Don't make me post a 'No Trolling' sign... Too Late. September 17, 2000 5:26 PM   Subscribe

this is an out and out troll, does anyone not agree?

I'm adding "no trolling" to the guidelines.
posted by mathowie to Etiquette/Policy at 5:26 PM (14 comments total)

Agreed. The only comments the poster made were to belittle the importance of the link and the sentiments. What's the value of that?

If you add "no trolling" you might link to a definition of the word for total newbies, as they're the ones most likely to do it. Or make your own definition. I was on a mailing list where I mentioned trolling to someone and discovered he'd never heard the term.
posted by mrmorgan at 6:29 PM on September 17, 2000


Yeah, I'll hyperlink the word troll.

here's a definition that's classic, but could use examples. If anyone finds a better one, please post.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:38 PM on September 17, 2000


here's Kibo's definitions.

Although, since he kind of encourages trolling, it may possibly send the wrong message...

The classic definition's really quite good, although with some further investigation, it's almost identical to the Jargon File's version, except not quite as elaborate. Definition 2 is especially of note, here. A quote: "Trolls are recognizable by the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. "

And hell, pointing a newbie at the Jargon File can't ever be a bad thing.
posted by cCranium at 7:27 PM on September 17, 2000


My observation is that if there *is not* higher intelligence involved, then it's not a troll.

It's just stupidity.

Fab4 is young, from what I can tell.

I wouldn't call this a troll, no.
posted by baylink at 8:20 AM on September 18, 2000


I usually consider trolls much craftier than Fab4Girl's post, but there's no doubt the post was, at the very least, posted because Fab4 knew the post would get a reaction.

It's not quite a troll in the outwit and mock the outwitted sense, which Kibo aims for, but it was definetely trolling for a reaction, a much lower class of troll.

Hrm. Classed trolls. "I'm a warrior" "I'm a mage. ka-Zap!"
posted by cCranium at 9:06 AM on September 18, 2000


does this mean we can have an end to the mac vs pc vs linux stuff?

imho, this is a topic of conversation that is unlikely to ever bear a positive result
posted by sawks at 5:01 AM on September 19, 2000


The best way to encourage trolling is to implement a rule against it. You will bring people out of the woodwork simply to shock everyone else and be contrarians.

Also, sometimes there is value in people stirring the pot. The problem with the term "troll" is that it's so vaguely defined it can be used against anyone whose opinions are contrary to the majority of other people. Many Usenet discussions are rendered worthless because of the obsession about "trolling."

I think a better solution on MetaFilter is to let us set up personal kill files of people we don't want to read messages from any longer.
posted by rcade at 5:57 AM on September 19, 2000


I don't agree; the poster in question wouldn't have been in my killfile before, and certainly nobody else arguing in that thread would have been in it.
posted by mrmorgan at 8:41 AM on September 19, 2000


I trust matt's judgement in these matters. I've found him to be *extremely* open-minded in his handling of these matters (there is at least one semi-regular poster here that I would have banned ages ago). unless something is just outright inappropriate, matt tends to let the community handle it, or to see where it will go before deciding to take action.

I think clear rules and judicious application of those rules is the way to go.

rcb
posted by rebeccablood at 5:28 PM on September 19, 2000


I think killfiles would be a horrible idea here, given the format of MeFi's boards. All you'd be doing is either killing off an entire topic just because it was started by person A, and losing all the responses from everyone else, which are probably quite worthy of being seen; or else you'd be zapping out person A's comments in the middle of threads and nobody else's, pretty much assuring you'll get the full idea of what person A said by reading the later responses.
posted by aaron at 10:29 PM on September 19, 2000


I want to suggest "no John Tesh links" be added to the guidelines, while we're at it.
posted by mrmorgan at 5:34 PM on September 21, 2000


According to this article, fab4girl might better be classified as a flame baiter, which, in that particular thread, she was. I don't like seeing anyone derive such obvious enjoyment from irritating other people. It reminds me too much of my son :)

posted by the webmistress at 6:14 AM on September 22, 2000


Since a good mate wrote the Troller's FAQ, I know it's worth posting.
posted by holgate at 3:09 PM on September 28, 2000


Nice try, Holgate. :-)
posted by baylink at 1:52 PM on October 4, 2000


« Older MetaFilter-specific area's post's number isn't...   |   Request: button to list threads with new responses... Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments