Troll Poll

[jimhines]

At what point do you label someone a troll?

Some of the discussions on my blog get pretty intense and heated. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I appreciate it, actually. I learn a lot from people challenging my ideas or offering different perspectives.

I do have a problem with people who consistently violate Wheaton’s Law. But I’ve also watched people swoop into a conversation at Dick Factor Nine, only to eventually turn around and say, “Huh … okay, I guess maybe you have a point there. Sorry for being a dick.”

Yeah, it doesn’t happen often. But it has happened.

To me, a troll is someone who shows up solely to stir things up and piss people off. There’s zero interest in the conversation, zero interest in listening. It’s a game for the troll’s amusement, to poke buttons and see who s/he can piss off.

To me, clueless =/= troll. Angry =/= troll. Even blatant violation of Wheaton’s Law doesn’t necessarily equate to trolling. We all act like jerks sometimes. (I might still ban you for repeated offenses, but I wouldn’t automatically assume you were a troll.)

I think we tend to label people trolls too quickly. And from what I’ve seen, I think we sometimes do it as a way to dismiss people we disagree with. (I’m including myself in the “we” here, by the way.)

What do you think? We can’t read minds, so when do you decide someone is just trolling and no longer worth responding to?

• Is the “Men’s Rights” advocate who shows up in one of my rape posts to argue that “Rape is a weapon used by feminists to attack men!” a troll?
• What about the anonymous commenter who says, “I know it’s off-topic, but I wanted to tell you I read your latest book, and it was utter trash.” Does it make a difference if they aren’t anonymous?
• Does the guy who shows up using offensive language (i.e., “That’s so gay/retarded!”) count as a troll? What if he continues to use that language after being told it’s offensive?

It’s possible I’m overanalyzing this. But I’m curious what others think.

Mirrored from Jim C. Hines.

Comments

[jimhines]

Those are good questions. The point about the group dynamic in particular is one that came up in the comments elsewhere ... the fact that regardless of the person's intent, if they're derailing/destroying the discussion or driving away others, then that's something that needs to be addressed.

I know I have a hard time with the Men's Rights people because usually they're people who don't actually read or follow my blog; they just heard about something I posted, often days or weeks after the fact, and just HAD to rush over to tell me how wrong I am. I'm having trouble finding words to explain why I have less patience for that than for someone who's already a part of the conversation and disagrees with me...

[bodlon]

...the fact that regardless of the person's intent, if they're derailing/destroying the discussion or driving away others, then that's something that needs to be addressed.

Exactly.

And yeah, it's way harder to deal with some random person who shows up specifically to argue, and who doesn't know the lay of things. At least the regulars have a sense of what you mean when you talk about certain things. Context is incredibly helpful stuff.

[cleverthylacine]

You probably have less patience with that because you know the person is not really interested in what you have to say or in having a conversation with you; they're just there to tell you that you're a wrong wrong wrongyface because they find these ideas so threatening that they feel the need to jump on them wherever they are posted. I guess even the most hardcore MRA has to take time away from practising speed seduction, perusing mail-order bride catalogues, and feeling sorry for himself because he's such a nice guy and nobody wants him to make sure MRA surveillance on the interwebs is not allowed to suffer for a minute.