It's basically a useless term. One person's troll is another person's freedom fighter. Or something like that.

I think its good to look at the mythological background.. Trolls were creatures that lurked under bridges waiting for unsuspecting travelers. When a traveler arrived and wanted to cross the troll would block their passage until a toll had been paid.

-troll repellant- (Im sure there are others but this is the kind im referring to, please noone get out their d&d monsters compendium or anything) :p

Anyway.. I think the commentors are the travellers, the comments the journey with little bridges in between. The trolls leap into action and block progress for the thread as a whole until they are dealt with. They can be fed (with emotional outbursts) ignored (can get messy) defeated (they disappear from this thread and conversation continues)

just some amusing thoughts.

Trollish comments are comments that are intended to disrupt the discussion, or that a reasonable person would view as disruptive. That could include personal insults, off-topic comments, repetitive comments, advertising/"pimping", and probably a number of other things I can't think of of the top of my head.

Some of it is context-dependent. Blogs tend to develop their own particular standards for swearing, or for what counts as good-natured ribbing (as opposed to tossing insults around).

If you're participating in the discussion, you're not trolling. If you're making the discussion difficult/impossible, then you are.

A troll is someone smart enough to see that Obama is a actually an america-hating-elist-secret muslim with a fake birth certificate!!! Open your eyes!!11!!one!!!11 Wright Ayers Wright Wright Ayers Wright!!

The wikipedia definition is perfect. I agree with awt about the freedom fighter thing, but disagree that the term is useless. Yes, we could be trolls on conservative blogs, although not necessarily. The key to trolling isn't disagreeing with the group think of the blog, but being disruptive, imflammatory, and more generally, being proved factually wrong on more than one occasion and not owning up to it.

Any place you can post anonymously or don't have to register, I assume everybody is a troll by default... at least on a blog involving politics where tempers can easily flare... maybe not if it's about cooking or something. The only way to cut down on it is to require people to be tied to their identities in some way... and that still won't stop it. I've actually had issues with being kind of a dick online that I'm not in real life... posting under my real name has helped cure me of that (for the most part - I still have my moments).

perhaps we could identify the trolls if we saw them in person, as it is thought by some that they actually may have tails.

