What is 'trolling' here?

[Ripper]

This was an interesting conversation to read through.

On reflection, I believe I have sometimes trolled a few folks, albeit fairly lightly compared to what I have seen. While I suspect I mainly have done this to counter what I see as over the top posts on their own behalf (or their own trolling), it doesn't really make it right!

There are some posters who like to post walls of texts exclaiming their beliefs about a particular rider and why they are right and anyone who disagrees is wrong. They also tend to get a bit weird, calling people haters, etc. That tends to be the more prominent trolling I see. And it gets tiresome as it adds no value and it is not debate. I mean, if that was the way they spoke to another person, in person, they'd likely get popped one.

Then of course there are the people that wade into threads of a rider they dislike to goad other specific posters. And I am not talking about back and forth debate (however polarizing), but more comments that just dig in a bit more.

There is always the old truism - don't feed the trolls!

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

But what if your work didn't merit the praise? Negative feedback is not allowed because it is negative? Come on. The more firmly an opinion is voiced, the more firmly those that disagree will voice their counter-opinions. That's how debates get polarised.

It also doesn't help when you have a sub-set of fans of certain teams or riders who interpret everything other than blind, devotional praise as unwarranted tearing down, and also when double standards are applied. For example, you had people saying that it was totally wrong that I voice my (highly negative) opinions of Peter Sagan, but the forum back in 2015-16 was chocked full of posts about how wonderful the man was. But apparently one poster who disagrees was enough to be "spoiling" and "polluting" the forum by negativity. Yet at the same time as that was going on, stepping into the Valverde or Froome threads would see pages on pages of vitriol as bad as anything I was throwing at Sagan and more - but because those riders weren't so popular, that apparently wasn't "spoiling" or "polluting" the forum. Coincidentally, most of the trolling in that particular saga wasn't the "haters" trolling the fans, it was the other way round - Sagan fans continuing to needle me on the subject in order to provoke the expected negative reaction, so that they could shout at me for being negative. It works both ways.

I'm sorry that the polarised debate has come up about a subject you're passionate about, but 3000 posts of "this guy is the most wonderful thing in the world" adds nothing to the forum either, and lovebombing the forum while silencing those who disagree and labelling them as haters only serves to turn perceived "haters" into real ones.

The problem isn't being critical. The point is constant, recurring and incessant mocking, ridiculing, name calling etc. Maybe you should also read some of my posts before making assumptions. Feel free to quote my 3000 posts of any rider being the most wonderful thing in the world. I think you will be sorely disappointed. I think i have posted more critical posts about this guy than all the haters combined. Half my posts are about dumb tactical decisions, not having the right priorities and being overweight (relatively speaking) for instance.

And what you are describing is called gloating. Yes, it is just as annoying, and it is also a form of trolling imho. That's not the same as praising someone you are a fan of. But if you are constantly ridiculing and mocking somebody (and moderation doesn't step in), you shouldn't act surprised when you get your face rubbed into potential successes of that person either. But moderation should try and prevent all forms of trolling.

If you are really interested in a rider, and you want to have an earnest discussion, then you shouldn't only ridicule a rider when he screws up, and then act like a mute when the same rider does something amazing. or worse, talk it down. It would go a long way in making a case that you are not trolling when you are being critical, when you would also acknowledge the positives. If you can't do that, then you have no intention of having an earnest discussion, and then you should ask yourself, why even discuss it at all.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

The problem isn't being critical. The point is constant, recurring and incessant mocking, ridiculing, name calling etc. Maybe you should also read some of my posts before making assumptions. Feel free to quote my 3000 posts of any rider being the most wonderful thing in the world. I think you will be sorely disappointed. I think i have posted more critical posts about this guy than all the haters combined. Half my posts are about dumb tactical decisions, not having the right priorities and being overweight (relatively speaking) for instance.

The "3000 posts" was not about you, it was about the forum being lovebombed. During the peak of Sagan's success, there were countless posts to the effect of "Sagan is amazing I want to have his babies woo!" and "There is no possible way anybody in their right mind could not love Sagan". These are no better for discourse than hate comments because any actual discussion of the rider's achievements, tactics etc. are lost in the mire, and statements like the second one baits anybody who disagrees into commenting.

