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
troll from the jargon file: troll 1. v.,n. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT. 2. n. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll." Compare kook. 3. n. [Berkeley] Computer lab monitor. A popular campus job for CS students. Duties include helping newbies and ensuring that lab policies are followed. Probably so-called because it involves lurking in dark cavelike corners. Some people claim that the troll (sense 1) is properly a narrower category than flame bait, that a troll is categorized by containing some assertion that is wrong but not overtly controversial. See also Troll-O-Meter. The use of `troll' in either sense is a live metaphor that readily produces elaborations and combining forms. For example, one not infrequently sees the warning "Do not feed the troll" as part of a followup to troll postings. On Wednesday, March 20, 2002, at 08:30 PM, Blanchard, Anita L wrote: ---def.--over-- for me, to troll is in one significant sense, one trolls for opinions, one trolls for the uninformed, one trolls to get people to voice things that are inappropriate in a venue. in some respects lachlan was trolling, he was trying to generate responses, but in another perhaps he was not. to troll, in the stricktest usenet sense, is to 'troll for newbies', one posts a comment that would raise the ire of anyone, but most people know to ignore it, except those people who have not been around. There are several classic trolls relating to a wide variety of topics, usually all are constrained along boundaries of power of some sort, and are constructed along societal lines, stereotypes are excellent troll fodder. ] jeremy hunsinger jhuns@vt.edu on the ibook www.cddc.vt.edu www.cddc.vt.edu/jeremy www.dromocracy.com
Yes, I know that *troll* is Net lingo. When used to describe someone directly, I think that most people would deem the term *derogatory*, and not *endearing*. Although, in Seattle, we have a statuesque troll living underneath a bridge and it's pretty cool. It's kind of Billy Goat gruff-ish without the threat of blood, bones, and gore. -Robert
A related term is "flame bait", which Netlingo.com defines as: An intentionally inflammatory posting in a newsgroup or discussion group designed to elicit a strong reaction thereby creating a flame war. NetLingo Classification: Online Jargon Alex alex.kuskis@utotonto.ca ----- Original Message ----- From: "jeremy hunsinger" <jhuns@vt.edu> To: <air-l@aoir.org> Cc: "'robert m. tynes '" <rtynes@u.washington.edu> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 10:06 PM Subject: Re: [Air-l] Lachlan Brown
troll from the jargon file: troll
1. v.,n. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite
participants (4)
-
Alex Kuskis -
Blanchard, Anita L -
jeremy hunsinger -
robert m. tynes