"trolls are occasionally antagonistic towards mankind and may snap the neck of any human whom they encounter during their wanderings.
they have an unfortunate effect on domestic animals. when a troll is in the neighborhood the cows and reindeer fail to give milk, the hens do not lay, horses are reluctant to work and even the dogs and cats go into hiding.
it is said that a human who sees a troll will never be the same again.
some trolls are very curious and they may peep wistfully through windows or even stretch attenuated arms into houses to finger human possessions.
the best safeguard is to close all doors and windows firmly, draw the curtains, and sleep soundly until the first rays of the sun send trolls back into their hiding places.
they dare not linger until the sun rises because sunlight turns a troll to stone."

~~~~the encyclopedia of things that never were

I'd actually make the case that there's less to the Times piece than people are going to argue that there is; it's some lovely "think-y" prose wrapped around a few specific examples that, while dramatic, don't necessarily amount to much (depending, I guess, on how much credence one gives to Weev's assertions of his fabulous, Robin Hood like wealth).

For a long time, I thought "outlaw" lifestyles were really really cool; to some, I probably lived one, or at least the fringes of it. But what I came to see was that the really out there people - like the ones profiled - are not cool or romantic heroes, and much of their stories are small and sad... much like the rest of us.

I don't think there's a great definition of "troll" because what seems like "troll" behavior to one may be principled outrage or thoughtful dissension to another. I think the blogosphere, and its anonymity, invites a freewheeling dialogue that can often be rougher, and meaner, than it needs to be; but I think - and always have - that you fight that by... well, not fighting. Treat people decently, expect decency in return, and much of the "troll" experience can be avoided, I find. Or at least, it won't matter quite so much.

In most cases the troll does not necessarily agree or disagree with the original post or any other comments. He or she is treating the thread as a sort of video game. The goal is to set off flashing lights, bells and sirens. It has more to do with neural stimulation than any sort of real opinion on anything at all.
And on another point, the NYT article completely misunderstands the /b/ board on 4chan. /b/ is designed as a sort of pressure valve. It is the place for any sort of disrespectful image or comment about absolutely anything. It is a refuge for bad taste. And there is the implication in its existence that the absence of standards of behaviour on /b/ presupposes that there does exist such standards elsewhere. (Plus some of it is actually quite funny.)

Have you guys ever heard of the law that once major newspapers catch on to a trend, that means it's on it's way out?
I hope that's what this means.
And I agree with J.W. Hamner about anonymity, I think Matt Yglesias's comment section would be a lot less terrible if you had to register or something, and mark my words that Ta-Nehisi Coates' wonderful blog isn't going to be treated very well when it moves over to the Atlantic.

I think the Wikipedia entry is about right, as is the above poster.

The Intertubes tradition I am aware of is that trolls are people who don't actually have a strong opinion on a topic* but nonetheless post statements designed to frustrate and enrage other participants in the discussion, for much the same reasons that I used to make gunpowder and blow up ant-colonies when I was 12. They just want a reaction.

A troll is not simply someone who disagrees with you or someone who is stupid or whatever. It is someone who participates only to provoke a strong response, rather than to enlighten, convince or share with other participants.

*or have a strong opinion, but that opinion isn't their motivation for posting.

I think its good to look at the mythological background.. Trolls were creatures that lurked under bridges waiting for unsuspecting travelers.

The etymology of message board trolling comes from the fishing term: "a method of fishing where one or more fishing lines, baited with lures or bait fish, are drawn through the water behind a moving boat." Hence, dragging a line baited with an inflammatory remark through a comment thread, hoping to get bites = trolling. It's been interesting to watch the back formation at work over the years; i.e., one who trolls is a troll, which then gets identified with the mythological creature.

For those interested, the distinction between "flaming" and "trolling" is also worth exploring. In the meantime, Picard could totally beat up Kirk.

When I said "the above poster" I meant "the poster above the above poster". Defeated by real-time multi-user technology again.

I actually thought the NY Times article was reasonably accurate in its descriptions, if extreme in its examples.

For what it's worth, the birthplace of online trolling (certainly Usenet trolling) was the Usenet cats newsgroups, where the participants tend to be kind of saccharine and huggy and a ripe target for deliberately provocative posts on recipes for cat stew, etc. There had always been people out for an argument on specific topics (religion, GLBT stuff, vegetarianism, etc.) who hung out in places where they could find one, but what happened in the cats newsgroups was new in that the trolls weren't particularly interested in cats, but wanted to get a rise out of the sappy cat people.

Oh, come now. Let's hear from some of Ezra's little gnomes.

Pipe up yous guys!

"Troll" is what I'm occasionally called after I show how a blogger is wrong in an attempt to discredit that blogger. In that context, "troll" is anyone who makes the blogger look bad.

In that spirit, I'll point out that Ezra is trying to conflate "someone who disagrees with Ezra and who shows how Ezra is wrong" with "racist". And, that's not intellectually honest.

Regarding the article, defacing someone's Myspace page isn't trolling, it's vandalism. There are plenty of examples of good "classic" trolling available since the internet's been around for a while. Perhaps Ezra needs a mentor or someone who can help him understand things better.

