Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Edit: Clarification. Let's run down the definition, shall we?
Inflammatory: I imagine some people get mad at what I say. I don't apologize for any corrections I make. My intent is never to garnish a negative reaction from anyone else.
Extraneous: As in unnecessary? I would far, FAR consider posts containing "yeah, lol", "First!", and the common slew of others to be "trolling" over anything I've said.
Off-topic: Not often do I fall off-topic, and when I do, it's never for the purpose or sake of trolling. That's just nonsensical.
In the case of 9to5, read the article. No specific article, just any article. People asking questions in the comments that are answered in the article (and which therefore should never have been asked) is completely inexcusable. That often ticks me off.
As to the thread in question (well, likely the one in question), if submitting a pro-Apple reply on a pro-Apple website is 'trolling', then fine; I'm a troll. If that's now the new definition, apparently the only thing I do is troll. Except, of course, the occasions that I make anti-Adobe (for their lack of desire to make usable software at any level; if anyone would like my early take on Superstition, I'd be glad to offer a snippet) and anti-Google (for being outright liars) posts on pro-Apple websites. Apparently, that's not trolling if pro-Apple comments on pro-Apple websites is, which confuses me.
I particularly like ArsTechnica's definition of a troll, and their policies for dealing with them:
"Effective immediately, we are adopting a hard line against blatant trolling in article discussions . .
We are going to give trolls an immediate 24-hour timeout upon their first infractionwith no warning. Additionally, troll posts will be subject to deletion if judged egregious or made by a new account. (Experience tells us new accounts that troll are almost always sock puppets, and those that are kicking off a new account with trolling aren't welcome). What's an egregious troll? Any troll that personally attacks someone else in our community. If you're not bright enough to criticize ideas without personally criticizing individuals, we're not interested in having you around.
If a user chooses to venture into the territory of trolling others, it is their fault and their fault alone for what happens to them next. We will not weep for trolls, nor will we feel any remorse. . .
The requests for increased moderation come from all corners: people complain about Mac fans trolling Windows 8 threads, Windows users trolling iPad threads, and Android acolytes trolling yet others. The takeaway is that trolling is a universal problem and it isn't caused by one topic, one product, one writer, or any single item. Really, trolling is about one thing and one thing only: an individual's capacity for intelligent disagreement.
There is only one person responsible for trolling, and that's the troll. There are no other excuses for it.
Anti-trolling efforts aren't about silencing discord or competing points of view, although the unimaginative troll will always claim that it is. Moderation is about creating a space for intelligent discussion, which includes dissent. But people are not free to dissent in whatever manner they wish. By personally attacking others or making asinine, substance-free posts, trolls hurt discussions. And we hear from too many people on a daily basispeople with smart and interesting points of viewwho won't go into the discussions because of the trolling.
. . . Worried that your inner hater will be oppressed? Don't be. Be as critical as you want. Dissent as much as you want. Just remember that if you start personally insulting others, accusing them of crimes or moral failings, or engage in otherwise mindless behavior indicative of someone lacking a proper frontal lobe, you can and will be moderated. If you don't want to be moderated, it's easy. Don't troll.