RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : Please Don't Feed The Trolls

Sunday
August 21, 2005

Please Don't Feed The Trolls by Adam Reed

The troll's long-term goal is to make converts, but in the short term his goal is to get his marks to consider his crackpottery intellectually respectable. His "proof" of purported intellectual respectability is that rational people consider his crackpottery debatable. The only effective countermeasure is to refuse to be drawn into the troll's project. Please don't feed the trolls. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (63 messages)

Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 2:11am

Shit, Adam, they say you're not paranoid if everyone's against you.

While I acknowledge the presence of trolls, et al, I'm pretty sure the sane SOLOist (is there any other kind?) can rely upon their sense of life, their SOL--the ultimate bullshit detector--to weed out the imposters.

I'll concede to engaging the odd oddball in an effort to sharpen my claws but that game soon pales for it saps the strength and needlessly spills the seed of even the most virile SOLOist.

My impression is that SOLO is a very inhospitable stamping ground for trolls due to the high calibre of it's members and the diligence of it's upper echelon.

Indeed, with that hooligan Perigo running amok who would dare troll for long?

Ross

Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 4:32am

Adam,

Thanks for your explication of the methods of trollcraft. These poseurs are indeed cluttering up the forum without honest engagement in debate.

Jim

Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 5:19am

Adam, this article wonderfully complements "Benefactors versus Malefactors." Sanction!

Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 5:35am

I don't think SOLO has a large problem of this kind. And I don't think that usenet groups have withered away primarily because of trolls. I stop using just about anything when something better comes along, and there are lots of more interesting, efficient, and powerful methods for managing discussion groups around now.

SOLO is a group of people, not a website. Before SOLOHQ the same group of people were posting on a yahoo group, before that on the Free Radical's message board, and before that some SOLOist were just having to wait until they could meet in person again to chat. In every manifestation of the group, I've never felt that the S/N ratio was anywhere approaching unreasonable.

Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 6:37am

Adam,

LOLOLOLOLOL...

That was one mother of an article! Funny as hell because it is so true. (Sanction.)

I know of a couple of trolls who probably have my picture on their dartboard. I engage them at times in order to make sure readers understand that their bullshit is not agreed with by those who can and do have valid arguments, regardless of what they say or how voluminous it is.

There is a particular technique to trollcraft that you did not mention that I find particularly mind-numbing. I call it the "I Said/You Said" technique. It is the lazy person's way of arguing and creating volume. (Sometimes it is valid, people like Chris Sciabarra use it in e-mails because they are in a hurry and have a lot of people to write to, but most times - especially on a discussion group - it is just bullshit.) It works like this:

You take a post, especially a medium to long size one, and you copy it, then paste the entire post into the field for creating your own post. Then you slice it up at whim and type in responses to the slices. Sometimes the "quote" feature is used to candy-stripe it, italics, quotation marks or other formats. I have even seen no formatting at all.

Now the responses is where the troll does the dirty work. Instead of responding intelligently to the points raised, they are usually side-stepped, misrepresented, completely ignored with snide comments (like "oh, really?" and other similar smarmy outbursts) or bludgeoned to death with mountains of copy-pasted material. It takes a lot of thought and effort to make a coherent post based on rational arguments, especially on complicated issues. Then a troll comes along, slices it up, gets it all wrong with pseudo-intelligent sounding bullshit and the original author gets the feeling that he/she is not being engaged with rational discussion at all, but being drawn into a contest to see who can get the last word in.

There is another aspect of trollcraft that is highly evident in the last bout I had with some trolls. They disparage your own intelligence, postulate that you do not know, have not read, are just a beginner and so forth. When this fails and it becomes evident that they are wrong, they start calling you names. That is the point where I stop. I feel that the troll has been exposed for what it is.

People also tend to stop reading that particular thread, which actually is my whole point in engaging them.

One sure mark of a troll is when you call it out on axioms. A toll has a conceit that it has privileged knowledge and will be glad to be the guru to share it with all the misguided souls who find reality to be their own context and Ayn Rand's writings valuable. A troll screams, rants, smarms, insults and goes through all kinds of rhetorical convolutions to deny the validity of axioms. They do everything but offer a valid alternative, other than there is some mysterious "stuff" that acts like a consciousness, but you can never call it that, which governs physical reality. They use all kinds of words and arguments, but boil it down and that is what you usually get (about 100% of the time).

The last point of refined trollcraft is jargon and name-dropping. They love to wade through an ocean of "isms" as if such verbiage is proof of their own intelligence, and cite one name after another in the place of arguments. Then if the name-dropping is not enough, they will do what you mentioned and copy-paste long sections, either plagiarizing or sometimes giving due credit.