TLB raises a good point: too often we conflate "Troll" with "Crank." TLB is more of a crank.

I agree with all of the above (except the Picard bit.) I think the distinction is most interesting between true trolls who just try to stir up trouble and posters who may just appear to be trolling, but actually represent a world/political view that is different from the norms of the blog or forum. With the increasing polarization and balkanization of political cultures in the internet, one could easily be dismissed as a troll when posting a comment on a site on "the other side." You might think it's relevant and insightful, but it appears to the locals as an inflammatory non-sequitur. Liberals and conservatives see the world though such different frames these days, not to mention libertarians and even fringier conspiracy types.

Amen to what TLB said. Go back and look at this blog and find places where someone is accused of being a "troll." You will see it is not usually where a person is disruptive -- rather, it is where he fails to toe what the accuser considers the party line. A more interesting question is: why to left wing "progressive" blogs attract trolls, whereas the few conservative ones don't? If you discover the answer to that, you will have understood a great deal about the american left. The answer (TM) is that the left is far more rigidly orthodox -- so it is infinitely easier to get a rise out of "progressives" by the simple act of disagreeing. Kind of like , what, drawing a cartoon in the Islamic world?

Trolls are ego-driven intelligent (usually) assholes who attemptedly insert themselves into a chatroom in such as way as to steer the entire conversation their way, and will say anything that serves that purpose.
Their aim is to trumpet their existence. They have little or no regard for the feelings and thoughts of others, and often feel better themselves when they have succeeded in making someone else angry or miserable.
Their actions could be described as psychopathic.
It is interesting that when no one responds to them they move on. In this sense they are like opportunistic infections----no suitable host found, they search elsewhere.
I don't like trolls.
They interrupt perfectly good exchanges in which people are trying to reach a reasoned conclusion.

You might think it's relevant and insightful, but it appears to the locals as an inflammatory non-sequitur.

It's not merely a symptom of "polarization" and "balkanization." It's due what used to be known as "defining deviance down."

"Al Gore is a fat liar" is the sort of thing that is considered normal discourse among many right-wingers. It's not a sign that they "see the world through such different frames." It's a sign that their norms of behavior have become crude and deviant after decades of listening to Rush Limbaugh. But some of them know that they're being crude deviants, and they like pissing people off by doing so.

why [do] left wing "progressive" blogs attract trolls, whereas the few conservative ones don't?

Because the left has fewer ego-driven assholes. The few that exist tend to start their own blogs (eg, Taylor Marsh).

Trolling is, at its base, a desire to antagonize. Movement conservatism is, at its base, an ideology whose organizing principle is about "antagonizing the liberal hippies." So obviously there's going to be more trolling by the right on the left rather than vice versa.

I think that it's not really about getting attention, nor about disruption. Above all it is about making people angry. A troll is someone whose comments are primarily motivated by the desire to say something that will inflame people they don't like.

"being proved factually wrong on more than one occasion and not owning up to it."

So Kos IS a troll.

"In that context, "troll" is anyone who makes the blogger look bad."

Exactly. You could watch it happen on any number of "liberal" sites when if somebody didn't like a point somebody else made, possibly breaking the groupthink, they were labelled a troll. Or "concern troll" an even stupider meaningless term.
It's pretty fucking fascist and it always pains me to see that those that get off on banning or hunting trolls are typically left sites. But some are run by former Republicans so...

"The left has fewer ego-driven assholes....." ?? How can you possibly know that. Have you gone through the asshole population and classified it? The ego-driven are everywhere. What, you, Tyro, are a humble person? Come up with a better explanation and let's look at it. Though you seem to accept the idea that trolls appear on progressive blogs, rather than conservative ones, and that does call for explaining, not name calling.

panon, if I were an ego-driven asshole who enjoyed offending others and antagonizing them, I'd find a huge niche in conservatism, where by dint of owning an SUV and loudly ordering steak at a seafood restaurant, I'd be able to show everyone how I was "sticking it to the liberals." Since making loud displays in an effort to antagonize isn't in my nature, movement conservatism never offerred anything for me.

Now, giving you the benefit of the doubt, it may well be that you find fewer trolls on right-wing blogs because (a) right-wing blogs are less likely to allow comments, and (b) the blogs that do allow comments are more likely to ban antagonistic commenters and more frequently require registration. More liberal blogs are more famously tolerant of the random right-wing cranks and trolls who inhabit their comment sections (as any familiarity with Ezra's, MattY's, or Kevin Drum's blogs will demonstrate).

I get the sense that nobody here has ever bothered to actually get to know a troll.

Not a surprise, really - by their very nature, trolls are off-putting.

But if you're purely going by the Wikipedia definition of troll, you're only looking at a *very* small subset of trolls. I've dealt with all manner of trolls in my lifetime, and there are dozens of reasons to do it. Whether any of them are legitimate, well, that's for the individual to decide.

But there's a very wide chasm between the misanthropist, the self-styled vengeful martyr, the parodist, the shock jester, the tangentalist, and the unknowingly insulting. And even that is a too-brief and incomplete list of the types of trolls.

