Let’s Get It Straight On Trolling

[Shulem]

Thanks for that, Philo. We can disagree without being disagreeable.

Your little platitudes mean nothing. You're still the board Troll.

[MG 2.0]

I feel bad that some folks are so 'set off' by the OP. Ultimately, however, I think it's good to get things out in the open. For better or for worse.

I've made my feelings/reasonings pretty clear. It's obvious that others are not going to be on the same page. I can understand that.

It's important to me that others know where I stand on principle. I'm definitely getting some blowback. Whew!

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

But seriously, folks. The OP is odd on several counts. The first is that the OP is, itself, a troll. Oddly, it omits the essence of what constitutes a troll: the intent to provoke a reaction. But I suppose it doesn't have to mention this essence, because it is this essence. It exists purely to provoke responses.

We can tell because it contains none of the requirements necessary for addressing a trolling problem. First, it doesn't identify any person who is trolling -- it hints in a cutesy, provoking manner. Second, it doesn't identify any specific instance of trolling. Third, it doesn't make a request of the only people who are empowered to address trolling -- rather, it publicly pronounces that certain unidentified people should be banned because of unidentified posts.

But the thing that makes this OP clearly a troll is the poster's statement that he will just sit back and watch all the ants he's provoked scurry around in response to his provocative post. That's exactly the troll's MO.

I think we should take the OP for what it is: a parody of the author's many other trolling OPs. Bravo, MG.

OK. I probably should respond to this post. By the way, hi Res Ipsa. My intent has been to recognize and show a pattern of what is defined as trolling behavior. My intent is NOT to initiate a 'trolling exercise' to get everyone worked up. Although I expected a few to do so. I didn't want to name specific posters explicitly although it shouldn't be hard to tell who I'm referring to. That devolves into public shaming which I am hesitant to do knowing how it feels on the other end.

Hi MG. I hope you and yours are well.

Ok, but what you intended bears little resemblance to what I read in the OP. If you want to show patterns, you have to cite a bunch of examples and have to show how they fit a pattern. You didn’t cite a single example, let alone enough to show a pattern.

And you never defined the pattern you were attempting to show. You threw a bunch of terms out that have some relevance to trolling, but never used them to define the pattern you were attempting to show. Some of the terms you threw out have nothing to do with our situation here. Like Wikistalking. We aren’t a wiki. Or sealioning. There are folks who sealion here, but that’s not what the people who annoy you do.

And as far as public shaming, it’s self contradictory to say that we all know who you’re talking about but that you don’t want to publicly shame them. Public shaming is exactly what you did. I’m mean, you publicly called for banning them. Can’t be much more shaming than that.

So, I get what you say you intended to do. I just don’t see any evidence of it. That’s why I went with parody.

Yes, I did intend to provoke some kind of reaction. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the reaction was more or less what I expected. No acceptance of any responsibility from those that I would consider to be trolls. Any strongly worded OP on this forum is basically created to get a response. I wanted to create a dialogue as to whether or not there has been an ongoing pattern of trolling by certain posters by laying out the patterns/behaviors that would be expected. And as expected, little or no response there. I guess I was hoping to be surprised.

Let’s see. You intended to provoke a reaction. You correctly predicted the reaction you got. And you’re somehow disappointed? You know the definition of insanity, right?

This isn’t an inspirational Book of Mormon story. When you call people to repentance, they aren’t going to fall down on their knees and confess their sins to you. And you don’t need them to. We all know trolling when we see it. When someone trolls you, we don’t need them to admit it in order to recognize it. So what’s the point other than public shaming?

You’re discounted that, once again, people won’t discuss a topic the way you want them to. That’s something you’re just going to have to get over. People talk about what they want to talk about. You can’t control that. That’s not unique to you. We’ve all tried to raise an aspect of a topic that we wanted to discuss in a certain way, only to find that no one else is interested in doing so. Either the topic starves for lack of interest or it rockets off in an unplanned direction. You can either take your marbles and go home or go with the flow. But you can’t make people say what you want them to say.

Disagreement with my direct approach to an ongoing problem that I've observed is fair. You're free to think that I have approached this subject in a clumsy, unhelpful, or annoying way. I would disagree with you, however, that this thread and its opening OP and my other supporting comments are "clearly" trolling. I realize you're trying to put the onus/load back on me. I can think of reasons why you might do that. You gave your interpretation of what I've attempted to do in this thread...I'm simply telling you that it doesn't match my intent.

I don’t have to put the onus back on you. It always was on you to make your point. Of you weren’t trying to troll, then I’d say you were lazy about making your point. Defining and establishing patterns takes work, and you didn’t put in the work. That’s why it reads like trolling (most trolling is low effort).

