Help me prove that trolling isn't effective?

November 9, 2007 12:07 PM

Is there any research supporting an inverse correlation between the level of anger in a person's tone and the quality or relevance of their information? I'm sure I read something like that somewhere, but I forgot. Any ideas?

I'm looking for this because, frankly, an internet forum I like has been taken over by a couple of trolls. They're vicious and they post almost endlessly. And, as it's one of the only active English-language forums in Beijing, it's difficult to ignore it. The quality of information and the users have proven essential to the way I live my life here. The has always had its share of vitriol, and it's been fun sometimes, but lately it's become a den of jew-baiting, flamey debates about "the anglo-zionist supermind", and they're in the large majority of threads. And most of what they post is angry, racist, and the kind of writing that really just makes you feel stupider for having read it.

I already largely ignore them, but I'd like to throw something up just to say that really, it's not helping their particular hobby horses (the flamers' talking points are a weird mix of anti-Semitism, neo-socialist/fascist points of view, and rants against white/American racism paired with defenses of China and accusations that most so-called sins of the Chinese state are fabrications of "anglo" racism) by screaming and calling others names. It's an interesting viewpoint, and I'd never really heard of it before this, but I can't see through the violence of the language. These posters seem to be Asian-born Westerners, so, while we're at it, if anyone has links to the founding theories of this kind of Malcom X-ish Asian-American anger, I'd love to see them.

posted by saysthis to human relations (8 comments total)

how would you quantify the anger in a person's tone so that the research would be useful and capable of duplication? one point for a minor obscenity, two points for a major obscenity, five points for an ethnic slur? if the trolls ever learned about this, they might run up the score because they have nothing better to do.
posted by bruce at 12:14 PM on November 9, 2007

There's just general communication-skills models that point out that how you say something is actually more important than what you say, and that the how often obscures the what, especially if the how is hostile or attacking.

But I'm not sure that "proving" anything using logic or reason is going to help your actual situation here.
posted by occhiblu at 12:18 PM on November 9, 2007

if all else fails... drop the pp bomb.

it should only be used as a last resort.

tell them the only reason they are so upset is because they have tiny peepees. I mean, what can they say to that?
posted by Mr_Crazyhorse at 12:26 PM on November 9, 2007

You are assigning a tone to what is actually a behavior. A troll is simply trying to hijack and derail a website or discussion board, and from what I have seen, they don't really care what outlandish thing they have to say or post as long as it keeps the focus on me, me, me. There was one site I enjoyed until some banned person came up with an new screen name and started posting graphic porn that would pop up as a photo. Over and over again, the same graphic x-rated pictures. Why the moderators didn't track it and disable it at the source I don't know but I didn't stick around too long after that. Your trolls are the same--they have found the combination to provoke the reaction they want on your discussion board. You have to ignore them, everyone does. Don't give them the attention they seek and let them wither and die from lack of attention. If nobody ever acknowledged what they said or did, it would stop. Don't try and understand their "logic", they aren't interested in having a legitimate discussion.
posted by 45moore45 at 12:33 PM on November 9, 2007

John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory sounds like it applies to your situation. The anonymity and facelessness of the Internet is a great tool-enabling tool.

Is there any way of getting the mods to ban these people? Or, if the mods are not doing their jobs or, worse, are actually enabling the trolls, you and the rest of the disgusted posters maybe can form a new board.
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 1:02 PM on November 9, 2007

I dunno, these guys aren't trolls posting pictures of pron, and they actually are, at times, capable of intelligent conversation. They're not overtly trying to troll. What they are doing is turning every discussion into a conversation about their particular socio-political agenda. Even conversations about cars, dogs, and visa information. The mods have been getting lots of complaints, but they're particularly lenient when it comes to this kind of stuff. Expats are a bit of an in-group that doesn't like to abuse its own kind, and they pride themselves on being a relatively free board in a country where board censorship opens them up to accusations of being "sympathizers" of the government that brought you the great firewall. And when they do ban, usually the person comes right back with another name.

The peepee bomb gets answered with "you're an anglo-zionist brainwashed zombie and a child molester who thinks you're the king of China because little Hello Kitty girls sleep with you you loser". Every time. The board isn't exactly a home of erudite netizens versed in things like the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory, so a few links to bring to the table would be good, AND would probably motivate the mods to do their jobs a little better. And the more scientifically verifiable, the better. Googling some communication studies stuff now, but if y'all got links, share. :)
posted by saysthis at 1:56 PM on November 9, 2007

You have a fatal flaw in your plan - you're trying to reason with trolls. There is no point - forum trolls do not engage in meaningful discussion or rational debate.
You are not going to change their views or their behavior, no matter how scientific or factual your data.
posted by missmagenta at 3:05 PM on November 9, 2007

These posters seem to be Asian-born Westerners, so, while we're at it, if anyone has links to the founding theories of this kind of Malcom X-ish Asian-American anger, I'd love to see them.

Do you mean Western-born Asians?

Sounds like a bad case of transferred nationalism. Orwell, Notes on Nationalism:

But for an intellectual, transference has an important function which I have already mentioned shortly in connection with Chesterton. It makes it possible for him to be much more nationalistic--more vulgar, more silly, more malignant, more dishonest--than he could ever be on behalf of his native country, or any unit of which he had real knowledge. When one sees the slavish or boastful rubbish that is written about Stalin, the Red Army, etc. by fairly intelligent and sensitive people, one realises that this is only possible because some kind of dislocation has taken place. In societies such as ours, it is unusual for anyone describable as an intellectual to feel a very deep attachment to his own country. Public opinion--that is, the section of public opinion of which he as an intellectual is aware--will not allow him to do so. Most of the people surrounding him are sceptical and disaffected, and he may adopt the same attitude from imitativeness or sheer cowardice: in that case he will have abandoned the form of nationalism that lies nearest to hand without getting any closer to a genuinely internationalist outlook. He still feels the need for a Fatherland, and it is natural to look for one somewhere abroad. Having found it, he can wallow unrestrainedly in exactly those emotions from which he believes that he has emancipated himself. God, the King, the Empire, the Union Jack--all the overthrown idols can reappear under different names, and because they are not recognised for what they are they can be worshipped with a good conscience. Transferred nationalism, like the use of scapegoats, is a way of attaining salvation without altering one's conduct.

Also see:

Obsession. As nearly as possible, no nationalist ever thinks, talks, or writes about anything except the superiority of his own power unit. It is difficult if not impossible for any nationalist to conceal his allegiance. The smallest slur upon his own unit, or any implied praise of a rival organization, fills him with uneasiness which he can relieve only by making some sharp retort. If the chosen unit is an actual country, such as Ireland or India, he will generally claim superiority for it not only in military power and political virtue, but in art, literature, sport, structure of the language, the physical beauty of the inhabitants, and perhaps even in climate, scenery and cooking.

posted by russilwvong at 4:27 PM on November 9, 2007