Whether you want to know more about trolls is another question entirely, of course. But as someone who does, I think those who are trying to say "trolls are like [blank]." are oversimplifying things.

Also, can we have an official end to discussions of moderation on blogs by the owners as fascism? It's their virtual real estate - they paid for it, they set it up, and they keep it running. They have every right to control what goes on it - nobody would call anyone a fascist for refusing to let someone stick a sign (of any kind) on their front lawn. And that's the closest real-world analog to posting on a blog that I can find.

Tyro writes: More liberal blogs are more famously tolerant of the random right-wing cranks and trolls who inhabit their comment sections (as any familiarity with Ezra's, MattY's, or Kevin Drum's blogs will demonstrate).

That's pretty funny. While to the best of my knowledge neither Ezra nor MattY have deleted any of my comments, MattY labeled me a "longtime troll" when posting about a question I raised. A review of the comments I've left there will show that, while some are just one-offs, a large number of them show how MattY is wrong. In some cases it's been, I hope, quite devastating.

Further, while I've been banned and had comments deleted from rightwing sites, leftwing sites are even more, shall we say, petty Stalinist, when it comes to things like that. And, that includes the several comments that have been deleted from WashingtonMonthly as well as recently being banned ByAlternet.

Scan through my name's link for the comments those open-minded leftwing sites didn't want their readers to see. In a way, that serves my purpose: by developing an echo chamber they don't know when their arguments are faulty, leading to fewer people taking anything they say seriously.

As I said, TLB, you're more in the category of "blogwhore" and "crank" than "troll," MattY's statement notwithstanding.

As you say, you've never seen your posts get deleted. MattY has even, at least once, answered one of the questions you asked in his comment section. I think that counts as "tolerant." Why do you insist on being loved or paid attention to?

'cause conservative blogs are notoriously tolerant of divergent opinions. I mean, who hasn't heard stories of Dawn Eden staying up late nights responding to people that claim she's a repressed erotophobe who likes to generalize her preferences? Or the legendarily tolerant and responsive community that is Little Green Footballs?

It's not that liberals, by their nature, attract trolls. It's that trolls, by their nature, are more often Republicans and conservatives and thus, when they feel the need to troll, they do it here and at Matt's and whatnot.

It's very important for some people to have a handy "catch all" label. I've even seen intricate conspiracy theory lists of exactly how any given "troll" thinks and operates.

I thought the definition of a troll is someone who repeats "trust fund scum" over and over in comments sections.

Pretty good identifier, but not a definition

I think of a troll as someone who is not interested in argument or debate.

In other words, someone who comes on the site and says the following is not trolling:

"Barack Obama and the Democrats' energy policy is unrealistic. While there may be some benefit to people checking their tire pressure and alternative fuels are the wave of the future, in the meantime we need to meet our energy needs and high gas prices are choking the economy."

Now, that comment may be right or wrong. It may disagree with the orthodoxy of many people who comment on and read this site. But it is not trolling because it is making a serious argument that people can respond to and counter and reject and concede.

In contrast, this is trolling:

"BHO's messiah complex has gotten worse and worse. He offers no specifics except surrender in Iraq."

The person who posts that isn't looking for serious argument. He's just putting out Republican spin. Insisting on using Obama's middle initial, slurring him as having a messiah complex, using the Republican spin-word for Iraq (surrender) rather than accurate language. Most important, there's no argument at all in that passag. It's just a string of epithets.

So my definition is, if someone is trying to make a serious argument but is countering the orthodoxy of the website, that person is not trolling. If a person is putting out Republican talking points and epithets and is not looking for a serious debate, that person is trolling.

NRO doesnt have comments. Ditto Andrew Sullivan. Hard to troll when you can't even get your hook in the water.

As for some of the others, they police their comments with a heavy hand. The liberal blogs, I have notices, are generally open forums where anyone can post. A big difference.

Regards.

Oh, and about trolling...in the dark ages it used to be a more honorable passtime.

For example, on old pvp message boards the object of trolling was to create a post with just enough believability to hook unsuspecting members to take it seriously. You would assume a certain point of view, right down to carefully selected misspelled words, to create just enough doubt that your post was for real. If you were exposed as a troll it was game over. The best ones were posts that people discussed very seriously at great length for many many pages. So trolling was not necessarily being belligerant or obstructive. El vee is not a troll. As someone above pointed out, he's a crank.

The concern troll phenomenon we see on the political blogs is more in keeping with the internet traditionsl of trolling, imo.

Regards.

I've been accused of being a troll now and again, but that's just because I just want to squirt out whatever pops into my head, without thinking about it too much, or interacting with peop, which doesn't work so good in blogs with relatively few commenters, especially if the blogger wants to participate in the comments himself.

So, no, I don't consider myself a troll.

By the way, Ezra's an idiot.

Other than a few, most of those above have no idea what trolling really is.

Here's a troll/satire.

Here's another one:

peekURL.com/zabkfbv

One will note the replies. Others who've done better jobs have gotten thousands of replies over months.

Continuing the schooling, here's another one. Note the comments.

