Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Internet Trolls - The negative instigators

  1. #1

    Default Internet Trolls - The negative instigators

    Before giving your reply that this thread is in the wrong section, please wait, I have my reasons. Certain section are potential hives for internet trolls and instigators thus casuing a typical logical posting to go haywire.

    While people may not be naive about forums and chatroom but too often still falls pray to such instigation because of x factor such as ego or anxious to prove. So if you are not aware of Internet trolls (or instigator as I called them), please read about them in this wiki BUT do further googling on them. There are hybrids (even deliberate or innocent) but generally with the same outcome; flame and chaos.

    ** Do not reply to this thread if you are not contributing to the information. ID and internal reference within CS are NOT welcome in this posting as it is a fuel.

  2. #2
    Moderator ortega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Blog Entries

    Default Re: Internet Trolls - The negative instigators

    unfortunately you are right, this has nothing to do with photography
    so thread moved

  3. #3
    Member lennyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Northern California

    Default Re: Internet Trolls - The negative instigators

    Sort of related :

    There's this song by College Humor, that basically sums up what many forums are about. It has some offensive language, so I won't post a link, but if you're interested, search for it. It's called "We Didn't Start The Flame War". Personally I thought it's hilarious.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Internet Trolls - The negative instigators

    Here is another good FAQ and Help against troll.

    From what I see, posting that have many replies can be a potential targets for these troublemakers. People who join the thread may just read the front and straight to the back and ended picking up a troll's reply and that's where it snowball.

    Short quoting (a portion) someone else reply or deliberately bold selective words to instill an altered impression is a problem too. But when you look at the original respondant's text, the meaning is different.

    Fueling- Taking some historical negative info and do direct post or deliberately phrasing words that would attract unwary members into getting negative impression of discremination. Strong ego is also a fuel.

    Tone inappropriately- Different country have way of speech, some very direct. Toning too loosely can cause misunderstanding.

    The sparkler - Both thread starter and/or replying entity can potentially be an instigator. They deliberately write sentence in attempt to create an outburst that will flout the forum guideline. When moderator steps in that is where the debate starts between the left and right groups. Always be suspicious on both TS and contributor, either one can be the bad entity.

    Refueling - Refueling party are those that attempts to keep the outburst on. Their attempts is to overrun the dampening threads as quickly as possible so that people won't get a chance to read it.

    Dangerous trolls - While some entities are just riding on to the tide to enjoy the chaos scene, there are the really bad trolls that will take opportunity to create an agenda, like politics. These are the really bad trolls.

    Noise makers - the entity writes text like chatroom, short and open ended. They make noise trying to distract contributors. They are not consider instigators or troll but potentially a fuel for sparklers.
    Last edited by spheredome; 31st July 2009 at 12:11 PM. Reason: Add information


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts