Discussion on:

Five online behaviors that are overused and misapplied

Trolling, creeping, or linkbaiting (more properly flame-baiting), and then claiming to be "just expressing an opinion" when called on it. But I'm only speaking hypothetically.

I think that one looks something like this:

6. Dissembling

People who engage in poor online citizenship such as trolling, flamebaiting, personal attacks (including "argumentum ad hitlerium"), scathing flames at straw men, and other such poor sportsmanship, often try to cover for themselves in patently dishonest ways. Some of the most common tactics include accusing victims of firing the first volley or otherwise inviting the attack, claiming misunderstanding that is the reader's fault when the "misunderstood" statements denotatively mean exactly what the reader said (s)he thought the writer was saying, and pretending to have been testing people to see if they would act unreasonably.

I've seen that go around a bit, as have you. For some reason, specific examples seem to elude me just now.

"argumentum ad hitlerium." I can't wait to start using this.

Not so much here at TR but a couple of other forums I peruse, it seems a number
of the participants place some sort of high value on being the "first to comment".
I've noticed it more at I, Cringely than other places I haunt, seems almost after
each blog, there is a battle over who can make the first comment, and that
comment invariably is only "First!"...yeah, yeah, here's your medal, now go away
since you have nothing meaningful to say.

Like Loverock Davidson advocating Windows Phone over anything on sister site ZDNet.

LOL. It's like listening to a SnakeOil salesman, or soap-box preacher.

That's just Linus letting his hair down and venting some steam... pretty convincing, eh?

And what about the folks that reply just to agree, like "I totally agree!" That's it, nothing else to contribute. He/she just wanted everyone on the site to know that he/she agreed with the article or a comment on the article.... Don't you agree? ;>

nt.

Again, though, a lot of that can depend on the atmosphere/mood of the board in question. Some message boards will have strict rules (i.e. forum rules specifically state that they don't want simple "I agree!" posts), while sometimes the person starting the topic puts in the very first post that they aren't looking for "yes-men" responses but actual dialogue.

This is really one where you have to look at a fair number of their blogs and their responses. If the blogger covers a range of topics and gives different views on different items, well, what you said is true. However, there are a few bloggers I've seen at TR and elsewhere who are very biased on certain subjects, especially certain proprietary companies, and most of their blogs and all their responses are along the lines that the company they support is correct (no matter what they do) and is always better than anything else - despite the evidence to the contrary.

This is really a case of don't claim it until you know more or you already know more.

Must admit I've not heard of this creeper thing before.

There are some bloggers, and even entire sites, that are well known to play favorites. Even then, though - they're not getting special consideration from the vendors or manufacturers they advocate - at least, not directly. They might develop tighter inside lines to those companies and get the jump on pre-release demos and goodies.

I think it is a safer bet just not to play the "you're getting kickbacks" card with writers. You want to call them on a pattern of bias and personal preference and question their subjective credibility on a particular review or opinion? I think that is fine, and probably worth exploring. Calling them a shill or suggesting they're getting kickbacks is just "playing the Hitler card". It is lazy and almost certainly inaccurate. If you've got proof of it and there is *no* disclosure in the article, then you've got a major news story and the end of that writer's career.

See what I mean?

about the overused (and, we can assume, inaccurate save for purposes of hyperbole) *shill card*! It's one accusation around here that, once posted, receives--instead of the more-customary 'upvotes'--from those who agree with its charge, a sudden litany of separate posts: near word-for-word repetitions of the accusation. Maybe if they say it enough times, it will....effectively besmirch the article via its author, who had dared speak well of a given vendor's products....

Worse yet is when someone writes an article saying something less than glowing about a particular vendor, and people accuse the author of being a shill for a competitor (or, my favorite, accuse the author of being a pro-China communist oppressor).

you have to study a lot of what they write and say before you can make any claims or accusations about a bias. I also did say there are some who have a clear bias, and you have to be aware of that before you accept what they say as gospel, which is why you should read more than one article by them and more than one article on a subject before accepting all it says as true.