Whereupon they'd be hit with a barrage of comments demanding they justify their opinion. And then when they do justify their opinion, then they're told that holding that opinion is unacceptable and that they're polluting the forum with their hatred. And anybody who wanted to have an earnest discussion about the difference of opinion couldn't really have a good faith discussion because tempers are already being flared. The amount of times people tried to claim that the only reason I disliked Sagan was the butt-pinch episode - something I'd rebutted several times - only served to extend the situation because I felt like this was deliberately misconstruing me in order to dismiss my opinion as valueless, so I would frequently correct such posts, resulting in repetitive, tedious argumentative discourse for all concerned.

Baiting the reaction from the counter-opinion is just as much trolling as hostility towards the opinion is. It can come in the form of people supporting the positive opinion wanting to bait those who disagree, but it can also be in the form of buddy trolls acting like they're on the positive side too.

Not allowing criticism because you're triggered by it is not a trolling problem - but it may cause one to become the other. If you do get triggered by criticism then you will attract a couple of different types of posts which will have the same effect:
1) wind-up merchants trying to get you triggered which is of course trolling;
2) people who actually could have a civil discourse on the subject but are themselves triggered by the refusal to allow critical discourse and whose comments become snide and angry as a result, but are not actually trolling. You'll likely find these are the majority. On the whole Remco thing, during the 2022 Vuelta I was being labelled a 'hater' after one week for saying that because he'd never finished a GT at that point and the only one we had to that point - the 2021 Giro - had other factors that made it unreliable as evidence on either side, we didn't know enough about his recovery for me to state definitively that he would win the race. Supporters of his were shouting back at me that this was "hate". I could definitely understand if some people who don't actually dislike Remco Evenepoel start to do so if they have to deal with that kind of "discourse" on the regular.

During the zenith of the "Omg Libertine why do you hate Sagan?" "That's not a good enough reason!" saga, I actually stepped away and refused to watch almost any race Sagan was in live because I'd get into arguments in those race threads. I'd watch plenty of them on catch-up, of course, but not watching the races live meant that the immediate, visceral reactions were not as hostile. I never reported a post, but I know at least one person got banned for targeting and trolling me. But, as RedheadDane said in one thread, if I hadn't been vocal about it in the first place, others wouldn't have known it was a "thing" that they could push my buttons on.

 

[AmRacer]

The problem isn't being critical. The point is constant, recurring and incessant mocking, ridiculing, name calling etc. Maybe you should also read some of my posts before making assumptions. Feel free to quote my 3000 posts of any rider being the most wonderful thing in the world. I think you will be sorely disappointed. I think i have posted more critical posts about this guy than all the haters combined. Half my posts are about dumb tactical decisions, not having the right priorities and being overweight (relatively speaking) for instance.

The thing is, you think you are critical. Others think you are posting excuses why the rider didn't perform.
"He could've won the race if...but...or....when....".
"He didn't won becasse he hasn't......"
.
Thats' trolling.

 

[bNator]

The thing is, you think you are critical. Others think you are posting excuses why the rider didn't perform.
"He could've won the race if...but...or....when....".
"He didn't won becasse he hasn't......"
.
Thats' trolling.

I don't think so. That's why you think every trolling is subjective... Because you understand trolling from recipient's perspective rather than focusing on poster's intent. I mean theoretically, it could probably even really be trolling, but it's not very likely - certainly well within the limits of reasonable doubt.

 

[Samu Cuenca]

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

Do you report all of LS's posts?

 

[AmRacer]

I don't think so. That's why you think every trolling is subjective... Because you understand trolling from recipient's perspective rather than focusing on poster's intent. I mean theoretically, it could probably even really be trolling, but it's not very likely - certainly well within the limits of reasonable doubt.

Nope, my last sentence was irony. I still don't have an opinion on what is a trolling post.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

The thing is, you think you are critical. Others think you are posting excuses why the rider didn't perform.
"He could've won the race if...but...or....when....".
"He didn't won becasse he hasn't......"
.
Thats' trolling.

Neither is that trolling, nor is it what i do.

 

[ManicJack]

When a poster has a signature that blatantly wishes to "Get Rid" of a rider whom they incessantly talk about their hatred of, how could you not consider that trolling? If I posted that I wanted to "Get Rid" of Remco, I'd get banned and rightly so.

