to wonder about the difference between a "troll" thread and a "joke" thread?

[starkadder]

Real question. Was reading the Wuthering Heights one on here (from coldcath) and it was quite funny. But also made me a little uncomfortable because some people had taken time, energy and effort to write genuine replies. Isn't this the main issue people have with "troll" threads - that they're horrible because they're seeking sympathy/advice for fake situations?

I appreciate that the authors of "joke" threads are much more likely to come clean quickly and not to drag it out...therefore meaning less people will reply seriously and that those who do will be less likely to get deeply involved, but - possibly - isn't it still just as unfair to those people who did reply?

Also, part of me thinks - "trolls" who post these very long, fake threads about emotive subjects must have fairly deep seated issues and perhaps are actually MORE to be sympathised with than people who are just having a laugh?

Or is it a question of intent - "joke" threads are OK because the authors are just having a laugh and brightening up all our evenings but "troll" threads are not OK because the authors are deliberately feeding off undeserved sympathy and advice?

Again, this is a real question - am not just stirring - and nothing personal against the Wuthering Heights author - I did think that was quite funny. But am interested to see what others think. Why is a "joke" thread OK and a "troll" thread not -or are neither OK?

I've missed the Wuthering Heights thread, may check that out.

I think you're right in a way, especially about "trolls" having some deep seated issues and needing the attention. I don't respond to many threads, often because what I want to say has been said by many before I formulate my reply. When I do, I don't dwell too much on whether or not my reply has been wasted (it often is, because once I've written it loads of others have responded far more fluently!). Ergo, if it is a "troll" or "joke" thread, it doesn't really bother me.

However, I think some posters put a lot more effort and invest themselves emotionally in some threads and when they turn out to be "trolly" are, understandably upset. I think that is the difference - dragging people into a quagmire of misery or upset, without a quick reprieve.

That's the way I see it anyways...

I think it is emotional vampiricism vs i'm a bit pissed and I'll make you all laugh/get a reaction

I could do with a good joke thread tonight.

Thanks for replying rasputin and for not taking my thread as an attack on you - which it certainly wasn't, but which I was worried about.

Maybe it is the question of whether it goes on and on - and also how easy it would be to spot. I've seen other "joke" threads too, some of which really made me laugh out loud...

Perhaps my question is more about why people get so worked up about trolls.

PS I also don't really understand the "no thread about a thread" rule...why not?

one woman's joke is another woman's troll

I think joke ones become apparent quite quickly (I had the honour of busting rasputin's) whereas trolls are either emotionally draining of other posters or deliberately wind up others against each other

i thought the Wuthering heights one was a pisser, and I was well and truly sucked in .

very different froma troll thread imo, different tone, different intent, different style. I just try to ignore the troll ones, esp when people start saying "trip trap" etc. gets a bit silly.

besides they usually have a thread title like "I think mothers who even think about earning any of their own money and not being at home are totally selfish and don't love their dcs" or something equally as sensationalist.

joke threads make people laugh and dont suck people in

Jokes are only jokes if we find out they're not 'true' and therefore we're allowed to laugh rather than react at face value - even the pisspoor stunts you used to see on Beadle's About were jokes in the end, because the twat in the beard would jump out from behind a tree or whatever (ah, Golden Age of TV Programming...). Jokes are jokes in the eye of the beholder, not the joker. So someone starting that sort of thread has to out themselves before it gets stale.

My only complaint about ColdCath's thread was that I came to it too late, and I was desperate to post 'It's Meeee, Catheeeee, I've come home!'

I think on occasion the difference is entirely down to the mood of the responding posters - I've seen some threads that are patently up for a laugh but turn a bit serious because of the responses, but I agree a 'genuine' troll has an agenda and will feed the thread accordingly.

I love the joke threads - the 'governess' one had me in stitches for yonks.

I do troll joke threads a lot, normally when pissed bored, along the lines of Miss Rabbit or famous mothers from films (have been the mother from mary poppins on another)
I think a joke troll thread is obvious, and when people don;t get it they are normally amused to find they were suckered in.
A real troll thread will never be obvious and wil prey on emotions whereas a joke is justa diversion.

Nothing wrong witha joke troll thread, I think they are the best reason for MN having namechangin tbh

I think my favourite joke thread was one from someone who turned out to be Mrs Pontipine...

There do seem to be three different kind of trolls, or should I say three different definitions of a troll.

Wind up/joke - hedgehog cam/utensil loving/wedding at Cana. Don't linger past an evening, generally get lots of witty responses. Love 'em.

Deliberately contentious thread just designed to push buttons get people arguing. Don't like 'em but don't see how they can hurt

Deliberate, malicious attempts to sucker people in either emotionally or financially (or both). Really upsetting for all involved and can never be defended.

Personally I'd like to see the "troll" term reserved for #3 (though I think that #2 is probably closer to the standard definition, possibly because the term was phrased before people realised the unfortunately prevalence of such sick individuals in internet communities).

But - if joke threads are OK because they make us laugh, and because we find out they're not true - isn't that still harsh on any original respondents who don't realise it's a joke?

In terms of scale - if one person replies seriously, takes time over their reply and feels genuine, strong emotions which they take the time and effort to share with others (e.g. if there had been someone replying within the first 5 mins to the W.H. one who really did have feelings for her foster brother, or something like that) - the upset caused to that one person would be as great to her (or him) as an individual as the upset caused to any individual replying to a troll thread - even if there are more individuals replying to the troll, because they aren't uncovered as fake so quickly. Is upset caused to one person less bad than upset caused to 10 people? I am not sure.

Or would the person replying to the joke thread not be upset because they'd realise that the intentions of the poster were innocent and honourable?

Re: coldcath - as well - I was feeling VERY pleased and proud with myself for clocking it as W.H. but then realised a whole load of other people had already ;)

PS took ages composing my rather incoherent reply so did not see some of the other replies.

crapweasel - I think you may be spot on.

Everyone else - I have clearly missed some good threads! Despite what DH says, I obviously do not spend anywhere near enough time on here...

I do see your point starkadder.

I was definitely suckered into the wedding at Cana one. Though as that simply revealed me to be a sad old lush who couldn't contempate a wedding with insufficient booze I wasn't too upset (I know that anyway).

Oops, cross posted. I meant starkadders point about people being upset, not about me being spot on

hahaah you ARE spot on though