Every one of these artifices, in addition to the ones you brilliantly mentioned in your article, can be used in a valid manner for good rhetoric (except plagiary). A great example, once again, is Chris Sciabarra's work. He speaks the language of "isms" and manages to reduce them to their essentials in his discussions. (He actually likes to speak Polish...)

But these artifices are excellent smokescreens when they are used by trolls because they give the impression of being rational and having reason-based premises where there usually is only primacy-of-consciousness at the core.

There is another missionary troll I encountered who no longer posts on Solo (almost). His particular agenda is Judaism as being superior to Islam, which he postulates must be destroyed by any and all means. He also tried to redefine reason by stating that it was divinely inspired. He started out stating to me explicitly that he was not Jewish, but thanked me for presuming that he was. Then much later in another thread, he admitted to being Jewish. Soon after, with too many people calling him out on it, he stopped posting altogether (almost). He made a grandstand exit, but I don't think he was moderated. He left because his real premises were exposed and disagreed with by too many posters, not because he conflicted with the owners of the site.

Anyway, this shows that trolls can be completely dishonest when their purpose is to seek converts.

One issue I want to compliment you on. I have seen you state openly that you are wrong on more than one occasion and adopt and assimilate the correct knowledge that was presented. As another who also does this from time to time, I just want to mention that this attitude is greatly appreciated.

Michael

Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 8:55am

Great article, Adam!

I really can't say much more than that I agree with Michael's response to your article. Now, I COULD copy & paste his words verbatim and re-post them under my name but ... [just kidding]

Adam, I would also like to mention -- as did Michael -- that I revere your psychological maturity / intellectual honesty. This maturity / honesty is (proof-positive) instantiated or embodied every time growth is identifiable in another -- such as the example you gave re: Rand's thoughts on relations as entities.

There are few (and, with the trolls: "no") who are so psychologically mature as to openly grow from their engagement with others. You are one of the few exceptions to this rule.

Ed

Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 9:53am

Well, trolls are a problem(?). Now that Barbara Branden and James Kilbourne ("Brandbourne") are gone we can concentrate on them. But the big problem seems to be name calling and that is trolling under a different guise, ingrained in SOLO as an integral part of its culture although most here don't do it and wouldn't be allowed to get away with it for long. Color purple. Royalty only.

--Brant

Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 11:05am

Bravo! Adam. I was initially a bit scared by the length of your article but was immediately drawn to it and couldn't help laughing out loud reading it! Now, here is to the master!

Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 12:06pm

Adam,

You may have a point. These "trolls" may have malignant intentions, and should be disregarded.

In that case, you have crafted a beautiful argument.

Or you could be wrong. They could have perfectly good intentions, and your intention is to move us in a direction of silencing all possible counter-arguments to your own.

In that case, you have crafted a beautiful argument.

But in either case, I really don't need you to tell me what to think or what to read. Your judgments are not necessarily divine and without the possibility of flaw. And so I reserve my basic human right to make my own choices, thank you very much. Or is your intention to take that away from me?

I'm not a herd animal, and I don't jump on bandwagons.

Your suggestions are noted, however.

(Edited by Celeste Norcross on 8/21, 12:08pm)

Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 1:01pm

LOL.

Thanks Adam for a great laugh.

In view of the volume of posting required by the brute force technique, it is not surprising that the master of trollcraft keeps an archive of material culled from the internet over many years, and uses it to troll with only the minimum of editing required to give the impression of having written the material specifically for the target forum.

You put your finger on Grammarian and his trollcraft. The technique of "brute force" is being practiced even at the moment as you pointed out. He just submitted a post 2600 words long and nearly all of it plagiarized.

http://solohq.com/Forum/NewsDiscussions/0939_8.shtml#162

However, what would happen if just for a laugh, we all suddenly posted to Grammarian on that thread- "we all agree with every word. You are a God to us. You have changed our minds!"

If he is a real troll, wouldn't he run for the hills in shock and disbelief? Or even more interesting, maybe he would even take our position against ID in order to continue his trollcraft ;-)

Anyway, your point is taken.

Don't feed the trolls!

Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 1:41pm

Adam,

This essay is reminiscent of the first chapter of �The Fountainhead� where Roark has been summoned before the dean,

(Dean) �You know,� he said, � You would sound much more convincing if you spoke as if you care whether I agreed with you or not.� �That�s true�, said Roark. �I don�t care whether you agree with me or not� �
(Dean) �You don�t care what others think�

Adam, as I said to you once before, there are two kinds of people in the world, those who like to make rules and those who don't. Rules work well for the rule makers, because they get to be the rulers and get their own way. Peikoff is a rule maker, the folks who run Objectivist Forum are rule makers; IMHO your joyless curmudgeonly self would be happier at either place. You have Peikoff�s disease which afflicts one with a penchant for excommunication.