I try to avoid calling people shills or the like (even if I've reason to suspect they are) but will call them out on wrong information or an unproven claim. I'll also speak about what I know from research and / or personal experience, often stating which it's from. I have found some disagreements come from different experiences of the software and equipment, also from longevity in the industry and depth of experience also plays apart in what one knows about and how they see things, as does what their job is or has been.

I was just elaborating with my own thoughts, not disagreeing with yours.

I think it probably is an overused term... although, whether a person intends to be a troll or not, I would define their behaviour as such when:
1 - they ignore facts & logic in another person's argument, and do not reply to that person's points.
2 - enter into ad-hominem attacks by trying to undermine the authority of the other person instead of arguing their points.
3 - argue their own points with no further proof than citing their credentials, which are universally irrelevant to any discussion about anything other than themselves (ie - your qualifications are no proof of anything other than the fact that you possess those qualifications, they dont even prove that you earned them, only that you have them).

...and there are plenty of people around who do this unfortunately.

You see a new forum, with some potentially interesting content -- but you also see that "some guy" who apparently doesn't have anything BETTER to do is basically "haunting" the forum, has an opinion about everything anyone else posts, has racked up ten times the number of posts of anyone else on the forum. Do you say "thank goodness for an 'ignore' list", do you simply "vote with your feet" and find somewhere else to get that same content, do you private-message the person and suggest [whatever changes come to mind, up to and including "get a life..."]?

An RV forum I belong to has two "experts", who indeed are well versed in the motorhome field.

Problem is they are jerks. If you have the temerity to disagree with them, or give advice, they go all sarcastic and venomous on you, and heaven help the fool who proves them wrong. The best one just alters his stance over several posts until he agrees with you. The other one considers it his mission to take you down. Anyhow, since they do have good advice usually, the best way to handle it is like the "Soup Nazi" episode of the Seinfeld show. I just read their posts, and avoid all other contact.

I fully agree with the label someone a Troll as a mean to try and direct the discussion against them.

You can add Homophobia, Xenophobia, Racist, Aetheist or showing curmudgeon tendancies on wasted money on political ego trips etc to this list. These also get applied with casual abandon to attempt spike someones post.

Phobia's etc mean a *strong* irrational dislike, not expressing discomfort, favouring the status quo or just plain disagreeing with Advocates or Fanbois - when challenging/questioning for statistically significant evidence.

For example - Auto-labelling someone a Homophobe, as they disagree with Gay Marriage on the basis of it undermining one of the foundations of modern society - whether you have a religious point **or not**.

They just have a different opinion on things to you, and perhaps as they actually have children may have a more valid evidence based viewpoint on the subject of rearing off-spring than say... childless gay couples.

-

Or are religious people barking mad

Or arguing against statistics on race and crime v's stereotypes where the numbers do tell inconvinient truths...

Or throwing money down the toilet on Stalineqse follies like running the Olympics in the face of financial ruin of virtually all previous attempts promising 'lasting legacies'
etc...

"Troll...too often it is applied to suggest, ???You???ve come to this forum only to engage in a debate that you know will make the regulars angry.???
...
"There are exceptions. Going into an Apple forum to pick fights over Android is trolling."

Sorry, obviously there's some semantic or philosophical difference bewteen these two statements that I fail to apprehend.

I would also like to coin a term "Trilling" which is Trolling by someone who hasn't got a clue what they're talking about.

Reading all the items on the list, I must say I am happy to be more of a consumer and less of a contributing type. If I have an opinion I write it and if someone else has an opinion they can react. I don't go searching for deeper meanings or react to someones opinion as I endorse freedom of speech.

Flaming, Trolling all these terms are quite new for me although I do understand the concepts. Perhaps the time has come to look at reactions on how you normally do this in real life. Everyone has an opinion, some are not to the point for a conversation going on. During a conversation such remarks are very often ignored in a gentle way. I suggest we take online conversations more like real life conversations and start ignoring more. Isn't being social all about ignoring each others flaws?

...so who died and made you the Hitler of netiquite??!

Straight to Godwin in one line. Beautiful.

a point...

