Mormon Trolls and Trolling

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yeah, i'm sure that's why i've seen evolutionists angry at creationists before, because they were afraid and needed to protect their closely held beliefs and they had 'no other logical defense' to protect them.  

Actually, no, i don't think that was the reason. 

But if that's the point of the debate tactic, then it can easily be made without pretending to have won something to try to goad the person into changing their behavior (or just goad them for the sake of goading them).  You could easily say "Sorry. If you'd like to re-offer your last comment without the personal comments then we can continue the discussion, otherwise, i'm done."  

And your approach is much more likely to be effective than the "debate tactic".

These kinds of tactics, goading or reflecting back the alleged emotional or name calling  behavior or whatever have never been effective in doing much but causing the discussion to circle the drain no matter how confident the user may be that some day there will be a great awakening of those they are debating with from what I have seen.

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

"So isn't posting these viewpoints on this board actually a good thing?  By doing so, we are putting our ideas out into the market place of ideas to be tested, challenged and exposing them to examination...thereby finding if they are in fact correct and true.  Truth, like cream, has a way of floating to the top"

There are a lot of things that float to the top.

Great line, Calm  

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I'm sorry if i was confusing.  I didn't mean that attempting to elicit a response is trollish behavior.  I specifically meant that being passive/aggressive is trollish behavior.  As one person recently published on article on trolling said-

"Most people despise Trolls, and for good reason.  Passive-Aggressive behavior is just annoying, and hanging out with people who are Passive-Aggressive is just bad for you, both emotionally and financially."

But I think you've really highlighted why this topic is pretty much impossible to discuss.  No one agrees on what trollish behavior actually is.  What is one person's trolling is another's attempt to be funny.  What is one person's trolling is another's 'honest assessment.'  What is one person's trolling is another's 'etc. etc. etc....'

It will likely spiral into a form of 'my definition of trolling is more accurate than yours' and then it's probably all down hill from there.  

It's true that there are various interpretations of "troll" which is why I posted my definition at the beginning of the OP. Not that everyone needs to agree with it but at least it's a starting point.

Calling passive/aggressive behavior "trolling" seems like a stretch to me. While it may be annoying it really doesn't fit with the other, generally accepted elements of "trolling".

The OP isn't really about trolling as much as it is about calling people trolls. It's about name calling. It's about dismissing the comments and contributions of others by maligning it with a pejorative. It's about the attempts by some people to try to control conversation by shutting down certain voices. Even if I thought you were trolling this thread (which I don't- thanks for the contribution), it would be inappropriate for me to call you a troll or to warn others not to feed the troll by interacting with you. That's what I'm commenting on.

[Storm Rider]

46 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Yes, and we're also grown up enough that we don't need to be warned or told not to "feed the troll".   

It's fine if you choose to disengage, but I think you should just let everyone decide for themselves if they want to discuss a topic with any other member here.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.  When it is obvious that the conversation has gotten out of hand and one is being a troll, I will note it.  I suggest that if this is too discomforting or disruptive for you, just put me on ignore.  Life is easier that way.

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Thank you for sharing your opinion.  When it is obvious that the conversation has gotten out of hand and one is being a troll, I will note it.  I suggest that if this is too discomforting or disruptive for you, just put me on ignore.  Life is easier that way.

That would be a shame because you say a lot of good things and share a lot of good ideas when you are not being bossy.

[bluebell]

33 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Even if I thought you were trolling this thread (which I don't- thanks for the contribution), it would be inappropriate for me to call you a troll or to warn others not to feed the troll by interacting with you. That's what I'm commenting on.

This i agree with.  There are very very few times when it does anyone good to call them a troll.  

[JulieM]

14 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Thank you for sharing your opinion.  When it is obvious that the conversation has gotten out of hand and one is being a troll, I will note it. 

That's fine, but no need to "warn" others. Just leave the discussion (we've all needed to do this at times).

Also, if you believe that HappyJackWagon is a troll, I'm not sure you actually know what one is .   

[HappyJackWagon]

26 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Thank you for sharing your opinion.  When it is obvious that the conversation has gotten out of hand and one is being a troll, I will note it.  I suggest that if this is too discomforting or disruptive for you, just put me on ignore.  Life is easier that way.

Thanks for being honest about your plans to continue being offensive, dismissive, and rude in your name calling. The classiness is noted.

Edited April 26, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[Calm]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Great line, Calm  

 

 

Probably the only clever thing I am going to say all day, lol.

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's true that there are various interpretations of "troll" which is why I posted my definition at the beginning of the OP. Not that everyone needs to agree with it but at least it's a starting point.

Calling passive/aggressive behavior "trolling" seems like a stretch to me. While it may be annoying it really doesn't fit with the other, generally accepted elements of "trolling".