troll:

Republican with a keyboard and a limited level of wit.

Oh, and about trolling...in the dark ages it used to be a more honorable passtime.

Floyd Alvis Cooper.

Haha, the /b/ guys. Man, they have hounded teenage girls into madness sometimes.... or it's all a ridiculous joke.

It's frickin' hillarious and also frickin' sick at the same time.

Example:
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Zoe_Kimball

Note: The above link is rated R for Repulsive... or at least it should be!

You've been warned!

Floyd Alvis Cooper.

Not quite up to Usenet standards, but nothing is these days. Usenet trolls had killfiles to contend with. Though the varieties of web comments troll oughtn't really to be treated as the same species.

As for 'TLB', he's a one-note attention-seeking blogwhore who never quite grasps that many years and domains' worth of 24/7 obsession now makes people instinctively treat any comment he posts as if it's lorum-ipsem, and any link as if it's carrying Ebola. 'Devastating' in his own mind, I'm sure, but mainly just sad.

C'mon people, the elephant is in the room. The definition of troll around here is simple.

El V.

Is TLB a troll?

If so then incoherence and bad writing should be part of the criteria.

On second thought,incoherence and bad writing are part of the definition of a troll.

Trolls make no sense. They spew this and they spew that, seemingly randomly, and they just cannot pull it together.

They are disruptive because a good conversation has its own logic. People who try to participate but lack the needed mental or language skills are disruptive.

"They are disruptive because a good conversation has its own logic. People who try to participate but lack the needed mental or language skills are disruptive."

And who elected you arbiter of good or logic? The threads on DK are filled with inaccuracies, name-calling, and typos. Assholes like Dhimini on DK evidence little logic or "good conversation" -- he's a bully like Kos. I guess ban them all.

Weboy-- I like your blogging philosophy, "The Golden Rule" is one of the few Christian tenets that makes a good deal of sense most of the time. My rule of thumb is, if someone goes out of their way to insult me when they don't even know me (in a blog or letter to the editor), it is fair game to respond in kind, if I feel it worth my time. If their insult is beneath the gutter, then they're probably not going to read my response anyway, so I'll just move along...
32 Footsteps--Great typology there on types of trolls!! Is there a link for that information?
John I--Amen,brother!! Unfortunately, these days we are all entitled (or perhaps consigned) to our own set of facts, as well as our own set of opinions, so that makes "violation of community standards" a much grayer area than it actually is, or needs to be.

Actually, proud anon, it's because the right peddles in hatred and demeaning people. Why do right wingers troll liberal blogs obsessively? For the same reason that hate groups and militias grow like mushrooms on the right. Liberals are focused on making the world better, and right wingers are focused on making sure that certain classes of people remain degraded.

Using the highway analogy...

What if the road in question was the one that ran through Nottinghan Forest in ye olden days. The trolls are members of Robin Hood's band out to shake up the priveledged and sanctimonious.

I was going to comment on Amanda Marcotte's post, but I think I'll just point to it and let others judge if this is an example of the thoughtful, reasoned discussion and argument the moderator and others on this blog seek to protect from trolling.

It is a wonder, the twisted rats-nest of pathologies that would compel a person to seek, hell love, being called a clueless piece of shit day after day after day like the dedicated liberal blog troll.

Your daddy didn't love you. We get the point.

Trolling to me is a product of a lot of factors that aren't reducible to simple rules. Context matters a lot. I would also add that the same person can be a troll in one circumstance, but not in others. I do however tend to think of right wingers, especially the online ones, as trolls. They often don't even admit facts that my offline right wing friends freely admit are true, even if they disagree with the solution. This to me is one key difference- are they in total denial of anything that is being said but instead throwing on random statements like a kind of Tourettes. For example, a post is done on Jesse Helms dying as a racism now and totay, and we get to read ad nauseum about Byrd from 40 years ago. It's not trollish per se, but it certainly is a change of subject. If this were not America, I would say that the right and left are equally capable of trolling in other countries. But, because it is America, and the right is so much further right than any other country, and so far outside of the realm of reality (not just liberal or conservative idealogy), but reality, that creates a problem with genuine conversation.

Trolling on liberal blogs or forums usually employ right-wing libertarian-inflected sadism.* I don't know whether they truly are right-wing libertarian sadists or whether they merely adopt these attitudes as most likely to enrage liberals and disrupt the thread.

But I have seen enough right-wing libertarian sadistic comments on politically neutral sites to lose my faith in the human race. Or at least that proportion of it that indulges in petty sadism when they can do so anonymously and reap no social penalty. The question is when such comments become hate speech.

*Sadism: in this context, deliberately kicking someone when he or she's down, and nothing to do with sexual preferences.

hurting people hurt others.

Zickzack - actually, that list is just a "top of the head" listing of the trolls I've dealt with and learned about. I could go into a bit more detail, but I don't think this is quite the forum for me to write that much.

Also, I suspect that there are types of trolls that I haven't run into. To steal a quote, there is more to heaven and earth than is dreamt in my philosophies.

It's clear that we're facing a troubling epidemic, and that these poor cursed individuals need our help more than ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOaS8l5SQrQ