At the end of the day I believe that what I have presented has validity and truth to it. I also realize that some of the very things I've mentioned trolls will do have been seen in operation in this thread. More so, however, in other threads. I think some people have intentionally stayed away from falling into any of the 'troll traps' I've described purposefully during this thread so far.

One can/might think of reasons why.

This is one of your typical trolling efforts. It’s passive-aggressive trolling. You don’t actually accuse other posters of something — you just insinuate it. Some may rise to your bait simply because you are intentionally imprecise about the negative inference you are drawing.

It may well be that this OP and my comments were a waste of time and nothing will come of it other than more of the same.

Unfortunate, in my opinion. Troll like technique and follow through actions and words are what keep this forum and 'echo chamber' with little room for alternate opinions and ideas. It's been that way for a long time. Trolling doesn't help. It's actually pretty hard to fight against.

Trolling has nothing to do with echo chambers. Trolling doesn’t express a point of view. It’s a tactic to irritate, annoy and get an emotional rose out of someone. It is hard to fight against because there’s no there there - nothing substantive to push back against. That’s why, on the individual level, blocking and ignoring are your friends. It won’t stop the trolls, but it will stop you from being trolled.

I'll hand the trolls that much.

My two cents.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

OK. I probably should respond to this post. By the way, hi Res Ipsa. My intent has been to recognize and show a pattern of what is defined as trolling behavior. My intent is NOT to initiate a 'trolling exercise' to get everyone worked up. Although I expected a few to do so. I didn't want to name specific posters explicitly although it shouldn't be hard to tell who I'm referring to. That devolves into public shaming which I am hesitant to do knowing how it feels on the other end.

Hi MG. I hope you and yours are well.

Ok, but what you intended bears little resemblance to what I read in the OP. If you want to show patterns, you have to cite a bunch of examples and have to show how they fit a pattern. You didn’t cite a single example, let alone enough to show a pattern.

And you never defined the pattern you were attempting to show. You threw a bunch of terms out that have some relevance to trolling, but never used them to define the pattern you were attempting to show. Some of the terms you threw out have nothing to do with our situation here. Like Wikistalking. We aren’t a wiki. Or sealioning. There are folks who sealion here, but that’s not what the people who annoy you do.

And as far as public shaming, it’s self contradictory to say that we all know who you’re talking about but that you don’t want to publicly shame them. Public shaming is exactly what you did. I’m mean, you publicly called for banning them. Can’t be much more shaming than that.

So, I get what you say you intended to do. I just don’t see any evidence of it. That’s why I went with parody.

Yes, I did intend to provoke some kind of reaction. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the reaction was more or less what I expected. No acceptance of any responsibility from those that I would consider to be trolls. Any strongly worded OP on this forum is basically created to get a response. I wanted to create a dialogue as to whether or not there has been an ongoing pattern of trolling by certain posters by laying out the patterns/behaviors that would be expected. And as expected, little or no response there. I guess I was hoping to be surprised.

Let’s see. You intended to provoke a reaction. You correctly predicted the reaction you got. And you’re somehow disappointed? You know the definition of insanity, right?

This isn’t an inspirational Book of Mormon story. When you call people to repentance, they aren’t going to fall down on their knees and confess their sins to you. And you don’t need them to. We all know trolling when we see it. When someone trolls you, we don’t need them to admit it in order to recognize it. So what’s the point other than public shaming?

You’re discounted that, once again, people won’t discuss a topic the way you want them to. That’s something you’re just going to have to get over. People talk about what they want to talk about. You can’t control that. That’s not unique to you. We’ve all tried to raise an aspect of a topic that we wanted to discuss in a certain way, only to find that no one else is interested in doing so. Either the topic starves for lack of interest or it rockets off in an unplanned direction. You can either take your marbles and go home or go with the flow. But you can’t make people say what you want them to say.

Disagreement with my direct approach to an ongoing problem that I've observed is fair. You're free to think that I have approached this subject in a clumsy, unhelpful, or annoying way. I would disagree with you, however, that this thread and its opening OP and my other supporting comments are "clearly" trolling. I realize you're trying to put the onus/load back on me. I can think of reasons why you might do that. You gave your interpretation of what I've attempted to do in this thread...I'm simply telling you that it doesn't match my intent.

I don’t have to put the onus back on you. It always was on you to make your point. Of you weren’t trying to troll, then I’d say you were lazy about making your point. Defining and establishing patterns takes work, and you didn’t put in the work. That’s why it reads like trolling (most trolling is low effort).

At the end of the day I believe that what I have presented has validity and truth to it. I also realize that some of the very things I've mentioned trolls will do have been seen in operation in this thread. More so, however, in other threads. I think some people have intentionally stayed away from falling into any of the 'troll traps' I've described purposefully during this thread so far.