The OP isn't really about trolling as much as it is about calling people trolls. It's about name calling. It's about dismissing the comments and contributions of others by maligning it with a pejorative. It's about the attempts by some people to try to control conversation by shutting down certain voices. Even if I thought you were trolling this thread (which I don't- thanks for the contribution), it would be inappropriate for me to call you a troll or to warn others not to feed the troll by interacting with you. That's what I'm commenting on.

I will be first to admit I don't always take care to avoid labeling, but I do think it is much more helpful rather than use labels to use specific examples of behaviours.  Sometimes we can't get our point across by saying "this is wrong", we have to identify the type of behaviour it is...but I think there are a lot of times we don't have to and simply pointing out the error and talking about potential consequences of confusion or harm are enough.  Too often debate over the label becomes the discussion rather than the behaviours and its consequences.

I also think that many people aren't intending to shut down conversation, but rather nudge, mold, push it into what they see as more productive avenues or to bring it back to the original topic.  It can be very frustrating to have topics derailed into trivial areas (I am a big offender in this with my wandering mind that wants to explore everything, no one should feel bad about calling me off topic) or to have misrepresentations (most are unintentional, but possible that some are intentional imo) of what they said become the central theme.  It is mindnumbingly agonizing to have to spend a dozen posts stating 'that is not what I said'.  Frustration levels go up quick.

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I will be first to admit I don't always take care to avoid labeling, but I do think it is much more helpful rather than use labels to use specific examples of behaviours.  Sometimes we can't get our point across by saying "this is wrong", we have to identify the type of behaviour it is...but I think there are a lot of times we don't have to and simply pointing out the error and talking about potential consequences of confusion or harm are enough.  Too often debate over the label becomes the discussion rather than the behaviours and its consequences.

I also think that many people aren't intending to shut down conversation, but rather nudge, mold, push it into what they see as more productive avenues or to bring it back to the original topic.  It can be very frustrating to have topics derailed into trivial areas (I am a big offender in this with my wandering mind that wants to explore everything, no one should feel bad about calling me off topic) or to have misrepresentations (most are unintentional, but possible that some are intentional imo) of what they said become the central theme.  It is mindnumbingly agonizing to have to spend a dozen posts stating 'that is not what I said'.  Frustration levels go up quick.

I understand the desire to keep things on track yet I don't know that I've ever seen a thread that doesn't move into some pretty interesting tangents. Suggesting a return to topic would be a much better way of having a positive impact on the direction of the conversation. I also appreciate when people will sometimes point out the type of fallacy being utilized in a conversation. I'm just as prone to the fallacy trap as anyone else and pointing out the logical fallacy can help me to reframe my thinking. That is helpful.

Still, I've never seen a positive outcome from the name calling. Whether it is a name like bigot, liar, or troll, in each case the name calling shuts down conversation and diverts it so that the name-caller actually becomes more of a troll than what they are shouting down.

[Darren10]

3 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Hay.... isn't Shrek a troll ? I like Shrek ( although I really like the Donkey ) . Maybe the user name Shrek can be adopted by some of the most vociferous critics. Shrek 1 , 2 , 3,  etc. if needed.

I think the concept of troll mostly fits the drive by critics who stir up the local hornets. Those posters who have been here a long time and like to throw the odd fast ball high and outside, can be handled with respect most of the time unless there is a sense of " neaner, neaner, " going on.

 I personally get a bit tired of those who will bring up the fact that some GA ties his shoes incorrectly and therefore should not be listened to.

 

Shrek is an ogre. Those are much better behaved than trolls.  

[Darren10]

27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I understand the desire to keep things on track yet I don't know that I've ever seen a thread that doesn't move into some pretty interesting tangents. Suggesting a return to topic would be a much better way of having a positive impact on the direction of the conversation. I also appreciate when people will sometimes point out the type of fallacy being utilized in a conversation. I'm just as prone to the fallacy trap as anyone else and pointing out the logical fallacy can help me to reframe my thinking. That is helpful.

Still, I've never seen a positive outcome from the name calling. Whether it is a name like bigot, liar, or troll, in each case the name calling shuts down conversation and diverts it so that the name-caller actually becomes more of a troll than what they are shouting down.

"Still, I've never seen a positive outcome from the name calling. Whether it is a name like bigot, liar, or troll, in each case the name calling shuts down conversation and diverts it so that the name-caller actually becomes more of a troll than what they are shouting down."

They are positive when the labels are accurate. I do not find people here as "bigots", "liars", or "trolls". I would say there have been some liars but they seem to have been ousted and removed; therefore such name calling won't work here on this forum.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, Darren10 said:

"Still, I've never seen a positive outcome from the name calling. Whether it is a name like bigot, liar, or troll, in each case the name calling shuts down conversation and diverts it so that the name-caller actually becomes more of a troll than what they are shouting down."

They are positive when the labels are accurate. I do not find people here as "bigots", "liars", or "trolls". I would say there have been some liars but they seem to have been ousted and removed; therefore such name calling won't work here on this forum.

Yet some are engaging in name calling, defending it, and proclaiming they will continue when they feel it is warranted. It's very strange.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's very strange.

