Internet trolls really are bad people.

[1clue]

Just saw this:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2014/02/internet_troll_personality_study_machiavellianism_ narcissism_psychopathy.html

I know what I've thought in the past, but somehow having it linked to actual disorders sheds some light on things.

There are two levels that I hadn't heard before:

Trolling has a polarizing effect on discussions, reducing their merit to solve problems.
Trolling exhibits behavior of some pretty serious psychological disorders.


If you think about this, it could be a big part of what's wrong with the world today.

Ignoring forums like this one, let's take a look at politics. I keep wondering why the US congress can never get anything done. I wonder that about other countries too, it's not just limited to one country. Or look at raging debates that seem to be unsolvable everywhere. Who are the trolls?

[QIII]

You are banned! :)

[1clue]

For a long time I figured trolls were just normal people in everyday life, and let out their angst on the net just to blow off steam.

Of course, some of these people have to be really that way in real life too, but seeing an actual study makes a big difference to me.

Particularly, knowing that trolling is similar to real disorders -- and what those disorders are -- could help in framing responses and in dealing with the attitudes brought on by trolling.

Knowing that trolls tend to polarize discussions, maybe people who understand this could resist that polarization somehow? I'm not a psychologist, but it makes sense to me.

[CharlesA]

The anonymous nature of the internet also gives them free reign (until someone bans them), so that's also a factor.

[buzzingrobot]

Someone with a legitimate disorder is unwell, not bad. Bad/illegal behavior, tho, should be treated, censured, or punished.

Trolling in real life has always been there. The net just means we engage with several orders of magnitude more people, and, therefore, several orders of magnitude more trolling.

[1clue]

That's an interesting and valid point, except that I would say that disorder or not, if someone is malicious then they're malicious.

In defense of naming the thread, if you google on it the word most news agencies seem to use is "bad." Not necessarily correct.

In support of your point, many (most? all? idk) people with these disorders can't help some aspects of their behavior. They need help, and the type of help they need depends on the disorder and the magnitude of it.

I guess my point in starting the thread is that there seems to be a pretty strong correlation between trolling and some disorders, and also that the act of trolling (disorder or no) has an effect on the nature of the discussion.

This information needs to be studied, IMO especially by forum moderators.

I can think of all sorts of things that could be done with generic forums, not necessarily just this one.

Forum software might support a trolling count, where moderators have decided that a post is trolling and mark it that way.
A few arguments where things get hot is one thing, does not necessarily indicate a problem.
Ads for this user could point at appropriate help centers or other resources.
Moderators could see the count, and have some sort of standard process for handling trolls with the potential for a psychological condition in mind.
I'm sure there's a lot more that could be done.

[sudodus]

Thanks 1clue,

I will think of this, when provoked by trolls in the future.

[buzzingrobot]

That's an interesting and valid point, except that I would say that disorder or not, if someone is malicious then they're malicious.






If an illness is prompting the behavior, I'm not prepared to call someone malacious. Malicious implies deliberate, controllable, intent.

Frankly, I'm skeptical that illness has much at all to do with trolling, or that it is such a terrible offense. For the most part, it's highly ignorable behavior sparked by human nature.

Discourse on the web is about the same as discourse in a bar at 2 am. Lower expectations are in order.

[1clue]

The definition of malicious does not contain the words "deliberate" or "controllable". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/malicious

The article connects some dots for me. Also, since there is such a correlation between trolling behavior and mental illness, then maybe it could be controlled somewhat and maybe negated by pointing people who display that behavior toward help, and by awareness on the part of moderators and even users maybe the effects could be negated.

IMO there should be no lowered expectations on a forum, especially a technical one.

With regards to trolling being a terrible offense, I'm not talking about a crime here. And most of the discussions on the Cafe don't matter, all they are is people sounding off anyway. But when something serious is being discussed and some troll is on there causing trouble, that's a problem. They degrade the quality of the discussion and they polarize the participants. Surely you can see the need to counteract that sort of thing?

[buzzingrobot]

The definition of malicious does not contain the words "deliberate" or "controllable". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/malicious

Words are words. Or, a rose is a rose by any name, as someone once said.

I'm not prepared to sanction someone for behavior that is out of their control, regardless of anything in a dictionary.


...such a correlation between trolling behavior and mental illness...

What correlation? Someone claiming a correlation does not make it so, Especially since there is no accepted definition of trolling or, for that matter, mental illness.

Besides, even if that were true, why should editors -- moderators, blog writers, etc. -- be expected to be skilled and knowledgable about it? Are they suddenly in the forefront of health care?


