Random Thoughts on the Fine Art of Trolling
Aug 22, 2013 23:13:33 GMT -8
Post by Admin on Aug 22, 2013 23:13:33 GMT -8
First a word from our sponsors: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hh_shsRfXqk
What is Trolling? At it's simplest: going somewhere unwelcome and provoking a reaction.
Crude trolling is easily done with profanity and outrageous imagery. Goatze forever defined this type of trolling at it's extreme.
Some troll for lulz, harmless pranksters poking fun at sacred cows. In many ways this was the mentality behind the blog "Save Kboo From Save Kboo".
But there's also "informative" or "educational" trolling, going somewhere you know or suspect you aren't welcome to post information to embarrass, shame or educate. Several messages are sent: that a greater audience is aware of the organization's transgressions, and the subtext of consequences waiting in the wings. Members with no information besides what they've been told might for the first time see the organization in a different perspective.
Many people don't consider this trolling at all, but to successfully pull it off takes a similar mindset: detached calm, focus on discrepancies in facts, and playfulness. Because the word "Troll" can be subjective, and a controlling group will see any attempt to undermine it's agenda as "trolling", one must accept any attempts to educate members of that group will be perceived as intentional disruption. And they're right, the goal is to disrupt their stranglehold on the flow of information to their followers. Unfortunately the most direct way to speak to their followers is on their own social media sites.
It's not for everyone. But, unlike hacking websites and phishing people's Google accounts, trolling is a legal activity, provided nothing posted rises to legally actionable offenses (credible threats, personal details, requests to hack websites...).
Then there is retaliation trolling, when all reasonable avenues have been exhausted and the target has earned punishment for gross hubris.
An example can been seen here, in response to Tommy "Hollywood" Hood's phishing attempt:
savekboo.org/2013/08/04/board-election-approaches/
Troll and trollish tactics tend to draw out the worst in controlling groups. Why?
1.They take themselves too seriously. Theresa Mitchell was clearly using every spare moment of her free time spamming PIMC with the non news that Fitch was evil incarnate and the worst threat to KBOO since the last threat. (Becky Chiao? Arthur Davis?) Her rhetoric was over the top, clearly calculated to elicit emotional, not rational, responses. The only shocking thing about people mocking her is it didn't happen sooner.
Nonetheless, Mitchell and her supporters were surprised at the backlash of lulz, and tried to claim mocking her material was a personal attack. (See Cults for more on how criticism is always seen as attacks) A reasonable response would be to examine their tactics and see what was being mocked, why and if they could do better presenting their message, which frankly sucked. Instead they chose the fail strategy of all controlling groups and the second reason troll tactics draw out the worst....
2. To protect their self image as a wonderful organization they must lie to their followers. Controlling groups seem to be incapable of admitting they might be wrong about anything. To keep their followers, they have to bend the truth or outright lie. Of course to outside observers this is more ammunition to be used and proof some, if not all, of their criticisms are correct. Proof of these lies and misrepresentations put the controlling group in a PR death spiral, where every defensive action reveals more and more of their character. But still they're not ready to call "UNCLE". They're next tactic is...
3.Find a scapegoat. Someone is to blame for losing control of the message. Outside forces are working against them. A conspiracy world view can help if followers are conditioned to blame the Gubmint for everything. Failing that dissenters are rounded up(figuratively speaking) and interrogated. At no point are the criticisms addressed. These activities lead to a pathological obsession with a nebulous enemy, which to be fair isn't helped by anonymous blogs. But a group of level headed adults would never have fallen into this quagmire, having answered the damn questions a long time ago, that were asked by non-anonymous people in the first place. The group only has itself to blame when their retaliation against whistlebloweers forces future critics to stay anonymous.
4.Failing to find an effective scapegoat, engage in increasingly more risky behavior until it is impossible to ignore the fact the controlling group has lost touch with reality and is a menace to the community.
5.EPIC LULZ
In short, mocking behavior deserving of mockery is a test of a group's sanity:
Can members see a stupid action was stupid, "yeah that was pretty dumb" and change their behavior?
Or do they defend the indefensible, with increasingly irrational and shrill arguments?: "Hacking can be legal! I was doing journalism! I'll kill myself before apologizing to members I harassed!"
The first group, responding reasonably, will get poked at for fun a bit longer, then the matter will drop.
