August 30, 2004

10:56 PM

"Troll" may have a respectable lineage on the Web but, frankly, for some of us who joined later in the day, it seems like a quaint, medieval way of classifying anyone who's the least bit provocative, thought-provoking or even unorthodox. Recently, any forceful, strongly-worded attempt to spark discussion with a non-mainstream viewpoint, generally from the Left, has been lamely denounced as a "troll". Could it be time to give the ye olde troll accusation a well-deserved rest? I hope so. The English language is one of the richest in the world and troll sounds parochial, pimply, nerdish, cliquey, incestuous and, ultimately, meaningless.
posted by MiguelCardoso to etiquette/policy at 10:56 PM (78 comments total)

I agree. Most people misuse the term. The phrase most people are looking for is "flamebait."
posted by keswick at 11:06 PM on August 30, 2004

Me too; 'troll' as an accusation now often seems to be shorthand for 'This is something I don't agree with and which can't possibly be right.'
posted by carter at 11:13 PM on August 30, 2004

troll
1. To fish for by trailing a baited line from behind a slowly moving boat. 2. To fish in by trailing a baited line: troll the lake for bass. 3. To trail (a baited line) in fishing.
posted by crunchland at 11:17 PM on August 30, 2004

Ooh, can I do it before anyone else does?

Metafilter: parochial, pimply, nerdish, cliquey, incestuous and, ultimately, meaningless.

OK. It's not my favorite term either, but the problem with banning any particular word is that another will always spring up to take its place. The moment we agree to abandon "troll" we'll find some new term to call those who gallop their unpleasant hobbyhorses into every thread. I don't see it as a term of disparagement against left or right, but against one-note posters. Of course, you can't defeat them that way, but it's such a firmly entrenched cliche I don't see how you could ever persuade folks to stop using it.
posted by melissa may at 11:20 PM on August 30, 2004

I liked the old, much more subtle usenet meaning of the word "troll".

So, how about those Olympics, huh? Is it time to retire some of the old events? Are the Olympics so commercialized that they are an insult to the spirit in which they were recreated?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:24 PM on August 30, 2004

"Troll" doesn't just dismiss the provocative and unorthodox - it also gives the truly hateful and bigoted a free pass. "Oh, he's just trolling, don't take the bait." I've seen this less on Metafilter than some other online communities, but sometimes an obnoxious poster who's been around for a while and made some friends can become a sort of lovable troll - whose racism or misogyny or personal attacks are neither ignored (because of his popularity) nor called out (because no one wants to be caught "taking the bait.")
posted by transona5 at 11:42 PM on August 30, 2004

What you mean like GNAA? warning: slashdot troll site ahoy
posted by keswick at 12:39 AM on August 31, 2004

...but the problem with banning any particular word is that another will always spring up to take its place.

How about poimp? I just made it up, although google manages to find plenty of hits for it. I just find the word to be somehow disagreeable.

"Screw you... you friggin' poimp!"

No?
posted by Witty at 1:22 AM on August 31, 2004

No.
posted by SpaceCadet at 1:43 AM on August 31, 2004

:)
posted by Witty at 2:46 AM on August 31, 2004

I find all the dependable standbys extremely tedious: 'troll". "strawman". "ad hominem", blah, blah. Even when they are used correctly, they make me feel claustrophobic.

Basically, I guess overused jargon always dismays me when it's used earnestly; if it's a joke, it doesn't bother me at all. "Don't feed the troll" is boring and meaningless in its ubiquity; something like "let's send this troll to Weightwatchers" might be kind of fun, though. (But you guys can surely come up with better than that, no?)
posted by taz at 2:55 AM on August 31, 2004

taz, what's your take on poimp? Ya know, like, "Don't feed the poimp" or "let's send this poimp to Weightwatchers".

I just think it has potential here and I'm hoping somebody sees the light. Just say it out loud a few times... poimp. Make a funny face when you say it... poimp. Tap a co-worker on the shoulder. When he or she turns to face you, simply say, "poimp"... and realiy get in there and exaggerate your enunciation. Say it quickly over and over. Write it down and paste it to your monitor. Poimp.
posted by Witty at 3:31 AM on August 31, 2004

Seems like just a bunch of Poimp and Soykumstanch ter me.
posted by mmahaffie at 3:41 AM on August 31, 2004

Poimphouse Gang? Poimpwalk?

