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?

Yes. Without people saying outrageous things, there'd be nothing to talk about. For people that post here daily, we all basically know what we're going to say.

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.

 

I actually dislike trolls. Just annoy and frustrate.

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 January 31, 201412 yr by greg775

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.

Trolling people who take themselves way, way too seriously can be good.

Bacon, bacon bacon bacon bacon, baaaaacon, bacon bacon bacon bacon.

 

bacon bacon, bacon.

^ This village is covered.

 

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.

this couldn't have anything to do with Duke now could it?

 

 

And yes, trolls are the worst.

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.

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.

I don't remember this time at all.

 

He means way back when the board was dominated by Kap.

Man, we've had some Grade A trolls 'round these here parts.

He means way back when the board was dominated by Kap.

 

Maybe in Kap's mind...

I don't remember this time at all.

 

Seriously?

 

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

 

Lol, wonder who you're aiming this at?

 

Where is Duke these days? Did he get suspended?

Seems like it's just aimed at the thread topic?

 

I'd imagine duke's on the road.

Seems like it's just aimed at the thread topic?

 

I'd imagine duke's on the road.

 

I'm sure it was, but I thought Balta had also called Duke a pyschopath before.

Duke was banned. HE GONE.

ha, what was the final straw?

Duke was banned. HE GONE.

 

About time. The thing that is astonishing to me is that he somehow managed to stick around long enough to get in 4000+ posts.

About time. The thing that is astonishing to me is that he somehow managed to stick around long enough to get in 4000+ posts.

 

We admins are quite the nazis around these parts.