But the second group , once exposed as a collection of insane nuts, has marked themselves for "downsizing" by the community at large.
And perpetual lulz. Can't forget that.
What is Trolling? At it's simplest: going somewhere unwelcome and provoking a reaction.
Crude trolling is easily done with profanity and outrageous imagery. Goatze forever defined this type of trolling at it's extreme.
Some troll for lulz, harmless pranksters poking fun at sacred cows. In many ways this was the mentality behind the blog "Save Kboo From Save Kboo".
But there's also "informative" or "educational" trolling, going somewhere you know or suspect you aren't welcome to post information to embarrass, shame or educate. Several messages are sent: that a greater audience is aware of the organization's transgressions, and the subtext of consequences waiting in the wings. Members with no information besides what they've been told might for the first time see the organization in a different perspective.
Many people don't consider this trolling at all, but to successfully pull it off takes a similar mindset: detached calm, focus on discrepancies in facts, and playfulness. Because the word "Troll" can be subjective, and a controlling group will see any attempt to undermine it's agenda as "trolling", one must accept any attempts to educate members of that group will be perceived as intentional disruption. And they're right, the goal is to disrupt their stranglehold on the flow of information to their followers. Unfortunately the most direct way to speak to their followers is on their own social media sites.
It's not for everyone. But, unlike hacking websites and phishing people's Google accounts, trolling is a legal activity, provided nothing posted rises to legally actionable offenses (credible threats, personal details, requests to hack websites...).
Then there is retaliation trolling, when all reasonable avenues have been exhausted and the target has earned punishment for gross hubris.
An example can been seen here, in response to Tommy "Hollywood" Hood's phishing attempt:
savekboo.org/2013/08/04/board-election-approaches/
Troll and trollish tactics tend to draw out the worst in controlling groups. Why?
1.They take themselves too seriously. Theresa Mitchell was clearly using every spare moment of her free time spamming PIMC with the non news that Fitch was evil incarnate and the worst threat to KBOO since the last threat. (Becky Chiao? Arthur Davis?) Her rhetoric was over the top, clearly calculated to elicit emotional, not rational, responses. The only shocking thing about people mocking her is it didn't happen sooner.
Nonetheless, Mitchell and her supporters were surprised at the backlash of lulz, and tried to claim mocking her material was a personal attack. (See Cults for more on how criticism is always seen as attacks) A reasonable response would be to examine their tactics and see what was being mocked, why and if they could do better presenting their message, which frankly sucked. Instead they chose the fail strategy of all controlling groups and the second reason troll tactics draw out the worst....
2. To protect their self image as a wonderful organization they must lie to their followers. Controlling groups seem to be incapable of admitting they might be wrong about anything. To keep their followers, they have to bend the truth or outright lie. Of course to outside observers this is more ammunition to be used and proof some, if not all, of their criticisms are correct. Proof of these lies and misrepresentations put the controlling group in a PR death spiral, where every defensive action reveals more and more of their character. But still they're not ready to call "UNCLE". They're next tactic is...
3.Find a scapegoat. Someone is to blame for losing control of the message. Outside forces are working against them. A conspiracy world view can help if followers are conditioned to blame the Gubmint for everything. Failing that dissenters are rounded up(figuratively speaking) and interrogated. At no point are the criticisms addressed. These activities lead to a pathological obsession with a nebulous enemy, which to be fair isn't helped by anonymous blogs. But a group of level headed adults would never have fallen into this quagmire, having answered the damn questions a long time ago, that were asked by non-anonymous people in the first place. The group only has itself to blame when their retaliation against whistlebloweers forces future critics to stay anonymous.
4.Failing to find an effective scapegoat, engage in increasingly more risky behavior until it is impossible to ignore the fact the controlling group has lost touch with reality and is a menace to the community.
5.EPIC LULZ
In short, mocking behavior deserving of mockery is a test of a group's sanity:
Can members see a stupid action was stupid, "yeah that was pretty dumb" and change their behavior?
Or do they defend the indefensible, with increasingly irrational and shrill arguments?: "Hacking can be legal! I was doing journalism! I'll kill myself before apologizing to members I harassed!"
The first group, responding reasonably, will get poked at for fun a bit longer, then the matter will drop.
But the second group , once exposed as a collection of insane nuts, has marked themselves for "downsizing" by the community at large.
And perpetual lulz. Can't forget that.