One can/might think of reasons why.

This is one of your typical trolling efforts. It’s passive-aggressive trolling. You don’t actually accuse other posters of something — you just insinuate it. Some may rise to your bait simply because you are intentionally imprecise about the negative inference you are drawing.

It may well be that this OP and my comments were a waste of time and nothing will come of it other than more of the same.

Unfortunate, in my opinion. Troll like technique and follow through actions and words are what keep this forum and 'echo chamber' with little room for alternate opinions and ideas. It's been that way for a long time. Trolling doesn't help. It's actually pretty hard to fight against.

Trolling has nothing to do with echo chambers. Trolling doesn’t express a point of view. It’s a tactic to irritate, annoy and get an emotional rose out of someone. It is hard to fight against because there’s no there there - nothing substantive to push back against. That’s why, on the individual level, blocking and ignoring are your friends. It won’t stop the trolls, but it will stop you from being trolled.

I'll hand the trolls that much.

My two cents.

Regards,
MG

I appreciate your input and thoughts, Res Ipsa. I hope all is well with you and yours also.

We obviously see things differently. In my estimation the patterns of behavior and trollish behavior have been self evident over time. Otherwise I wouldn't have taken the time and effort to bring it to the forefront.

I do think that in one way or another the troll techniques I've mentioned earlier are and have been an ongoing problem.

I suppose we will have to set our differing opinions and what counts as evidence on the table.

I realize that as a lawyer you will have different standards of argument and requirements for evidence than I do. I'm comfortable with what I've presented and the way in which I did so.

I'll have to live with that and will leave it there.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

There really is nothing new under the sun. In this thread, Mentalgymnast is attempting another one of his 'projection' trolling techniques, just as he has for years. There are so many examples of this; here's just one example from late last year:

I do think that there may (I've already said this) be folks who have a problem with actually seeing their 'out of context' contributions/information challenged with any kind of frequency and accuracy. That IS possible to do with AI if it is curated carefully and with precision.

Again, not what I was talking about - at all.

That's how he turns a thread to himself. This particular strategy is one has used quite a bit, of late. He takes what others have said about him (for example, the bolded, above) and turns it around say others (as a group) specifically do exactly what he does. It's a bizarre form of projection, but entirely in keeping with my trolling theory.

That's exactly what he's attempting in this thread, another use of this weird projection technique as he tries to troll the board. He's spent decades here, moving from one strategy to another, desperate for attention. He can't survive without trolling, but hating a group of people that much has to take its toll, even on trolls.

[Limnor]

I feel bad that some folks are so 'set off' by the OP.

I don’t believe you.

[Shulem]

I feel bad that some folks are so 'set off' by the OP. Ultimately, however, I think it's good to get things out in the open. For better or for worse.

I've made my feelings/reasonings pretty clear. It's obvious that others are not going to be on the same page. I can understand that.

It's important to me that others know where I stand on principle. I'm definitely getting some blowback. Whew!

DO IT IN THE APPROPRIATE FORUM. YOU PROMISED SHADES YOU'D KEEP THE RULES

5. If you wish to start a thread having nothing to do with Mormonism, do so only in the Spirit Paradise Forum or the Spirit Prison Forum. That's what they're there for.

[Shulem]

I feel bad that some folks are so 'set off' by the OP.

I don’t believe you.

Nor I. He's a liar.

[Limnor]

This isn’t an inspirational Book of Mormon story. When you call people to repentance, they aren’t going to fall down on their knees and confess their sins to you. And you don’t need them to. We all know trolling when we see it. When someone trolls you, we don’t need them to admit it in order to recognize it.

I see board responses to MG like this: if attempts to engage are met with MG-style obfuscation, derailment, or constant reframing, some here tend to shift modes—myself included. Instead of continuing to chase the argument, satire or parody is used as an attempt to reflect the pattern back to MG. Who then either sincerely or deliberately misunderstands and turns it into an accusation like we’re seeing in this thread.

For example, when a claim is made and then redefined mid-discussion, or when a direct question is either ignored or adjusted, it creates a moving target. For my part, unapologetically mirroring the pattern is just a way to demonstrate what is happening and reflects recognition of the futility of trying to sustain actual engagement with someone who doesn’t really want to engage to understand.

[Shulem]

prevents this becoming an echo chamber.

I might add that the board becoming an echo chamber is proof that its success has flowered into greatness because the apologists are not coming here to take us on because they know we will beat them up. Imagine if a group of apologists came here to discuss the Book of Abraham. What do you think would happen if I, you, Vogel, and others were to refute their arguments?

So, the echo chamber is a badge of success! We did it. We prevailed.

We win.

We won.