You quote me as saying, "SOLO is worthwhile, because there are no litmus tests." I did say that, but that is not all I said. Your editing was deceptively selective. Not only did you not quote me completely, you failed to discuss the tenor of the post that prompted the remark. What I was referring to was the fact that no subject is taboo, although I lately believe that is only 98% true. I was not embracing subjectivism.

This is probably the most narcissistic article I have ever read and I have read most of Nathanial Brandon. I challenge you to start your own site based upon these pompous edicts. You could even have rules about how long a post should be, no matter what the subject or how difficult the material; after all such considerations merely encourage the untidy. I predict, if you to take up the challenge, you will have expelled everyone within a month or two.

By your own definition, you are a troll of the missionary variety. You posts and news links are tediously, endlessly on one subject: the evils of religion. This is your "missionary position". You are not only a narcissist; you are a misanthrope and militant atheist. I'll remind you again that Rand�s quarrel was with altruism not Unitarians. It is a nuanced distinction your legislatively directed mind may be unable to comprehend; and, when was the last time you were able to �identify errors and flaws in your own ideas and arguments?� 1953?

There seem to be many here who have not read �The Fountainhead� in a long time. �AS� is a great achievement, but the fundamentals are contained in �F�. Solo�s motto is from �F�. Wynand speaking to Dominique says, �Once you�ve felt what it means to love as you and I know it--the total passion for the total height�you�re incapable of anything less.�

Back to this essay, I believe humans can learn from each other, as Howard Roark does from Cameron, but we can not permit others to think for us. We live by our minds and by the vision of what can be, and what is yet to come, not by the musty repetition of what is fashionable, traditional or respectable to academe. Standing against adversity for the rational integrity of one�s own mind is the definition of virtue. What makes a man moral is his ability to reason, not his conformity to the expectations or exhortations others.

I stand for what I believe. I don�t care how popular it is. This is what Adam calls a troll. Although I can be sarcastic I am usually civil. I can/may also be wrong, it�s permitted! I am not immoral as charged by this author, but I�ll not hold my breath waiting for an apology.

There is an African proverb that goes, �When there is no enemy within, the enemies outside cannot hurt you.�

The policy of always pronouncing moral judgment does not mean that one must regard oneself as a missionary charged with the responsibility of 'saving everyone's soul'--nor that one must give unsolicited moral appraisals to all those one meets. AR

Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 2:14pm

This amounts to yet another diversion.

"There seem to be many here who have not read �The Fountainhead� in a long time. �AS� is a great achievement, but the fundamentals are contained in �F�. Solo�s motto is from �F�. Wynand speaking to Dominique says, �Once you�ve felt what it means to love as you and I know it--the total passion for the total height�you�re incapable of anything less.

Back to this essay, I believe humans can learn from each other, as Howard Roark does from Cameron, but we can not permit others to think for us. We live by our minds and by the vision of what can be, and what is yet to come, not by the musty repetition of what is fashionable, traditional or respectable to academe. Standing against adversity for the rational integrity of one�s own mind is the definition of virtue. What makes a man moral is his ability to reason, not his conformity to the expectations or exhortations others.

I stand for what I believe. I don�t care how popular it is. This is what Adam calls a troll. Although I can be sarcastic I am usually civil. I can/may also be wrong, it�s permitted! I am not immoral as charged by this author, but I�ll not hold my breath waiting for an apology."

This is horse shit as usual from Davison. Robert Davison is shifting away from some of the main points that Adam was making about the "missionary troll". Here is one of his main indicators of "trollcraft", and this fits Mr. Davisons dishonest approach perfectly --

If an error of fact or logic is pointed out to a missionary troll, the troll will either (1) ignore the correction, and proceed without regard to it, (2) misrepresent the correction and proceed regardless, (3) divert the argument in another direction to hide and ignore the substantive import of the error that was just identified.

I dare anyone who thinks that this definition does not apply to Robert Davison to go back and look at his last fifty posts on the topic of Intelligent Design. He is totally clueless about ID theory, he is totally clueless about Objectivist and scientific standards for valid knowledge and inferences and he is totally clueless about scientific arguments in favor of evolution and yet he carries on agruments with people who do have a clue about these subjects by diverting arguements away from the point and using petty ad hominem attacks instead of providing counter arguments. His approach to this topic has been totally dishonest and does indeed warrant the label of "trollcraft".

