A note about the word troll: A "troll" is a term used by virtual community users to describe someone who comes into a group and tries to stir things up by posting outrageous comments about the topic of the group, attacking group members and thus becoming the object of ire by the group. I learned of this term from interviewing participants of an athletic newsgroup/virtual community. They had several trolls (really and truly called trolls) who would post comments such as "women should not compete in sports"--clearly a comment made to draw attention, albeit negative. from the group. I am not sorry that our first troll is gone. I don't mind moderation: on ISWorld we recieve messages a few times a day as the moderators read and approve them. I like knowing that i'm now in "ISWorld mode" and will receive their emails. Of course, I am not a very active poster, and others may have different views about the moderation thing. I do think the whole idea of "trolling" is fascinating. Why do they do what they do? Why go into a group to rile folks up?! Although I could not interview my research group's troll (I asked, he would not firmly committ), I have talked with someone I know FtF about why he trolled a christian newsgroup: he said he thought he was doing the group a favor by making them think. I think there's quite a bit more to it than that. Anybody interested in a troll study?!?! Anita Anita Blanchard, Ph.D. Dept of Psychology UNC Charlotte Charlotte, NC 28221 704.687.4847 -----Original Message----- From: robert m. tynes To: air-l@aoir.org Sent: 3/20/02 7:49 PM Subject: Re: [Air-l] Lachlan Brown I find it a bit troubling. I'm not sure exactly why, but I do have a few reflections. Although I conceptually understand why Lachlan was booted, I don't feel comfortable with the decision. Maybe it appeared to swift, which, I know, is probably just my vantage point as a list member. (I've heard tell that Lachlan was warned off-list to settle down. And, he was openly admonished for making sexist statements and personal attacks, and for posting off-list e-mails. Nasty deeds, to be sure.) Maybe I would have felt better if he was warned publicly - on-list - so that it was obvious what might happen. There was no public debate about whether he should be yanked or not. The rule was "handed down". Now, I know this may sound like an attack on the powers above: it is not. All I'm saying is that now I know that there is power above. But that's not really the problematic part for me. Rather, I find it odd that Lachlan gets removed from the list for inflammatory postings and personal attacks, and yet there are no apparent repercussions for trashing him publicly, i.e. he's a *troll* and a *witch*. Is that fair? As scholars of social phenomenon, shouldn't we be a tad more aware of the social construction of online reality and our contribution to, and institutionalization of, deviance. Is Lachlan so awful that he deserves to becomes AOIR's subaltern Other? My e-mail is not meant to defend Lachlan (what would be the point of that, right?). I'm merely curious about what our meta-discourse is, and how we are governing it. -Robert Tynes _______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l@aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l