It's 'netiquette'

by implying that it's "bad" to want to enforce even a tiny bit of "rules of etiquette" on the Internet... since I'm sure the majority of the readers will assume "Hitler = Bad". Even calling him the "Miss Manners of Netiquette" would have been less confrontational.

Of course, the use of the "/sarcasm" or "j/k" tag would have also been good, if you were going for a tongue-in-cheek response...

Overuse of smiley faces and emoticons is another peeve of mine. It has gotten to the point where they don't just look juvenile; they obviously don't even mean anything any longer. People use them as punctuation now, without even necessarily meaning anything about the intent of the message, or as a way to say "I effing hate you, but I want you to not flame me, so I'll put this stupid smiley face here to have plausible deniability about my intent if it comes to that."

Anyway, I though the obviousness of sarcasm in this case was shockingly obvious, so no additional indicators were needed.

Sometimes a poster will step into a discussion between two people but not be aware of their previous interactions. This can lead to the third party misinterpreting the relationship between the original posters, and missing cues obvious to others more familiar with the OPs.

Maybe that should be #9 - Rescuing the princess when she really wanted to be with the dragon in the first place.

I like the dragon/princess rescue metaphor.

In this case, I think it was obvious not only because of the content of the sarcastic message, but also because of the fact that others had already responded in a manner that made the sarcasm rather obvious.

Sometimes I use a smiley in a very English sense... like the attendant who gives you a tight smile and says, "Thank you, have a nice day... buh-bye"... All-the-while subtly implying they hope you get run over by a lorry on the way home.

In addition to all the other problems of smileys not necessarily meaning what the overly simplistic defenses suggest they must always mean, there's also the problem of people like you who use supposed sarcasm indicators sarcastically, further muddying the waters thanks to the obstinate insistence some people have on using ineffective indicators as sole markers of sarcasm or humor.

Words are ineffective indicators of sarcasm or humor.

Even visual cues can be sarcastic, and that's the problem. You can't solve the problem with a faux wink. You need the auditory cues or explicit disclaimers. An emoticon is too often meaningless or sarcastic for it to be any kind of reliable indicator of anything.

99% of the people I encounter "get" my sense of humor and are capable of correctly interpreting sarcasm or other nuance *most* of the time. I mean, occasionally even my wife, daughter and I misread each other. Misunderstanding happens.

Online communications *are* notoriously more difficult to convey subtle messages in - and all of the attempts to correct for that have been less than satisfactory.

Still, it seems that this is a two way street. There is a woman at the office, she is nice enough - but she has no ability to detect sarcasm. After several times joking with her and either getting a blank look or upsetting her, I just began to avoid her. When I have to deal with her, I keep the conversation as literal as possible. Abstraction or subtly just doesn't work with her. It isn't that she is dumb or humorless, she is just very literal.

I submit my 2 prior posts (above) are clear examples of trolling... opinions?

...and the biggest idiots are those who complain about who jumps into their conversations. If you're posting on your Facebook wall or someone else's, you may as well be talking loudly about a sensitive subject in a quiet restaurant. You have no business complaining about who's listening, or who wanders over to your table to join your conversation without an invitation. If you want to avoid comments, take the conversation to (real) e-mail, or (heaven forbid) the telephone. The existence of certain technologies does not automatically mean they're a good idea.

"The existence of certain technologies does not automatically mean they're a good idea."

eg nuclear weapons, facebook, nuclear weapons, nuclear power, facebook, facebook...

Your privacy settings determine who can view your posts. You can block a person from ever seeing you again. Both things I've been after TR to do in every site makeover. You see how far I've gotten. Being more like FB, in some ways wouldn't be a bad thing.

`

Facebook can change its policies and features, then reset your privacy settings without asking you. It has done so several times already.

This happens a lot, when I look for some resolution to gremlins taking over my computer, I will browse on tech forums. More often than not someone had the same issue and other readers, instead of commenting with helpful suggestions, post the comment that they too have that issue. OK I feel for you but really it does not help solving the problem and because now the forum post shows a lot of answers the knowledgeable people won't go there, thinking the issue has been solved and the people seeking for answers have to dog through a range of posters who share their fate.