- Jason

Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 2:34pm

Robert,

Perhaps you expected congratulations on your rapid progress from part-time apprentice troll to skilled journeyman in the Craft.

(Edited by Adam Reed
on 8/21, 2:36pm)

Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 2:47pm

Jason,

If you don't like my posts, don't read them. Diversion, diversion, diversion, your endless refrain. What kind of trollishness is that? Ad nauseum?

In addition your quote does not sum up what Adam had to say about missionaries, or did it? Anyway read his essay again since you like it, and tell me what kind of troll repeats himself endless, that is the kind of troll you both are.

Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 2:52pm

Adam,

What the f are you talking about? William asked for quotes and sources. I told him I would only provide it if he insisted that he really wanted to info. He wrote again saying he did, so I provided it. What is the name of Galt is wrong with that?

Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 3:17pm

Robert, you have read most of "Nathanial Brandon?" Shall we Google?

--Bront Goedi

Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 3:35pm

LOL.

Would someone like to start a "trolls forum"?

Where trolls may google one another to death ;-)

Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 4:35pm

MSK:
>There is another aspect of trollcraft that is highly evident in the last bout I had with some trolls. They disparage your own intelligence, postulate that you do not know, have not read, are just a beginner and so forth.

Well, here he goes again. The boy truly can't help it.

If, as he has previously claimed, MSK doesn't want to seek engagement with me, then I suppose he really should stop referring to me every 5 minutes!

Actually, as I recall, I did not disparage MSK's intelligence ( tho I believe the word "ninny" was involved) one-half as much as his honesty.

I challenged his honesty because he insists on attributing beliefs to me (and others) that I do not hold. He does so without any evidence, and knowingly in the face of considerable evidence to the contrary. He's just done so again here, for the nth time. This quite justifiably falls under the general, and suitably trivial, rubric of "fibbing".

MSK obviously feels that his personal popularity is such that he can say what he likes, and will find plenty of defenders regardless of what he says it is true or not. I believe that is what is called "social metaphysics", or what us incredibly pretentious non-Objectivists know as the practice of "logrolling".

Typically, the facts of the matter are quite the opposite to what MSK has presented here. He hasn't heroically "called" me on anything. In fact, it's I who've repeatedly called *him* on what he writes about me and others. For example:

(DB Post 59 - Implied Axioms)
"The only horseshit is the stuff you (MSK) keep spreading. And I'm calling you on it *yet again*. And once again, you'll be unable to come up with a single piece of evidence, and away you'll scamper."

And of course he heroically scampered just as I predicted. And no doubt he will do so again. Because this is one of the few things petty fibbers do reliably!

>When this fails and it becomes evident that they are wrong, they start calling you names. That is the point where I stop. I feel that the troll has been exposed for what it is.

Verifiably, the point where MSK "stops" is the point where I ask him for evidence for the 3rd or 4th time. Of course, he doesn't stop at all. He merely evaporates, only to pop up again on some other thread, saying the same silly falsehoods about me and others. Talk about phoney. The man just does not expect to be challenged in any serious way - friends don't ask friends for actual evidence! - and dislikes it intensely when he is.

Well too bad. In the long run debate is not some kind of popularity contest - quite the reverse. Facts are facts, falsities are falsities, regardless of who says them. If advocating this makes me a 'troll', I happily accept this title. However, in the rest of the known universe it is *the other way around*. Ultimately it is not me who gets "exposed" for what he is, but the likes of MSK. It is not just simple disagreement. It is by now quite clear that he is prepared to fib, dissemble, and fly in the face of the facts, and do so repeatedly - even over something quite trivial. And all the logrolling, smarm and blather in the world can't quite cover up this unpopular fact.

- Daniel

Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 5:00pm

Robert-

What Williams asked for is this:

Robert, can you name of few of scientists who doubt natural selection? I'd like to examine their arguments.

What you gave him were not scientists who doubt natural selection, but quotes taken out of context so that YOU could try and play us for naive and push deception over on us. Scientistific debate about the mechanisms of natural selection is a far cry from doubting natural selection. Do you honestly think Steven J Gould doubted natural selection. No, he didn't. He and Miles Eldredge, who you also quote, believed in what Dawkins would term "evolution by jerks" and your quotes were from arguments they gave against gradualism, NOT natural selection. So were these innocent mistakes on your part, or were you trying to be trollishly deceptive?

Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 5:28pm

Trollism described as Adam has written, requires a lot of work by the troll however.
I would classify trollism as verbal logorrhea manifested in writing. I would also consider more dangerous
The offensive remarks toward Robert than him being a troll.
CD