From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:53:41 MDT
On Saturday, August 17, 2002, at 11:30 am, Lee Corbin wrote:
> I am enormously serious in my claim. But after reading
> your very cynical rejoinder,
Don't worry about it. I was just pushing your buttons to see if I could
get a response.
Did it work? Am I doing this right?
> This is
> why I seriously repeat my request (which has been ignored
> twice now by various people): about how many time a year
> would one guess that trolling occurs here?
I would estimate about 24 times per year or once about every two weeks
this occurs on this list. I constantly get pulled into these tar-babies
as I try to seriously response. It probably is because I am a sucker
for having my buttons pressed, and also because I am concerned about
misrepresentative statements about extropians going into the archives
unchallenged. If anybody proposes violence, racism, infanticide,
coercion, or deception as an "Extropian" point of view, I feel very
compelled to give the opposing viewpoint and show that many extropians
do not accept these ideals. This makes me predictable and also drags me
into a lot of repetitive flame-wars on this list, when I have better
things to do with my time.
After such an exchange, especially where the unextropian viewpoint is
trashed by a lot of extropians, the original poster will "redeem"
themselves by explaining that they don't really hold those controversial
viewpoints. They were either conducting an "experiment", trying to
provoke a response, playing devil's advocate, or leading others to the
same conclusion that the poster secretly already held. This is
extremely frustrated, especially after a heated exchange or a lot of
effort has been exerted. Flame-wars are a negative experience anyway,
but to be told that it might have been deliberate or unnecessary is even
more exasperating.
> After all, we might have differing meanings of the term!
> To me, trolling is the (despicable) art of inciting an
> argument (a) using statements you don't believe for
> a moment and (b) that you consider a big joke, especially
> when the participants start tearing away at each other
> while you sit back laughing.
This is the same as my definition, except that sometimes the trollers
don't laugh. They think they are performing a valuable service by
exposing someone else's position, by triggering a discussion that they
think is important but no one seemed to be responding to, by leading
people through a didactic exercise so they can figure things out for
themselves, or by being "thought provoking" even if they are
exaggerating their statements for effect. Such "noble" purposes are
still dishonest enough to be confusing or frustrating, even if no
deception is intended in the long run. It does interfere with other
people's evaluation of the thread or their decision whether to
participate or not.
I don't mind if people want to propose a thought experiment, examine an
argument to an extreme logical conclusion, consider an extremely
provocative idea, or play devil's advocate. But I think it would be
more honest and clearer if they stated that this is what they are
doing. To make a false claim or make a proposal that one doesn't really
support is confusing and misleading. People will later really believe
that the poster (and extropians in general) hold this view. Even if
they explain later that it was not an accurate portrayal, a lot of
people are not going to see that. It wastes time while people debate a
fictitious point. Its mislead people when they Google the single post
in the archive without the later explanation. It is frustrating to feel
like one has been mislead or drawn into someone else's game without
knowing about it. Thought experiments, extreme examples, provocative
ideas, and devil's advocacy are all valuable techniques that have been
used on this list for years. But they can be confusing and disruptive
if one isn't careful to explain the fictitious nature of the example.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:12 MST