Trolling - the old-fashioned definition

[CarrieTheTowel]

NC just because I do all the time.

In the olden days of the internet (about 5 minutes ago, it feels like) "trolling" didn't mean "making things up for shits and giggles" or "harassing, threatening or abusing people" but to derail a conversation by posting obviously inflammatory or faux-naif basic questions/comments, or derailing by any means necessary. This wasted posters' time patiently responding to questions that had been answered a million times before or to exaggerated lines of argument. Didn't matter how sensible the responses were, the goal was to derail the conversation so literally any response was a win for the troll and a loss for the regular posters.

Hence the advice "don't feed the troll". Just ignore, ignore, ignore.
Grey rock.

Obviously no-one trolls on MN as they get instantly reported...
But even as a casual visitor to these boards I do see the same arguments being started, the same time being wasted, the same things being repeated. It would be lovely and far more productive if threads could stay relatively on-topic, perhaps starting and linking to new threads if a new topic arises. Or old ones if the same old questions arise....

Anyone agree with me?

I do

Oh gosh - I'm so guilty of reacting to a de-railer - but then I think of the lurkers. So many people have said they've peak-transed from reading Mumsnet....

I was such a lurker once! But I can't keep my mouth shut so I started a thread with my questions.
It's a good point but I think a line needs to be drawn somewhere so we don't get pages of derail for every thread.

I do light trolling when I game. They are all men that I game with

You're not wrong Carrie. I'll try and resist. Soon

Lols zebra. You are doing fine 🔥🔥😉
Liking your work

That one's like shooting fish in a barrel though

I've been using the internet since 1992, and was aware of the term trolling at that time.
It definitely meant making things up for shits and giggles (or lulz), and wasn't confined to derailing threads.

This wasn't aimed at anyone in particular btw!

Yes, I think it's known as sea-lioning now too.

I think you have to be very careful about assuming people are trolling.

People who come into a place like this, or other types of online discussions, have often have little exposure to the topic compared to the people who are regularly posting. The fact that they ask the same kids of questions isn't because they are trolls, its because they are reflecting the dominant narrative and level of knowledge.

Being rude to them, which is common, is so, so, counterproductive. And it's not the case that people are particularly awesome at knowing which are really trolls and which aren't, as you can see in various forums where even long time posters are sometimes accused of being trolls if they say the wrong thing.

Goosefoot makes a really important point.

If you don't want to waste your time engaging with sea lions or trolls, that's fine- just don't! But when people jump on them with "goady, much?" etc it risks alienating genuine though clueless seekers.

I don't know. I think you can usually spot differences in tone quite quickly.

If you were completely confused about something and have real questions, would you argue endlessly and ignore the replies on the thread that explain the problem 47,000 times over, while effectively saying "you're all hateful!" over and over again?

I really disagree that people spot the tone. In fact I think a lot of the time they really fail utterly.

I don't understand why anyone thinks "explaining" something suddenly means the person will see the issue from your perspective. It's kind of disrespectful and even when people change their minds its often not immediate and involves discussing an idea at some length and from different angles.

I think a lot of people with questions or misgivings come on to MN and leave convinced they were right in the first place, its just full of hateful people.

I respectfully disagree with you there, but I'm not trying to be rude in saying that.

Honestly, it depends what mood I'm in. There are definitely times when someone is taking the piss and being a narc, and blanking their idiocy is the most sensible response.

There are other times when I am feeling chipper, have some time to kill and can see the educational worth of dealing with any of the points raised, however disingenuously, by the person who is a potential bridge dweller.

Both approaches have worth, and there is a fair of personal boundary application here.

The most important thing is not to allow the nasty fuckers to goad you into losing your temper. Remember, they are not, as a rule, here to learn, they are usually here to harvest screenshots or goad deletions and bans.

So, take a breath, remember to be woman-focused, think of the lurkers, and know when to break out the recipes.

Imo either ignore or answer the specific question in good faith (ie no sighing, eye rolling, calling misogynist etc).

I've asked loads of stuff before, asking specifically for specific answers and often got wild tangents and non-related axe-grinding as a result. It's frustrating tbh if you want to follow a logic train of thought. "Oh so do you think women should be erased" kind of thing which doesnt help. That's just my experience, though...

I found the 'pull!' piece useful actually.

Tangents are a feature of any message board, though. It happens. As I said, different women take different approaches, dependent on lots of things. Some posters are endlessly patient, others have less time for explaining and infinitum, and both have a role to play.

Yes, answering the questions in good faith is worthwhile, but there is also worth in being able to point out bullshit and not feel that you have to endless arch over backwards to accommodate piss taking.

Striking a balance between the two is hard, and it's not always successful. Most of the Bunbury stuff here is a way of warning women their time may be being wasted without overtly calling 'troll!'

Like anything, it's sometimes deployed at the wrong time, but we're ordinary women, not paragons of forum virtue.

I'm not against tangents but I've seen so many threads about specific incidents, articles etc turn into 'why is mumsnet so transphobic" generic debates and the points are lost in the noise. It does stop me reading threads.

Personally I'd rather everyone ignored rather than pointing out BS and giving "them" a response but obviously I can't dictate this!

Anyway this wasn't supposed to be a negative nag at anyone. And all forums DO descend into nitpickery, ad homs, and goading at some point - it's the nature of the beast, I realise!

I actually liked it when that midnight misogynist would post and literally no-one would bite. They get desperate...

Honestly, it depends what mood I'm in. There are definitely times when someone is taking the piss and being a narc, and blanking their idiocy is the most sensible response.

There are other times when I am feeling chipper, have some time to kill and can see the educational worth of dealing with any of the points raised, however disingenuously, by the person who is a potential bridge dweller.

Yes.

Most of the time I ignore but sometimes (like today for instance) I'm in the mood for some linguistic wrangling.

Yeah, I think if someone is yanking your chain, you are generally better off just not answering. If they are really trolls any reaction makes them happy and is good for taking screen shots etc.

Known harassers are a different story.

Tangents aren't a problem but asking something or saying something and it being assumed that it must be meant as trolling is annoying. Almost worse when the person responding clearly hasn't understood your point.

I fucking hate it when threads get deliberately derailed. The purpose is to prevent us from having the conversations we want to have among ourselves. It's not debate. It's coercive control.

I'm afraid I don't think of the lurkers. I think of myself and whether the board's unbearable for me to use or not.

I'm mostly of that opinion, Lang. I used to be more willing to engage than I am now, and I do have much less patience than say, a year ago.

Today I had some time and to be fair, we've not had an AWA engage beyond two posts and a flounce for some time so I've enjoyed the activity. But mostly I err on the 'shut the shit down' side of things nowadays. 'Think of the lurkers' can mean 'Show how to make mincemeat of the 'arguments'' but it can also mean 'Show women they don't have to acquiesce meekly to timewasting goady fuckery.'