Yeah, "poimp" works for me.
posted by taz at 4:51 AM on August 31, 2004

i've seen very few trolls on this website ... some people with their heads right up their asses but no trolls
posted by pyramid termite at 5:02 AM on August 31, 2004

The few trolls that I've seen on this site usually haven't lasted. There are views expressed that I genuinely dislike but that doesn't make them trolls.
posted by substrate at 5:27 AM on August 31, 2004

This is probably very bad news for somebody.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:16 AM on August 31, 2004

Unusually, I agree with every word the Migster said.

Additionally, 'troll' is another example of name-calling, which triviaises and infantilises discourse on this site, and many others. It's usage has moved far from the original, and regular users of the word resort to it as a method of shutting down dissent. Here on Mefi, that means a lot of centrist and conservative voices are hard to hear.

I'd be happy if the word was gradually let die, first by becoming seen as inaccurate, then unfashionable, then arcane. There are always better arguments, better rhetoric and more accurate rebuttals than sticky labels like 'Troll!'

RIP, Troll.
posted by dash_slot- at 6:17 AM on August 31, 2004

eh, I find "Don't feed the troll." is generally much faster to type than "Given this person's background and the style in which the offending statement(s) was made, it's likely this person is posting in order to get a reaction rather than out of any genuine belief in the subject. Responding, especially in an emotional manner, will not change the poster's mind, but rather encourage him/her to continue, as emotional/angry responses are postive feedback in a case like this, in the same vein as a construction worker whistling at a passing female wants her to act offended, as he has then provoked a reaction."
posted by Karmakaze at 6:33 AM on August 31, 2004

Furthermore:

(flips switch on LanguagehatSignal)
posted by mwhybark at 6:47 AM on August 31, 2004

Karmakaze nailed it. Trolls aren't interested in dissent; they're interested in attention. And yes, we have our fair share of 'em here. It's a tactic, not an ideology.
posted by Vidiot at 6:53 AM on August 31, 2004

Trolls are incestuous? WTF? My understanding is that even trolls find trolls unattractive and thus have no proclivity towards mating within the family unit.

troll
1. To fish for by trailing a baited line from behind a slowly moving boat. 2. To fish in by trailing a baited line: troll the lake for bass. 3. To trail (a baited line) in fishing.

crunch's definition is classic and concisely definitive of a species of Internet behavior. The double-entendre makes it even better.

When used correctly (not flung about casually), the term troll is perfect and will not be disappering from colloqial 'NetSpeak any time soon.
posted by Shane at 6:58 AM on August 31, 2004

Or: What mwhybark said.
posted by Shane at 6:59 AM on August 31, 2004

How about poimp?

Anything Goes When It Comes to Trolls
Cause Poimpin' Ain't Easy...
posted by jonmc at 7:02 AM on August 31, 2004

Poimp is too bouncy-sounding of a word. The word Troll sounds more like a flat thump. You need a flat thumpy sounding word to describe trolly activity.

On the other hand I see nothing wrong with the term troll and wonder why my evil twin doesn't like it.
posted by konolia at 7:11 AM on August 31, 2004

In truth, there are degrees of trolls around here. Some are fishing for a specific user, writing specific things designed to tweek a certain user. I've often been guilty of this.

Others are trollers who fish for attention, starting metafilter threads in such a way as to maximize the replies, without a lot of regard for the link quality. Miguel has often been accused of this.

And there are obviously people who post provokative messages intended to tweek a whole group of people into reacting -- whether it be political, or whatever. Posting messages about fat people, or SUVs, or Dubya are well-known (and well-worn) triggers.

To say there are no trolls around here is more an arguement of symantics. But they're here, all right. And I can't imagine how anyone could suggest we retire this (or any) word, especially when he's apparently not aware of all the nuances of the meaning of it.

"Pimply" and "medieval," indeed. "Incestuous?!" A hundred-thousand fishermen all over the world are insulted, Miguel!
posted by crunchland at 7:26 AM on August 31, 2004

This is a good troll, IMO.
posted by kenko at 7:31 AM on August 31, 2004

And wait New York minute, here... just a mere 30 minutes before you posted this thread, Miguel, calling for the abolition of a word, you said ... "Post and let post; live and let live; express yourself and enjoy the expression of others. Sameness, conformity and orthodoxy are the enemy of creativity, fun and intelligence."

So which is it? Do we abolish the word, or do we eschew conformity?

I smell a troll!
posted by crunchland at 7:43 AM on August 31, 2004

Now this is a troll...

He doesn't just express his views, he does it in an inflammatory way calculated to provoke the response and attention he desperately craves.

For another example, take MeFi's own shepd: he responds to the posting of the imminent extinction of a species with the comment "Call me some WAAAAAHmbulance." Stupidly, I lose it and take the bait, and I express my own concise opinion that shepd is the epitome of a troll (and also, um... a "steaming, festering pile of shit".)

