Jump to content

Does every village need an idiot?


Texsox
 Share

  

14 members have voted

  1. 1. Are trolls useful on a message board?

    • Yes, gives the lions something to feast on.
      4
    • No, they just aggravate without adding anything
      5
    • Bacon
      3
    • Do you mean me?
      2


Recommended Posts

Serious question. Does a troll add anything to a message board? Having a villian works in sports. Whether it's WWF wrestling or hating on the Yankees and Cowboys, having a villian firing up people sells tickets. Does having a troll keep things interesting and cause you to check in and post more . . . or post less?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It depends on your definition of a troll. If you mean someone that just comes into threads to say something stupid, insult others and generally add nothing to the conversation, then no message board needs them.

 

If you mean someone that will play devil’s advocate or disagree on certain points while also having a valid, reasoned opinion that may go against the majority, then that’s fine. It promotes discussion.

 

If everyone always agreed on everything, it would be pretty boring.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If everyone always agreed on everything, it would be pretty boring.

 

I agree with that quote. People in the past have been irate at me, some calling me a troll, for my unpopular take on a few major issues. ... For instance I love everything about Ozzie Guillen past and present. Of course I disagree with a few of his political and society-issue views but I simply love the guy. Because of my "standing up for him" in threads, I was labeled a troll. Probably 90 percent of the board detests him. One percent loves him. But what is the problem for standing up for a manager you think is/was amazing?

 

I also got leveled for my love of Bobby Jenks, Jermaine Dye, to a certain extent AJP and Pods. Many of my positions have been attacked with again, some insisting I am a troll.

My question to you is: Why can't you (if you despise me) accept dissention? My take is that a lot of people want there to be 100 percent consensus on issues. They can't handle the fact some kook out there STILL loves Ozzie Guillen. They want it 100 percent that Oz is a bum or at least a failure. They would rather convince themselves that if somebody loves Ozzie he must be a troll, when in my world, I realize everybody has a right to an opinion.

Edited by greg775
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trolls - meh

 

People who have outrageously non-normal opinions - this can be good, especially when there aren't organically interesting things to talk about

 

In times where there are things to talk about that will already be divisive/interesting to talk about, I'm not nearly as fond of the non sequitur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it depends on the situation, as this could mean a lot of different things, but in the context I think you are asking this question, this is my answer...

 

Whereas some will call someone a troll simply because he or she busts up their group think mentality, I mean, how dare they think differently than everyone else in the village, I think they're necessary even if they're often dismissed as the idiot. Call them the village idiot, the devils advocate, or what you will, but I absolutely think they're necessary to a conversation. Even if their points are invalid and proven to be invalid, breaking that tendency a group has to think alike confines them, which can prevent true self-thought. Even if they make you think, just for a second, they've done their job.

 

I do it often, because I dislike group think "say horray for our side" mentality...and I don't care what the subject is, I'll often find myself arguing against my own actual feelings simply to inject the counter argument into the discussion.

 

I have no problems playing the religious guy in a group of atheists, even if I don't believe. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At it's best the 'buster produces some great discusions. Way back the board was dominated by conservatives. Somewhere around 2010 or 2011 we swung from solidly conservative to mostly liberal. I'm not certain if it was by post count or by the number of posters. I suspect it's more a post count thing. (liberal members post more). As we crossed over, there was a time when I really enjoyed reading the debates. When it was one sided, either side, I lost interest.

 

I wish there was a formula to recreate that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 31, 2014 -> 01:14 PM)
At it's best the 'buster produces some great discusions. Way back the board was dominated by conservatives. Somewhere around 2010 or 2011 we swung from solidly conservative to mostly liberal. I'm not certain if it was by post count or by the number of posters. I suspect it's more a post count thing. (liberal members post more). As we crossed over, there was a time when I really enjoyed reading the debates. When it was one sided, either side, I lost interest.

 

I wish there was a formula to recreate that.

 

I don't remember this time at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In yet another instance of science belatedly confirming what common sense has already told us, a new paper from researchers at three Canadian universities concludes that Internet trolls aren’t just mean — they’re sadists and psychopaths.

 

The paper, published last week in the journal Personality and Individual Differences, surveyed a group of several hundred on their Internet behaviors and personal traits. It found that trolling correlated with higher rates of sadism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism, a certain lack of scruples when it comes to deceiving or manipulating other people.

 

“… it might be said that online trolls are prototypical everyday sadists,” the paper rules.

Link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...