From: louisnews@comcast.net
Date: Thu Aug 15 2002 - 06:35:37 MDT
On 8/15/02, 5:09:28 AM, Alex Ramonsky <alex@ramonsky.com> wrote regarding
Re: META: Trolling?:
> Yikes, that makes it difficult the other way round, too...Like if any of
> us have an idea to discuss or a question, and if we ask it, we get
> thought of as 'trolling' -_Especially_ if we come out of a debate having
> changed our minds...
Don't worry about that. No one minds honest discussion, or people
changing their minds. What people mind is people who say "I never
believed that. I just posted it to see the reaction." That's trolling.
(Even if they claim it's for scientific curiosity rather than a cheap
thrill, posting something "just to see the reaction" is trolling.)
> often people mistake light-hearted
> humor for taking the piss in a nasty way. And people don't express their
> position clearly enough...
That's not a problem. Those get fixed on the very next post. No, we
really are talking about trolls, who keep a conversation going for days
or weeks, and then claim they never believed the position they were
arguing. Check the archives.
> Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> > They explain that their posting was a "thought experiment". Or they
> > wanted to see what the reaction would be. Or they didn't really know
> > one way or the other and just wanted to see how it would hash out. Or
> > they felt it would be a learning experience to the group to have us go
> > through and "prove it to ourselves."
> >
> > Is this a useful debating technique? What do people here think?
I say it is NOT useful. It causes us to waste time arguing points that
no one really cares about. (Or re-hashing something because someone
pretended they didn't understand.) It merely wastes our time.
I think any person who consistantly admits posting LIES ("I didn't really
believe that when I posted it...) should be suspended. That is the
DEFINITION of trolling.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:08 MST