What is 'trolling' here?

[RedheadDane]

A joke, based on a rider's performance or something else notable, is fine, but continuing to make it long after it was original is to be interpreted as disruptive and incitement to anger for other board users.

Not always. Sometimes - more often than not - it's simply a joke that originated a while ago.

 

[Armchair cyclist]

Absolutely not.
Who decides when the last word in the debate is spoken? Who decides the winner?
Poster A say something Poster B feels need an answer in the same manner.
Where does the 'trolling' start?
With Poster B or Poster A's reply to Poster B?

It's not about there being a winner, it's about civil discussion. Insulting a rider for no purpose other than to wind up those who like him does nothing to establish which of two riders did better on a past occasion nor does it predict which of them will do well in the future. It's like whether Liverpool supporters in 2004-2017 should have been able to discuss on-pitch events in their matches with Man Utd without reference to Rooney's alleged preference for elder women. (I really am that out of touch with other sports that I struggle for a more recent analogy)

Poster A acting irresponsibly does not justify Poster B doing the same: if we can have an agreed standard, then Poster B can report Poster A and putting an end to disruptive posting.

But I am trying to build towards a community consensus here: if not on this line, where do we decide that comments are intended to wind up other board users to the detriment of meaningful discussion?

 

[AmRacer]

It's not about there being a winner, it's about civil discussion. Insulting a rider for no purpose other than to wind up those who like him does nothing to establish which of two riders did better on a past occasion nor does it predict which of them will do well in the future. It's like whether Liverpool supporters in 2004-2017 should have been able to discuss on-pitch events in their matches with Man Utd without reference to Rooney's alleged preference for elder women. (I really am that out of touch with other sports that I struggle for a more recent analogy)


But I am trying to build towards a community consensus here: if not on this line, where do we decide that comments are intended to wind up other board users to the detriment of meaningful discussion?

What's an insult is for the rider to answer.
How do we know if a poster has the purpose to wind up someone?
Which words should be 'banned'?
Or banned in certain context?

 

[Cookster15]

So what do people here consider to be the definition of trolling?
There is one provided to mods (I shall ask @SHaines if I have permission to share it, or he may do so on reading this), and little of what I see meets that definition.

Where is the threshhold between extreme fan loyalty and trolling in the opinion of this community?

Trolling is a subjective matter. Here is the definition I found:

a troll is a person who posts deliberately offensive or provocative messages online

So what is offensive or provocative can depend on who is reading it and the context. IMO, you cannot discuss trolling without also recognizing groupthink. Why should the opinion of this community be sacrosanct? This discourages debate.

IMO, as long as it isn't personal, it isn't trolling.

 

[Red Rick]

A great number of us have demeaned and mocked Chris Froome for ages, and still do. It doesn't cause much trouble, as practically everyone keeps making comments about riders and posts, not posters.

I mean the Froome-Contador fan wars could get heated as well, and I think with Conti having served a ban there was always a lot of Clinic dogwhistling that would get people banned.

 

[bNator]

Trolling is a subjective matter. Here is the definition I found:


So what is offensive or provocative can depend on who is reading it and the context. IMO, you cannot discuss trolling without also recognizing groupthink. Why should the opinion of this community be sacrosanct? This discourages debate.

IMO, as long as it isn't personal, it isn't trolling.

I can’t agree with that at all. It’s true that getting personal can seem uglier than trolling at first glance but then again, at least it’s an honest response. To be avoided, if possible, of course…

But trolling… the problem with trolling is it kills the discussion even more than getting personal. Trolling has nothing to do with getting personal - it’s all about trying to derail the exchange at all cost - sometimes by getting personal.

We can establish the consensus that everything is ok as long as you’re not getting personal. What’s gonna happen is discussions are going to get derailed to the point where every sane person is getting banned by getting personal (at trolls) or leaves the forum which will be nothing but a bunch of trolls, having a go at each other. For a while until they get tired of it. Because trolls need “regulars” to be fed by their naivety…

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

I don't think incessant demeaning comments about riders are any worse than incessant praising comments about riders. The two go together.

No they don't actually, that's just something you are telling yourself to ease your mind and to excuse your own behavior. There is no need to provide a counterweight because somebody else is positive about a person. Imagine working in a company where one of your bosses is praising your work, and that the other boss feels the need to put you down every chance he gets just to counter his colleague because "the two go together". This is not how things work and neither is it ok. It's even offputting when football fans do it, where you in fact do have a "them against us" culture. Imagine two parents showing this behavior towards their children.

