter is dead, whereas fold_and_mutilate is clearly a principled individual who is firmly on the side of life.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 2:08 AM on February 4, 2002

Yeah, right, whatever.
cryofan: "i hope they find his body soon."
f&m: "Burn in hell, charbroiled."
I don't see the difference, myself. But hey, I'll let the dead horse rest in peace now.
posted by darukaru at 8:08 AM on February 4, 2002

Fries up a dead horse steak in honor of fold_and_mutilate.
posted by Optamystic at 10:43 AM on February 4, 2002