What is a Troll?

[reohn2]

TC,spot on IMO.

[Mike Sales]

For me, the overriding characteristic of a troll is the absence of good faith. We have a tiny few on this forum but most tire or get bored quickly.

That is clearly the essential of the original definition.
However, it is used now for what you call abrasive posters.
Has usage changed the meaning?
Do we need another word for vexatious characters?

[thirdcrank]

I don't equate abrasive with vexatious. Being blunt is not synonymous with a lack of good faith: on the contrary, they generally go together. Re vexatious, which I take to mean a bit more than irritating, I'll offer PITA (and I'm surprised that got past the auto-edit.)

===========================================================================

PS In addition to what I said before, I'd contrast the sincere wish to be informative with point scoring. The latter is trolling which extends beyond lighting the touch paper and standing back.

[Mike Sales]

I don't equate abrasive with vexatious. Being blunt is not synonymous with a lack of good faith: on the contrary, they generally go together. Re vexatious, which I take to mean a bit more than irritating, I'll offer PITA (and I'm surprised that got past the auto-edit.)

Ok, loose language. Do we need to analyse the usage?

[Cugel]

For me, the overriding characteristic of a troll is the absence of good faith. We have a tiny few on this forum but most tire or get bored quickly.

That is clearly the essential of the original definition.
However, it is used now for what you call abrasive posters.
Has usage changed the meaning?
Do we need another word for vexatious characters?

There are several styles of posting to forums. Of those that are something other than the syrup of a mutual admiration club, many demonstrate variable levels and types of disagreement. Why have one single name for all of this varity when English is stuffed with so many words having so many gradations and nuances of meaning & description?

Perhaps we could attempt a list of posting-disagreement types and styles? Here's a start:

Agitator
Iconoclast
Sceptic
Cynic
Non-conformist
Dissenter
Critic
Zealot

********
Apologist
Advocate
Explainer
Believer
Fan
Disciple
Sponsor

Cugel

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,

But not on the traditional definition. And unfortunately it's too easy to see someone as behaving like that, simply owing to a strong disagreement - so everyone ends up being a "troll" and the word ceases to have any meaning.

+1

Name-calling is easy and often hurtful and offensive.
The adult way is to just keep your mouth shut, bite your tongue for 30 seconds at least.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi

Well most members who hold views that differ to mine seem to be decent enough types. Only a few are of the nasty type and if they continue I will ignore them completely.

I was hoping you would go away. Apart from anything else I find your prose painful.

In that case why tell everyone?
Try counting to 10

[thirdcrank]

... Ok, loose language. Do we need to analyse the usage?

I'm unclear of the purpose you have in mind. Looking at the precise meaning of rules is part of my baggage, but that approach has drawbacks here. eg Take the example of the "no swearing" rule. At the definition level, it's not about swearing (briefly, breaking the Third Commandment) but rather "bad language." Then, some people, including some who really ought to know better think it's clever to slip in something under the cover of differing usage. Also, words that would have got me a good hiding as a child when my dear old dad came home from work and found my mother had been crying because of something I had come out with are accepted by forum admin as OK and fair enough. All anybody can do is set the tone and call out people who don't maintain it. As I suggested to somebody recently it's about acting grown up, rather than being "adult."

And so it is with trolling. The more rules there are, the more the loophole merchants will try to subvert them and bleat about free speech and all the rest when they don't get their way. Insisting on precise language can in itself be a form of insult because it can be seen as mocking somebody's language skills. It's never easy to know the thickness of somebody else's skin, even face-to-face and those who are best at dishing it out are often those who cannot take it.

If people can see the difference between their own opinions and evidence-based discussion there will be few problems, so long as people are sincerely trying to contribute to a discussion.
=======================================================================

PS once you have decided that somebody has nothing of value to say, try ignoring them, especially if they ignore you or reply with twaddle.

If you feel their posts are a waste of space, add them to your list of foes, although somebody else may quote them. In that way you preserve their freedom of speech but you save yourself the trouble of giving them an audience. (And it can save a lot of otherwise wasted space.)

[Cyril Haearn]

In Norway trolls are queer small or large bearded fellows, often they are good but mischievous, likewise in German (Kobold)