

The concept of an internet "troll" makes little sense if you care about substantive debate - amichail

According to Wikipedia, "An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response."<p>There are problems with this concept.  First, it is based on intent (why do you care about someone's intent?!).  Second, it discourages discussion on controversial topics.  Third, it seems to imply that debate is bad if it upsets some people.<p>So essentially, by accusing people of being trolls and discouraging them from further posts, you get discussion groups where posters have similar views and where debate is restricted to mostly minor issues.<p>That doesn't sound good at all.
======
geebee
You and have different opinions about how to define a troll. A strong opinion,
forecefully presented on a controverial topic obviously does not make someone
a troll. I would identify a troll through a combination of personal disrespect
and off-topic commentary.

Here's an example that shows up now and then:

Orig Post: "I'm trying to decide if I should locate my startup in silicon
vally or in san francisco. I'd like to be near my potential buyers, which
would mean locating in the valley. But I think my developers would be happier
living in the city."

Here are two strong responses, one legit, and one from a troll:

Non-Troll: "San Francisco isn't as much fun as people make it out to be. I
don't think it would help you attract developers at all. I'd much rather be in
the valley where the action is."

Troll: "The city? San Francisco isn't a city. New York, now that's a city..."

Both of these posts are clearly going to attract some argumentative responses.
The first may goad a few people, but it is on-topic, contains something that
can be defended or refuted under the terms of the original debate, and
continues the discussion. The second tries to provoke the thread into
something kind of stupid and off-topic.

Argumentative people can further debate, but Trolls always degrade a
discussion until there is no longer anything substantive.

I hope for the best for this discussion forum. Craigslist is essentially
unusable because of the trolling, but hackernews is still pretty great.

Will hackernews be like that chilly bar you found that got overrun by
jackasses six months later, forcing you to look for a new spot? Man, I hope
not, because this is a good site.

------
pg
You're focusing on the wrong word. The critical word in that definition is
"baiting," not "intention."

There is a difference between saying controversial things and baiting people.

~~~
amichail
How would you know whether someone is baiting people? Again, this has to do
with inferring intent -- reading his/her mind.

And so what if it is baiting anyway?

If a post gets voted up, then presumably the debate is of potential interest
irrespective of whether it is baiting.

~~~
joeguilmette
it sounds as if you've never encountered a troll. they don't enhance or
inspire substantive debate, in fact they hinder one by arguing baseless
positions for the sake of raising blood pressure.

~~~
amichail
That's what voting is for.

~~~
alex_c
That's what motivates some trolls - treating the discussion as a game in which
they manage to trick people into voting them up. That's the difference between
a "good" and a "bad" troll, isn't it? A bad troll will be exposed right away,
a good troll manages to pass for legitimate arguments for a long time.

You can't really say voting is the solution if part of a troll's purpose is to
subvert the voting process.

~~~
amichail
_...a good troll manages to pass for legitimate arguments for a long time.

You can't really say voting is the solution if part of a troll's purpose is to
subvert the voting process._

Who cares what the person's motivations are?!

Why do you care so much about the pattern of electrical activity in his/her
brain?

If his/her posts/comments are voted up a lot, then they are good ones in an
objective sense.

~~~
alex_c
I care what the motivations are.

A person with a strong but controversial opinion will stick to and defend
their point of view throughout the debate. The end result might be that I now
understand a new point of view, or that they alter their point of view.

A troll will duck and weave, change topics and backtrack. The goal isn't to
express an opinion they believe in, but to annoy people and get responses. The
end result is that I waste my time reading their posts, since they're not
going anywhere with it.

Sometimes you can only tell the difference after the dust settles. I'm still
trying to make up my mind about this thread ;)

------
mynameishere
In practice, the word "troll" has come to replace "dissenter" and "devil's
advocate" and other terms with good connotations. It does encourage groupthink
--as soon as someone differs from the party line, _bang_ , that person gets
labeled as a troll, end of discussion. This is very common on political sites
(viz, sites that _have_ party lines).

A real troll starts out making small, reasonable claims, and then, after
getting people to agree with him at first, makes larger and larger claims. The
precedent is "A modest proposal".

~~~
pg
A troll is not a devil's advocate. A devil's advocate is making one side of a
case in order, ultimately, to clarify a question. A troll just wants to make
people mad.

~~~
mynameishere
The term "troll" is sometimes misused where "devil's advocate" should apply.

------
far33d
Intent is 9/10ths of the law, and also of troll identification. You can wax
about how it is impossible to infer intent, but we all know that's BS.

~~~
amichail
Intent is important for law. Killing someone in a car accident should be
treated differently from premeditated murder say.

But it's not clear why intent is relevant to web forums where voting
mechanisms are in place.

------
erdos2
This post is obviously a troll.

------
inklesspen
A troll is someone who is engaging in an argument because he gets satisfaction
from the argument itself, not because he has any interest in the topic at
hand.

Interesting way to respond to my question, amichall. What's wrong with just
answering it when I asked, back at <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=66297>

~~~
amichail
What do you think of debating societies?

~~~
inklesspen
In my experience, those who manage to last long in debating societies
typically have some interest in the topics they debate.

------
sbraford
The world needs random pie throwers, even online.

------
derefr
I define a trolling attempt thus: 1\. incensing, and 2\. redundant.

That is, a troll is not a troll when they are voicing original thoughts. It is
only when they bring up a discussion that has long been tired out that people
really grow sick of them.

------
viergroupie
Amichail is a post-modern meta-troll.

------
edw519
Everyone else's opinion in this matter is wrong. Mine is the only one that is
correct. End of discussion.

