Atheism

Politics

Memes

Mind

Matters

Interact

Feedback

Email

String

Links

Debate

Home

I have to admit that I do take a little sadistic pleasure at times in the fine art of trolling newsgroups. This activity is classed as a sin by many straight-laced upholders of netiquette.

Classical trolling consists of producing deliberately provocative posts in order to get responses of a particular kind, often in order to draw people out and make them appear foolish. It is a rather strange notion, so is the idea that it is some kind of universally recognized sin and to be decried. I see trolling as a legitimate form of activity that helps keep people on their toes. Naturally if a newsgroup degenerates into nothing but a troll and flame war this is not a good state of affairs but a little creative debate that steers clear of personal attacks and invective is a good thing, it adds spice to a newsgroup.

Troll of the Year competition.

In order to develop the art of trolling creatively I propose to institute a Troll of the Year Competition.

This will be open to any religious or politically motivated positive troll campaign, trolling activity on other groups will have to remain a matter for personal satisfaction. The political definition can be drawn widely to include any matter of general public controversy e.g. vegetarianism, abortion, gay rights, gun laws etc. but would not extend to things like arguing which was the best DVD player or role playing fantasy game.

While no prizes will be awarded there will be the challenge of competition and recognition of achievement.

It is vitally important that the Troll campaign is not motivated by malice and a desire to humiliate. Any blatant malice will be grounds for disqualification. The aim of a positive troll campaign shall be to amuse, debate and to encourage people to think in new ways.

How to recognize a positive troll

This is a subjective thing, trolling is more of an art than a science.

Response

Naturally a post that achieves a lot of replies has to be considered as successful, but quality also counts too. Getting three dozen incoherent replies saying that you are an idiot is not as good as generating six long replies from bright people who take you seriously.

Subtlety

Hard to define but a good troll should take a few carefully aimed shots at good targets while not seeming to have done so deliberately. On the other hand if your blows are too subtle to be noticed then they have not been successful.

Novelty

The best trolls attack old targets in new and interesting ways.

Juxtaposition

Novel trolls can be generated by juxtaposing ideas that are rarely combined. This also allows creative cross-posting, however I suggest that cross-posting is limited because it can annoy people very quickly. Cross-posting should be limited to two groups as a long thread that wanders off the subject can annoy people intensely without the benefit of an entertaining reply. A good troller will drop the inappropriate group on replies that move away from the areas of joint interest.

Concentration

The best troll campaigns are in a concentrated form, developing and climaxing within a week, long running exchanges are a way to annoy rather than entertain. It is not good form to dominate a newsgroup with a single troll issue as this can be very annoying for the regular group users.

Sportsmanship

If an opponent offers too obvious a target it is often better to reply to that point directly to the person rather than to the group. Showing somebody up in front of the people they respect can be a very hurtful thing to do. A good troller is satisfied with a well-fought draw and does not need to gain a knockout in every bout. Going for a knockout can lead to flame-wars and protracted exchanges, neither of which are fun. The best to time to stop is when it is no longer fun, don't try to win, it is usually impossible in any case.

Entries

You can nominate yourself or another person. Simply send me the name of the group, the date and the title of the first post in the series.

Bad Troll, Naughty Troll

I have often wondered why trolling is seen as evil. What harm does it do? Spiteful trolling which sets out to show people up as stupid is obviously wrong. Or is it? What is the harm in showing up error or stupidity? When people show me I have been stupid I usually thank them, eventually.

Part of the demonizing of trolling is the simple act of labelling. Christians who dislike homosexuals call them sodomites, a handy hate label, so much easier to hate than men who know men in the biblical sense. Any label can make knee-jerk negative responses so much easier. They have a hate label, so why bother thinking about whether or not you hate them, and why?

© 1999 - 2008 by Martin Willett.

mwillett.org: Debate Unlimited