What would go together, which is clearly what you are mistaking your own behavior for, is when the same person were both critical as well as positive, depending on the conditions. A boss praising you when you did a good job, and the same boss giving you crap when you made a mistake. THAT would be normal and THOSE TWO indeed go together. Not one parent doing all the praising and the other doing the opposite.

If you can express an opinion, you can just as well disagree with said opinion. Done reasonably, politely or humorously.

Please, tell me, do you think repeatedly calling a cyclist names like "the baby" among other things is reasonable, polite or humorous? It is none of those, trust me. And even if at one point it might have been considered funny, the joke died ages ago. This is also not "an opinion", and people don't get to hide behind that excuse. It's trolling, plain and simple. The fact that you have felt the need to do so for years now, shows that it is in fact personal to you, which ironically is exactly what you like to blame others of. If it weren't personal, it wouldn't be worth your trouble. So since it is in fact personal, the motive is to rile up other posters. Hence, trolling.

And i would like to believe most people would prefer to live in a positive world, and value positivity over constant criticism (and let's be real here, it's not being critical that is the problem). So people being positive should not be an alibi to be able to shitpost.

 

[RedheadDane]

We can establish the consensus that everything is ok as long as you’re not getting personal. What’s gonna happen is discussions are going to get derailed to the point where every sane person is getting banned by getting personal (at trolls) or leaves the forum which will be nothing but a bunch of trolls, having a go at each other. For a while until they get tired of it. Because trolls need “regulars” to be fed by their naivety…

What about the people who neither gets personal (at trolls), nor leaves the forum?

I mean, another way to shut up people who are trying to rile you up - and I know this is something I struggle with myself - could be to just be excessively polite towards them.

 

[Savant12]

"The baby"? Is that in reference to Remco?

 

[AmRacer]

"The baby"? Is that in reference to Remco?

To everyone who hires as babysitter for oneself, e.g. a domestique.

Edit: #freelanda

 

[Armchair cyclist]

Trolling is a subjective matter. Here is the definition I found:


So what is offensive or provocative can depend on who is reading it and the context. IMO, you cannot discuss trolling without also recognizing groupthink. Why should the opinion of this community be sacrosanct? This discourages debate.

IMO, as long as it isn't personal, it isn't trolling.

I started this discussion to encourage debate, which is about trying to establish the consensus, or groupthink if you will, here. Your paragraph seems self contradictory to me.

Your definition referred to a deliberate act: as such it is all about the action and attitude of the writer, and is not dependent on the reader. Even if nobody ever read it, it would be written as "deliberately offensive or provocative."

 

[bNator]

What about the people who neither gets personal (at trolls), nor leaves the forum?

I mean, another way to shut up people who are trying to rile you up - and I know this is something I struggle with myself - could be to just be excessively polite towards them.

Sure, I was exaggerating a bit. Some will stay and politely deal with the trolls. Maybe, we’re already there, to be honest… But why should this be the target if there are options?

 

[RedheadDane]

But why should this be the target if there are options?

Because this is the better option...

 

[bNator]

Because this is the better option...

But why do you think tolerating trolls is the better option? Do you think the risk of misjudging the situation is too big and some none-trolls are being falsely accused or do you simply believe tolls have the right to troll?

 

[tobydawq]

No they don't actually, that's just something you are telling yourself to ease your mind and to excuse your own behavior. There is no need to provide a counterweight because somebody else is positive about a person. Imagine working in a company where one of your bosses is praising your work, and that the other boss feels the need to put you down every chance he gets just to counter his colleague because "the two go together". This is not how things work and neither is it ok. It's even offputting when football fans do it, where you in fact do have a "them against us" culture. Imagine two parents showing this behavior towards their children.

What would go together, which is clearly what you are mistaking your own behavior for, is when the same person were both critical as well as positive, depending on the conditions. A boss praising you when you did a good job, and the same boss giving you crap when you made a mistake. THAT would be normal and THOSE TWO indeed go together. Not one parent doing all the praising and the other doing the opposite.


Please, tell me, do you think repeatedly calling a cyclist names like "the baby" among other things is reasonable, polite or humorous? It is none of those, trust me. And even if at one point it might have been considered funny, the joke died ages ago. This is also not "an opinion", and people don't get to hide behind that excuse. It's trolling, plain and simple. The fact that you have felt the need to do so for years now, shows that it is in fact personal to you, which ironically is exactly what you like to blame others of. If it weren't personal, it wouldn't be worth your trouble. So since it is in fact personal, the motive is to rile up other posters. Hence, trolling.