How does shepd respond? Gleefully, indicating his delight at having gained attention and an audience and having provoked a response:

Gimme a 'P', an 'E', an 'A', and an 'NUT GALLERY!', what's that spell?

MY PERSONAL PEANUT GALLERY!

You can join the slashdotter that likes to stalk me. YAY!

"Don't feed the trolls" indeed.
posted by Shane at 7:58 AM on August 31, 2004

I smell a troll!

Someone should open a window, then.

I don't mind the word "troll." We know what it means, it sounds like what it is, it's a singleminded, ugly little creature, and face it, we wouldn't have any of 'em in here if Reagan was still President. (tap tap tap - is this thing on?)

The problem with this thread is this: the people at whom it is aimed either aren't reading it, or are reading and posting and kvetching away, not realizing that they're the problem.
posted by chicobangs at 8:05 AM on August 31, 2004

Or they are reading it, and simply don't give a shit about their reputation, the mores of the site, and the community that exists here.
posted by Vidiot at 8:12 AM on August 31, 2004

This was a good troll.
posted by mkultra at 8:15 AM on August 31, 2004

Or they are reading it, and simply don't give a shit about their reputation, the mores of the site, and the community that exists here.

...and enjoy any attention, even negative, even the notoriety of being called a troll. Bit pathological, no?
posted by Shane at 8:17 AM on August 31, 2004

well, we all seek attention, in whatever way we can get it, don't we? Whether it's screaming about Newsfilter, or making fattie jokes, or picking on Miguel. Otherwise, why would we bother posting? It's not to change people's minds, that's for sure ... anyone misguided enough to think that it's even remotely possible on an internet message board is a dullard.

And it's not pathological, so much as immature, another trait many of us have no trouble accepting.
posted by crunchland at 8:27 AM on August 31, 2004

Every post is sacred
Every post is great
If a post is rated
Migs gets quite irate
posted by darukaru at 8:29 AM on August 31, 2004

We write not to change the minds of our opponents, but to let our allies know that our own minds have not been changed.
posted by kenko at 8:30 AM on August 31, 2004

Otherwise, why would we bother posting?

Exchange of ideas and the discussion that ensues and the new perspectives and links and knowledge that comes from the discussion?

Just, you know, tossing out a wee idea.
posted by Shane at 8:33 AM on August 31, 2004

But seriously folks, let's quit using the word 'troll' and start using the word 'asshole'. It's much more appropriate.
posted by darukaru at 8:34 AM on August 31, 2004

Exchange of ideas and the discussion that ensues and the new perspectives and links and knowledge that come from the discussion?

Oh, and let's not forget the giggles.
posted by Shane at 8:43 AM on August 31, 2004

Metafilter: some people with their heads right up their asses but no trolls
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:20 AM on August 31, 2004

Can we retire the behavior along with the descriptor?
posted by rushmc at 9:21 AM on August 31, 2004

Poimp is too bouncy-sounding of a word

i agree, the sound doesn't jibe with the proposed meaning. altho' it's much fun to say over and over again. poimp, poimp, poimp ! let's find another use for it.

Now this is a troll...

is he ever. crazed old fart, classically trolling for the attention he hasn't been able to get in real life.
posted by t r a c y at 9:39 AM on August 31, 2004

Both Internet usages of the word are handy and apt. The difference is that arguably the old style troll is performing a useful (at least entertaining) function while the new style troll is really just an attention-whore and shit-flinger.

The old style troll carefully selected his bait and surreptiously dropped his line in the water. It has to be a sporting proposition—trolling for Canadians or Objectivists, for example, was discouraged because they are just too damn easy.

The old style troll performs a useful function because she subtly forces people to think twice about what they are reading and to reconsider their reaction.

The old style troll is, in a sense, the good twin to the evil new style troll. The old style troll is clever; the new style troll is as clever as a rockslide. MetaFilter needs more old style trolls and fewer new style ones.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:03 AM on August 31, 2004

I know this is not the right forum for this...but Drudge is reporting that author Stephen King has died. You can argue the literary value of his work, but he has entertained millions of readers the world over and contributed significantly to the culture. RIP, SK.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 10:53 AM on August 31, 2004

SSF, I just went to Drudge and don't see it. I sure hope it ain't true. He was the first "grown-up" writer I ever read.
posted by jonmc at 10:59 AM on August 31, 2004

No, this time, it's totally true. Stephen King's dead.

Really. Seriously.

