Arguments that take on a life of their own

[Joe Berenbaum <joe-b@dircon.co.uk>]

Jim Brick <jim@brick.org> writes
>You guys are falling into the Oddmund black hole yet again. You ought to
>know by now that he doesn't give a damn about Leicas, or even photography.
>He puts out a ration of "B*** S***" on the list and then sits back and
>watches everyone jump through hoops trying to out Oddmund Oddmund.
>Gobble-de-gook! If you use Eudora, use your filters. 
>Don't waste your time.
>Don't waste our time.
>Suppress the urge,
>Just say no,
>Just push DELETE
<snip>

There is a phenomenon in newsgroups known as trolling, in which one or
more people deliberately post certain material with the intention of
polarising the other contributors and starting a flame-war, or at least
a protracted argument that may have little to do with the topic of the
newsgroup. It is fairly easy to do this if what I've seen elsewhere is
representative; just set up a few people by posting something you know
they will disagree with passionately or feel a need to argue with, and
with any luck someone will express themselves immoderately and they are
then a target for those of the opposite persuasion, who can then point
to how the person has said things in an insulting manner and how can
they attack X like that, what about free speech, how callous, etc etc,
and so it goes on, back and forth, while the person/s who instigated the
argument sits back and have a good laugh. I read with great interest a
web page with a lot of information on the subject and a lot of advice on
how to deal with it; I don't seem to have that url now but a web search
for "troll" or "trollfaq" (which I think it was called) would find it.
The aims of trolling a newsgroup include as an ideal outcome getting
most of the original contributors to leave. An expert troll will
accomplish this objective with a single well-chosen post, the resulting
arguments and insults taking on a life of their own. Anyway, the main
point of the advice that the trolling FAQ gave was- don't respond. The
intentionally induced discord can only occur if people respond to
controversial posts and perpetuate an argument. Like starving a flame of
oxygen- starve an argument of attention and you put the fire out.
  
I get the distinct impression that a number of people choose to stay out
of such arguments because they intuitively realise this is not going
anywhere they want to go. But usually a number of other people get drawn
into it, completely failing to realise what they are getting into.

Whether Oddmund is intentionally "trolling" or not I can't tell, and
would not presume on present evidence to be able to.  

Just to blur things; there are also instances of what I would call
"borderline trolling". This is where someone who may have a valid
interest in a newsgroup (or email list) will still deliberately stir
things up and watch what happens, warming their cyber-hands by the
resulting fire. But that raises the question of- at what point does that
behaviour become deliberate? What if someone really does have opinions
that are controversial, and is genuine in their wish to express them,
and does not desire to cause conflict but merely to spark some
thoughtful discussion? In such a circumstance, might it not be the
argumentative nature of those responding that would be the real problem,
not the genuinely expressed views that start things off? 

The underlying problem, in my opinion, is the very common human failing
of wanting to communicate one's own point of view effectively
(understandable and quite ok) and then win the argument (understandable,
but not quite so ok, as who will end it?). On the net, that desire to
win the argument, to be "right" can very easily run amok. 

I heard elsewhere a useful checklist for responding to things that cause
anger, where one responds only if that response passes three tests; 
Is it true?
Is it kind?
Is it necessary?

Ultimately, it may well not matter what a controversial poster's
motives, conscious or otherwise, are. If the discord and arguments that
follow such posts are felt to be a problem, then self restraint, I
suggest, is the answer in all cases.
- -- 
JB