And i would like to believe most people would prefer to live in a positive world, and value positivity over constant criticism (and let's be real here, it's not being critical that is the problem). So people being positive should not be an alibi to be able to shitpost.

I completely agree, Netserk only does it to rile certain people up. It's mind-boggling how such an intellectual person can be so childish.

 

[AmRacer]

But why do you think tolerating trolls is the better option? Do you think the risk of misjudging the situation is too big and some none-trolls are being falsely accused or do you simply believe tolls have the right to troll?

Who's a troll is extremely subjective.

 

[RedheadDane]

But why do you think tolerating trolls is the better option? Do you think the risk of misjudging the situation is too big and some none-trolls are being falsely accused or do you simply believe tolls have the right to troll?

This!

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

I completely agree, Netserk only does it to rile certain people up. It's mind-boggling how such an intellectual person can be so childish.

It's especially mind boggling how this crap has been deemed passable by moderation and administration for years.
I do have to warn you, because my last ban was given because i told another poster he was childish. So you might want to edit your message.

 

[Red Rick]

It may have had to do with the fact that one type of post is about riders, and one type of post is about other posters.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

It may have had to do with the fact that one type of post is about riders, and one type of post is about other posters.

It may have to do with previous moderators not understanding what trolling is, regardless of the subject.

 

[red_flanders]

What is the goal of this discussion? To define trolling to a point where we have something approaching a consensus? Zero chance. The internet's been around for a while now and no one's done it before. It's good to have it, but the goal should just be an airing out of the topic.

Broad principles can be agreed upon, and rules can be made. And trolls will skirt the edges of such rules so as to rarely run afoul of the moderation. It's literally the definition of trolling. If trolling were always obvious and if there were any rules which made it impossible to do, it wouldn't exist.

Trolling isn't done by total idiots, those get booted immediately. Trolling is by definition done by people with some brains, who simply have decided to use their powers for evil. Trolling lives in the grey area around the rules. So it's a nice discussion to have, but no set of rules or principles are going to solve it here.

Posters can and should:

• Ignore it. Any public response gives the troll what they want and derails the thread more than the trolling.
• Report it, particularly repeat offenses.
• Realize you will not always be satisfied with the moderators' response. Tough ***, move on. Grow up or become a mod.
• If you must have the world know that you're not gonna take it anymore...criticize the content, not the person. But this choice is a fail. Every. Single. Time.

 

[AmRacer]

If you must have the world know that you're not gonna take it anymore...criticize the content, not the person. But this choice is a fail. Every. Single. Time.

This, I agree with. Person in this context is us, not the riders.

If we are going to report posts we don't like, the mods will be overwhelmed.
.
I never report posts and my ignore list is always empty.

 

[red_flanders]

This, I agree with. Person in this context is us, not the riders.

If we are going to report posts we don't like, the mods will be overwhelmed.
.
I never report posts and my ignore list is always empty.

"Posts we don't like" isn't the bar. Trolling, particularly repeated trolling is what I suggested.

If you never report posts, no problem. If you never report trolling posts and engage with them in the public forum, problem. I don't love it either, it is the opposite of how I deal with issues IRL, by dealing directly with the person involved. But this is the internet, with all the attendant issues of anonymity and a lack of in-person cues. On a forum any public response feeds the troll and makes you the problem. Sucks, but no getting around it.

I also don't have anyone on my ignore list. Seems silly. Scrolling works.

 

[RedheadDane]

I never report posts and my ignore list is always empty.

Well, I report the very obviously spammers.
You know the ones? Posts really long walls-of-text, Latin letters optional.

My main problem with the ignore function (apart from the one you have build into your brain), is that people can be really annoying in some contexts, but perfectly reasonable in others.

 

[AmRacer]

"Posts we don't like" isn't the bar. Trolling, particularly repeated trolling is what I suggested.

If you never report posts, no problem. If you never report trolling posts and engage with them in the public forum, problem. I don't love it either, it is the opposite of how I deal with issues IRL, by dealing directly with the person involved. But this is the internet, with all the attendant issues of anonymity and a lack of in-person cues. On a forum any public response feeds the troll and makes you the problem. Sucks, but no getting around it.

I also don't have anyone on my ignore list. Seems silly. Scrolling works.

I don't know what trolling is and I reply on those posts I want to.

Who's trolling is highly subjective.