And on the same day as Englebert Humperdinck, too. He's dead too, you know.
Such a shame.
posted by chicobangs at 11:33 AM on August 31, 2004

Steven King is dying. Netcraft confirms it.

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amdest.com] to predict Steven King's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Steven King faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Steven King because Steven King is dying. Things are looking very bad for Steven King. As many of us are already aware, Steven King continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
posted by keswick at 11:39 AM on August 31, 2004

oh brother.
posted by t r a c y at 11:46 AM on August 31, 2004

Not a troll: "Stephen King is dead." (Susceptible to proof and then the fun is over.)

Troll: "Stephen King is the most under appreciated writer of modern times. His works are unsurpassed in analysis of the psyche of the unknowable and how it pervades our spiritual life. Critics and scholars dismiss his works based mostly upon their popular appear and his voluminous output. Few of these critics have actually ever read his works." (This is preferably laid in a group amok with literary critics and academics. Not the wittiest or most subtle troll, yet effective.)

Metatroll: Just about anything Migs lays down in MetaTalk. Not that these are bad; to the contrary, his trolls are subtle, witty and suck in hordes of commentators.
They are really quite enjoyable.
posted by caddis at 11:51 AM on August 31, 2004

Poimp is too bouncy-sounding of a word. The word Troll sounds more like a flat thump. You need a flat thumpy sounding word to describe trolly activity.


Poimp sounds like a noise The Three Stooges would make.

If an invented word is needed, I propose SCROD: a cross between scrotum and cod.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:02 PM on August 31, 2004

Keswick with his techlore. I bet he knows what an RFC is.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:06 PM on August 31, 2004

No, this time, it's totally true. Stephen King's dead.

Like all Americans, Stephen King is fat - so who cares.

(Now, that, ladies and gentlemen is an example of poimpy scrodom.)
posted by taz at 12:14 PM on August 31, 2004

posted by darukaru at 12:15 PM on August 31, 2004

For what it's worth, my scrodum is not poimpy, it's deliciously smooth.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:33 PM on August 31, 2004

Nice idea, but you know, scrod is good eating.

That said, you keep your grubby mitts offa my scrod.
Well, most of youse, anyway. Exceptions made on a case by case basis only. Poimps and their hoies need not apply.
posted by chicobangs at 12:44 PM on August 31, 2004

I was always a RFD kind of guy. I fondly remember the RDF for alt.wesley.crusher.die.die.die and alt.fan.karl-malden.nose. ....memmmmorrieeeeesss... ofthewaywewere
posted by keswick at 2:02 PM on August 31, 2004

I have a question: Why must we label, denounce, and potentially ban trolls, but when it comes to posts we don't particularly enjoy, we must scroll over them, because surely they are of interest to someone else?

I've found some trolls to be particularly funny on occasion, if they're only baiting people and not making personal attacks/racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. comments. But they must be dealt with, immediately and severely...

Yet I've seen many front page posts that really sucked, IMHO, and the general consensus seems to be that I should simply ignore them, because clearly they aren't causing any harm...

What's the difference between ignoring a troll you don't like and ignoring a front page post that you don't like?
posted by BlueTrain at 2:14 PM on August 31, 2004

Did jonmc really fall for the Stephen King is dead thing back there? Dear oh dear.
posted by reklaw at 2:15 PM on August 31, 2004

Stephen King is a bobblehead. No, seriously, it's totally true.

(There's a troll inside each and every one of us.)
posted by me3dia at 2:20 PM on August 31, 2004

Hey, Miguel! MIGUEL! Answer my email already.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 3:13 PM on August 31, 2004

And as the story of Stephen King's passing spreads, a shocking story emerges that he was the public front for a foreign writer whose main output was in Portugese and was still teaching himself English by hanging out at a popular group weblog.
posted by wendell at 5:09 PM on August 31, 2004

What's the difference between ignoring a troll you don't like and ignoring a front page post that you don't like?

It's far easier to pass over a FPP or two than to try to wade through a thread you are sincerely interested in following that has been derailed by trolls. It's the difference between a blip in the signal and a torrent of static.
posted by rushmc at 6:30 PM on August 31, 2004

Wendell, the only Portuguese I know who hangs out here was born of an English mother and needs no English lessons.

Yes, I mean that one.
posted by konolia at 6:42 PM on August 31, 2004

I think Wendell knew that, Konolia. Indeed, he may have trolled you. :)

rushmc, that's a very interesting argument and not one that has ever occured to me. It catches me by surprise. It's a good point. I tend to think exactly the other way around—posts are A Big Deal, I pretty much do read every post (but not the comments to every post), and so posts should be held to a much higher standard than comments. To me, the posts are what primarily defines MeFi and that's why it matters to me a lot what shows up there. But you, apparently, think very differently. Interesting.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:56 PM on August 31, 2004

This is probably bad news for Stephen King.
posted by mwhybark at 9:20 PM on August 31, 2004

So which is it? Do we abolish the word, or do we eschew conformity?

