So, in internet parlance, is a troll a creature who lives under bridges and tries to scare or intimidate those that cross, or is it one who fishes for controversy/confrontation using misinformation/bad behavior etc? I have come to believe that it is both,, evil beings trying to intimidate,, with bad behavior.
Wiki has an excellent write up: Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is why having 'skin in the game' is an important distinction. Bob Wilson
This is what comes to mind, when I hear "troll:" Back when 2-cycle lawnmower-like engines happily buzzed up ski slopes .... When this car was still associated with an aeronautical heritage... Before this once-obscure foreign automaker, producing quirky little compacts, was destroyed by GM... .... Saab ran an advertising campaign based on the location of their factory:
Not only that, but if you reversed #1 and #3 spark plug wire and gave it a push backwards you could have 4 speeds in reverse, and one forward! 2 cycle engine wasn't as silly as it sounds. It would always start at -40 since it had no oil in the crank case to get stiff. Also had free wheeling hubs so you could get great fuel mileage. All together a much nicer combination than the previously self identified troll who lives under a bridge in the US west!
I would define a troll like this: "Someone who posts repeatedly in threads, but has never actually contributed to them. Someone who goes around calling people with opposite beliefs derogatory names, while the troll themselves knows nothing of the issues." That pretty much looks like a good definition for an internet forum troll.
And what will the future bring now that Bernie Ecclestone is buying them. Now he actually looks like a troll. Maybe we will get a 2 stroke formula one car.
I've wished vBulletin would have a "Beam me up Scotty" feature. Here is how it would work: Troll throws firebomb after firebomb. Moderator "beams him up" - materializes in the midst of the people he was anagonizing. Then next day in newspapers the front page illustrates a beaten college guy in a flannel shirt that will be unable to type for months until physical thearpy is complete. A few more such incidents are reported then trolling becoms as commonplace as floppy disks.
I would prefer an automated, voting system with these attributes: posting rating: "+1" useful "-1" destructive, a null vote is "0" voting applies -1 to voter (too many votes and the busy-body voter also gets a 'time out.') initial quota: 50 points, clamp at 99 and 1 auto warning at 25: a PM that posting quota is getting low time out at 15: suspend posting for one day per point timeout aging accumulates 1 quota for every 'timeout' day until reaching 16 encourage posting activity with "+1" quota for every week clamped at 50 with at least one post and no negatives - encourage participation This would effectively eliminate the need for moderators as the community opinion would, over time, set the criteria. It promotes tolerance since firing off a vote takes something away from the voter. Only the most abusive posters get voted out into a 'timeout'. We would still need moderators for SPAM and forum abusers ... those who violate the intent of the forum. This prevents a gang intent on hijacking a forum from succeeding. Bob Wilson
I've always thought in addition to the "Thanks" button, we should have a "No Thanks" button (or a "You're Full of __it" button). It would really come in handy in FHoPolitics. :madgrin:
Oh, let's just cut to the chase and go straight for a poster rating system. Every community should be able to shun the unwanted and run them out of town, right? We could vote for each other with poll answers ranging from 'supremely awesome' through 'you're a little weird but we'll put up with you because yer cute' to 'hasn't your day pass expired yet?'