 

[Hugh Januss]

When a poster has a signature that blatantly wishes to "Get Rid" of a rider whom they incessantly talk about their hatred of, how could you not consider that trolling? If I posted that I wanted to "Get Rid" of Remco, I'd get banned and rightly so.

President and Dictator for life of Club GRORE?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

When a poster has a signature that blatantly wishes to "Get Rid" of a rider whom they incessantly talk about their hatred of, how could you not consider that trolling? If I posted that I wanted to "Get Rid" of Remco, I'd get banned and rightly so.

Calvin and Hobbes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ManicJack]

Calvin and Hobbes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So your admitting that your purpose is to annoy people. Got it

 

[Libertine Seguros]

So your admitting that your purpose is to annoy people. Got it

Or I might just be making a reference to a beloved cartoon strip.

But you seem to have made it your mission to get upset with everything I do or say. It's strange how far some people are determined to go in order to take offence.

 

[ManicJack]

Or I might just be making a reference to a beloved cartoon strip.

But you seem to have made it your mission to get upset with everything I do or say. It's strange how far some people are determined to go in order to take offence.

I purposely did not mention you or the quote on purpose, in an attempt to not make it personal, just conceptual. We can move on. I will admit it that I didn't catch the Slimy Girls reference until you posted the C&H link. Cheers.

 

[red_flanders]

Neither is that trolling, nor is it what i do.

Dude.

Your very username is trolling.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Dude.

Your very username is trolling.

Ok.

 

[scribers]

In here searching for clues on why mou is continuously banned. His posts contain more newsworthy declarations than 99% of the rest of the board. The hyperbolic delivery doesn’t rise to a bannable offense imo. It just makes the moderation team look like they don’t like the facts he’s presenting, bearing out in the races.

 

[Salvarani]

In here searching for clues on why mou is continuously banned. His posts contain more newsworthy declarations than 99% of the rest of the board. The hyperbolic delivery doesn’t rise to a bannable offense imo. It just makes the moderation team look like they don’t like the facts he’s presenting, bearing out in the races.

Clear as day that someone got it out for him. Hope he will be back soon.

 

[ManicJack]

Clear as day that someone got it out for him. Hope he will be back soon.

Isn't there only one mod currently? 🤔

 

[bNator]

In here searching for clues on why mou is continuously banned. His posts contain more newsworthy declarations than 99% of the rest of the board. The hyperbolic delivery doesn’t rise to a bannable offense imo. It just makes the moderation team look like they don’t like the facts he’s presenting, bearing out in the races.

He is continuously looking to provoke - but that (as we have discussed in this thread) is not that easily proven and I doubt it is the reason for his bans. I suspect it's about the way he communicates which is unbelievably rude, ignorant and offensive. Just take a look at how he labelled Scandinavians, for instance. Completely unacceptable in this day and age and I'm far from promoting all that woke crap we have to deal with on the internet in recent years. However, there are some boundaries of decent communication and I have seen this poster overstep them many times.

 

[RedheadDane]

I've just been wondering what's up that weird inside-joke of acting as if he's somehow the Bearer of all Truth.

And, yeah, I'm still amused by the fact that he apparently thought there was anything unusual about Vingegaard taking his wife's last name...

 

[bNator]

I've just been wondering what's up that weird inside-joke of acting as if he's somehow the Bearer of all Truth.

And, yeah, I'm still amused by the fact that he apparently thought there was anything unusual about Vingegaard taking his wife's last name...

You certainly dealt very gracefully with his remarks about the Danish. I would’ve been banned for sure if I were in your place😁

 

[RedheadDane]

You certainly dealt very gracefully with his remarks about the Danish. I would’ve been banned for sure if I were in your place😁

I don't even remember what I did... are you sure I didn't just bail out of the conversation before I got angry?

 

[bNator]

I don't even remember what I did... are you sure I didn't just bail out of the conversation before I got angry?

Oh, that you did, yes… but that’s the whole point - before you got angry…

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

@scribers , @Salvarani, @ManicJack
If you wish to have moderation re-examined, by all means contact @Eshnar (a more experienced mod), @SHaines (the supervising administrator on this forum) or community@futurenet.com.

However, discussion of moderation is not allowed, so no answer to your queries will be presented here. I am as bound by that rule as you are.