If you've honestly never seen accusations of trolling used as a weapon to enforce conformity, you're obviously reading a different Metafilter. But hey, since you're such an expert in the many words useful in describing online community misbehaviour, whaddya call someone who pursues a pointless personal vendetta every chance he gets? Other than a tiresome boor, of course.
posted by arto at 2:13 AM on September 1, 2004

Crunchland, has it ever struck you that Portugal sounds parochial, pimply, nerdish, cliquey, incestuous and, ultimately, meaningless.
posted by johnny novak at 2:27 AM on September 1, 2004

I'm flattered you're paying such close attention, even if you think I'm boorish, arto. And I would never paint a whole country with such a broad brush, johnny... it would still take forever.
posted by crunchland at 8:59 AM on September 1, 2004

I get a kick outta crunch's vendetta.

m3dia, I almost linked to that Stephen King bobble head myself, but it's a very very bad likeness.

Wendell, the only Portuguese I know who hangs out here was born of an English mother and needs no English lessons.

Okay, I never want him to refer to his English as "a second language" again then.

RDF? Sing it, man, go man go.
posted by Shane at 9:51 AM on September 1, 2004

To me, the posts are what primarily defines MeFi and that's why it matters to me a lot what shows up there.

I'm not suggesting that they don't matter, but to me it's the difference between finding a bad book in a library (I skip it and move on to the next) and having someone constantly interrupting an interesting conversation I'm trying to have with insults and irrelevance. One is clearly far more annoying.
posted by rushmc at 12:42 PM on September 1, 2004

HI SHANE!

I didn't realize I was so effective!

BIG SMOOCHIES FOR SHANE!



Can't we all just be friends?
posted by shepd at 2:50 PM on September 1, 2004

Interesting, isn't it? How Miguel set this top spinning, and didn't even bother to come back and defend his stupid premise.
posted by crunchland at 4:42 PM on September 1, 2004

Admittedly he made this post but, point in fact, you take shots at him when he is not the poster, not the topic nor making comments on whatever the topic is. You hate Miguel and will cross the street in the face of traffic to let us know. You are his own little stalker. Give it a rest, crunchland. It makes you look so petty.
posted by y2karl at 6:45 PM on September 1, 2004

For example:

This thread has become Seth's Sandbox - I'm posting this MeTa thread in the hope of moving that stream of discussion to its appropriate locale.

The topic is not Miguel but your first comment there?

Surely the good people of Portugal don't care one bit.

I think this post of his is pointless and pretty much sucks--on that we can agree. However, you have such a hair up your ass when it comes to the topic of Miguel. And you go out of your way to let us know at every opportunity. Which is too bad. You can be a funny and insightful guy. When you aren't going on about Miguel, that is.... I like to read what you have to say here in MetaTalk when you aren't obsessing about him. Not so when you are.
posted by y2karl at 7:28 PM on September 1, 2004

Well, I'll take that as heartfelt advice from you, who have also been known to carry an online grudge for quite some time... But you must know better now, so I'll take it into consideration.

As for those comments that you and arto focussed on, regarding the Portugese, they are in reference to topics that probably don't have universal appeal, as was mentioned in a recent Miguel post, and not about Miguel, per se... though I can see how someone might not get that.
posted by crunchland at 8:36 PM on September 1, 2004

Just for the record, I perceived crunchland's comments spread over the Filter these past few days and regarding the people of Portugal not so much as a personal attack on Miguel, but rather as a mild rejoinder against Miguel's troll (?) the other day regarding the US bias at MeFi. It seems more like gentle ribbing than any sort of vendetta. I may have got it wrong, but that is how it seemed to me. Maybe there is a history here of which I am unaware, but on its face it didn't seem too aggressive.
posted by caddis at 10:35 PM on September 1, 2004

Well, Karl may be still pissed off about some critical statements I made of him awhile back, and that may be why he misinterpreted my intentions with those messages. And Miguel and I have been bickering for ages, so there's no wonder people might misunderstand. For that matter, I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thread didn't spawn from a comment I posted earlier in the evening from when Miguel started this one, where I referred to Seth's trollish behavior.

Because, you see, it's all about me, after all.
posted by crunchland at 10:12 AM on September 2, 2004