Not really.  If one believes one is right, one often defends it.

If you mean they (speaking generally, you may see me as defending some forms of inappropriate conversation) are defending it as useful to promoting good conversation when the evidence is that it doesn't, what is good is a personal taste, so the evidence may be there from their POV.  "Good conversation" may be seen as standing as a witness against falsehoods, bad behaviour, etc. even if it causes a *** for tat, vicious circle, derailment, or whatever because it is seen as needing to be done.

It is a rationale I understand and even agree with in some cases, but it may be overused (not everyone states this is what they are doing so guessing here based on my assuming this is what is happening in several cases).

I don't believe Johnnie Cake and others' way of proclaiming victory in a conversation as useful in the way he and others state it is.  He defends it.  Am wondering if you find this strange (serious question, trying to find the paths of your thinking).

Just in case you are also curious, I don't see Storm Rider's defense as much different than JCake's.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Calm

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

That is your perspective and I understand it.  However, I don't share it and I disagree that warning others not to feed the troll is an ad hominem attack; yes, there are ad hominem attacks, but I don't think hanging your hat on that accusation works in an the absolute manner in which you are trying to force on others.  It has become a nice catch phrase to throw out, but it is rarely accurately applied.  Just reading the definition should tell you that calling someone's behavior that of a troll "CAN" be, not IS an ad hominem attack.  

Again, if the shoe fits wear it.  If it doesn't ignore it.  Each of you are grown ups and I refuse to think that your feelings are so tender that there is any damage when you are called on it.  

Whether you refer to someone directly as a Troll or warn other members of the board not to feed what you perceive as a Troll you are still calling another member of this board a Troll whether you see or accept that or not.

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

Good morning Johnnie...

You, too, seem not to have noticed that my objection was not to the expressing of differing views or to respectful debate... yes, they can be a good thing... my objection was the tone and wording of the viewpoint or opinions expressed made it seem that testing, challenging, or exposing of such was unnecessary.  And don't forget, cream has a way of curdling if not careful...

GG 

Thanks for the clarification

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

That is your perspective and I understand it.  However, I don't share it and I disagree that warning others not to feed the troll is an ad hominem attack; yes, there are ad hominem attacks, but I don't think hanging your hat on that accusation works in an the absolute manner in which you are trying to force on others.  It has become a nice catch phrase to throw out, but it is rarely accurately applied.  Just reading the definition should tell you that calling someone's behavior that of a troll "CAN" be, not IS an ad hominem attack.  

Again, if the shoe fits wear it.  If it doesn't ignore it.  Each of you are grown ups and I refuse to think that your feelings are so tender that there is any damage when you are called on it.  

The ground is not level...were I to refer to you in a similar charged fashion I would have punitive action taken against me...but being grown ups as you suggest I'm sure that we can act accordingly and choose our words more carefully and avoid offenses terminologies that some find offensive.

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

That's not the only thing that has a tendency of floating to the top.   Just sayin'!

Truth doesn't always prevail on discussion boards unfortunately, sometimes sh** wins the day.

 

Well I may have missed the mark but I always thought that this was a board in support of the truth... granted we don't always achieve this lofty goal

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Whether you refer to someone directly as a Troll or warn other members of the board not to feed what you perceive as a Troll you are still calling another member of this board a Troll whether you see or accept that or not.

Kind of a given so not seeing your point...

[Johnnie Cake]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Kind of a given so not seeing your point...

Well Stormrider was claiming otherwise...but thanks for your agreement with my point

Edited April 26, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Well I may have missed the mark but I always thought that this was a board in support of the truth... granted we don't always achieve this lofty goal

And how does what pogi state imply he thinks anything differently? (The way you stated this, it sounds you are challenging what Pogi stated)

The board may be supportive of the truth.  Doesn't mean it is the only thing that prevails around here all the time as you said....which is what Pogi said as well.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Calm

[theplains]

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Internet trolls exist in the Mormon world, just like it does elsewhere on the internet. Usually trolls are outsiders who enter a discussion or group to disrupt the conversation. In the past few days I have witnessed at least 3 accusations of trolling. One was directed at me and two towards others. It's more than I'm accustomed to seeing on this board and I don't know if those making the accusations understand how offensive the term can be.

Don't worry about it. Many are labelled anti-Mormon just as could be labelled anti-Catholic, anti-Protestant,
anti-Evangelical, or even Anti-Nephi-Lehies (as mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

Jim

[Calm]

Just now, Johnnie Cake said:

Well Stormrider was claiming otherwise...

Where?

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, theplains said:

Don't worry about it. Many are labelled anti-Mormon just as could be labelled anti-Catholic, anti-Protestant,
anti-Evangelical, or even Anti-Nephi-Lehies (as mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

Jim

"Anti" in "anti-nephi-lehites" does not mean "against".  It is not English.  The group was proNephite, former Lamanites.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Calm