IMO there should be no lowered expectations on a forum, especially a technical one.

I'm not sure why a "technical" forum should be exempt from common human behavior. But, this forum is not at all technical.


...all they are is people sounding off...

Most people who post here are likely to disagree.


...when something serious is being discussed and some troll is on there causing trouble, that's a problem. They degrade the quality of the discussion and they polarize the participants. Surely you can see the need to counteract that sort of thing?

Who defines "serious"? Why does their definition count? How does "some troll" cause "trouble"? No one forces anyone to read any particular post. Everything here is perfectly ignorable. As is the rest of the net.

And, no, I don't think anything needs to be done "to counteract that sort of thing?" Folks who run forums, blogs, and any place else with a comment section have the right to determine for themselves how they want to edit their publication, If they want to delete something, or not, more power to them. My choice is to be there, or be elsewhere.

[CharlesA]

Most people who post here are likely to disagree.

Indeed. Most of the trolls I have seen and dealt with are just doing it for the attention or to get a rise out of someone.

[1clue]

Words are words. Or, a rose is a rose by any name, as someone once said.

I'm not prepared to sanction someone for behavior that is out of their control, regardless of anything in a dictionary.


Who said anything about sanctions? I'm talking about gently directing somebody toward help who appears to need it. Sanctions imply banning, that obviously does not work.



What correlation? Someone claiming a correlation does not make it so, Especially since there is no accepted definition of trolling or, for that matter, mental illness.


If there were no accepted definition of mental illness, then mental illness could not be used to escape a guilty verdict in a court of law.



Besides, even if that were true, why should editors -- moderators, blog writers, etc. -- be expected to be skilled and knowledgable about it? Are they suddenly in the forefront of health care?


You're taking this way too far. If your child is coughing up blood, do you take him to the hospital or do you ignore it since you're not at the forefront of health care? If somebody is standing on the roof of a building looking down, do you call 911 or do you just stand and watch because you're not at the forefront of health care? I'm talking about recognizing danger signs which have been defined, and showing people a way to get help.

Moderators are already "moderating" for violations of the code of conduct, which specifically defines trolling. That's why they're moderators. http://ubuntuforums.org/misc.php?do=showrules



I'm not sure why a "technical" forum should be exempt from common human behavior. But, this forum is not at all technical.


So when I'm trying to get a driver working or trying to set up my network, that's not technical? Define technical then.



Most people who post here are likely to disagree.



Who defines "serious"? Why does their definition count? How does "some troll" cause "trouble"? No one forces anyone to read any particular post. Everything here is perfectly ignorable. As is the rest of the net.


All right. I post something to the virtualization subforum because I can't get packets to route correctly. That's "serious." If somebody comes in and is insulting or telling me I shouldn't even bother with virtualization, that is not productive to the thread. If they won't stop, that's trolling. If they make so much noise that nobody gets me help, that's a problem. If I'm trying to get that virtual box working in order to make a living, that's a problem.



And, no, I don't think anything needs to be done "to counteract that sort of thing?" Folks who run forums, blogs, and any place else with a comment section have the right to determine for themselves how they want to edit their publication, If they want to delete something, or not, more power to them. My choice is to be there, or be elsewhere.

And I have the choice to recommend what I see to be improvements.

[QIII]

It is as simple as this: if you cause a disruption, forum moderators will show you the door. There is no expectation that a moderator should have even the faintest clue about the proper method of rehabilitation for someone who is mentally ill. That is not one of the variables in the calculation.

We try to give three strikes here, but sometimes a single egregious strike will precipitate ejection.

[lisati]

What correlation? Someone claiming a correlation does not make it so, Especially since there is no accepted definition of trolling or, for that matter, mental illness.


There's a book I'm aware of, the DSM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disord ers), that goes some way toward defining mental illness. One of the issues I have with it is that what's included as a disorder/illness seems to vary from edition to edition. It can also easily be misused in a way where people are devalued.

[1clue]

It is as simple as this: if you cause a disruption, forum moderators will show you the door. There is no expectation that a moderator should have even the faintest clue about the proper method of rehabilitation for someone who is mentally ill. That is not one of the variables in the calculation.

We try to give three strikes here, but sometimes a single egregious strike will precipitate ejection.


Then pardon me for caring. Obviously I'm the only one who does.

[sandyd]

closed for review

This thread has now been reviewed by forum staff and has been permanently closed.

Note:
That being said, we are not a counseling practice. As is, we have a three-strikes policy to combat trolling.