__/ [ Oliver Wong ] on Monday 24 July 2006 19:03 \__
>
> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1300002.NjsF8J0SCq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
>>
>> ,----[ Overvie ]
>> | In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who comes into an
>> | established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts
>> | inflammatory, rude, repetitive or offensive messages designed
>> | intentionally to annoy and antagonize the existing members or
>> | disrupt the flow of discussion, including the personal attack of
>> | calling others trolls.
>> `----
>>
>> This pretty much describes the behaviour embraced, too. The previous
>> definition (as I once saw it) was more succinct and punctual. Anything
>> that
>> /upsets/ (to use the word that stood out) the participants can be viewed
>> as
>> an act of trolling. It's community vandalism.
>
> If someone makes a post that upsets the participant, but it was not the
> intent of the poster to upset anyone, is it still an act of trolling? And
> is that poster considered a troll?
That's a very good point. I didn't think about it. Especially in textual
forums, there is often place for ambiguity, which could offend someone.
> The base question is, how big a role does intent play into this, and
> philosophically, how do you measure intent, or pragmatically, how can you
> measure your own confidence in guessing someone else's intent?
When it recurs dozens or hundreds or time (despite warnings and evidence
through reactions), then it's rather transparent. The troll soon meets all
criteria.
|
|
