Biggest Troll on HCGJ?

Cheese Grits said:
That's kind of backwards. If a person is advocating a position they legitimately believe in (and wants to change your mind), they are not trolling. If they are taking a position they don't really support just to provoke argument, that's trolling.
Click to expand...
This is correct, but I also think that being overly argumentative about something you do believe in can be considered trolling. Like that BoneNut guy over at HCGJ who keeps talking trash about Malmsteen every chance he gets, to the point where even the Yngwie detractors think he's going too far. That is also trolling, even though he obviously believes he's right.
 
fanuvbrak said:
This Chlamydia chick or whatever is a troll in that she thinks she can post anything she wants because she's a girl. Or says she's a girl. The embarrassing part is there are 20 guys stumbling over each other to respond to every inane or stupid thing she writes which proves her right.

*spits*
Click to expand...

But that's my gig here... :rolleyes:
 
Cheese Grits said:
That's kind of backwards. If a person is advocating a position they legitimately believe in (and wants to change your mind), they are not trolling. If they are taking a position they don't really support just to provoke argument, that's trolling.
Click to expand...

JJ (from my experience) exaggerates his position for maximum impact. He mostly believes/likes/embodies what he says he does. He just makes himself obnoxious to prove his point. I have at times used the same tactics myself -- hence the Batman v. Joker situation.
 
Yngtchie Blacksteen said:
This is correct, but I also think that being overly argumentative about something you do believe in can be considered trolling. Like that BoneNut guy over at HCGJ who keeps talking trash about Malmsteen every chance he gets, to the point where even the Yngwie detractors think he's going too far. That is also trolling, even though he obviously believes he's right.
Click to expand...

I think I agree, but I would say that offense of trolling requires: (a) an annoying posting habit or style; (b) done intentionally; (c) with the intent to provoke argument or flaming.

So, a complete rube with no social skills who annoys everyone by going on an on about Malmsteen would not be a troll... unless he realized his posting was annoying and persisted with the intent to cause further turmoil.

If the poster really and truly doesn't understand that he's being annoying (say, he honestly thinks he's just participating in a lively debate), he's not actually trolling.

Of course, we judge people's intentions by their actions, and impute to them the ability to observe, understand and reason. Because nobody would ever admit that they have the subjective intent to troll, we presume that they intend to cause the results they achieve, especially where their conduct is a pattern or the particular result would have been obvious to a reasonable person. In some ways we don't even care about their actual subjective intent, because it generally becomes irrelevant to the people being annoyed.

So it's possible to judge someone a troll even if they never actually trolled. I'd argue that it's even fair to ban them for it. You can only judge based on what you observe, and if it walks, swims and quacks like a duck...

Practically speaking, I think we reach the same result respecting most alleged trolls.
 
Cheese Grits said:
I think I agree, but I would say that offense of trolling requires: (a) an annoying posting habit or style; (b) done intentionally; (c) with the intent to provoke argument or flaming.

So, a complete rube with no social skills who annoys everyone by going on an on about Malmsteen would not be a troll... unless he realized his posting was annoying and persisted with the intent to cause further turmoil.
Click to expand...
Oh, this one's quite aware of how others perceive his posting style. His excuse? "Relax, they're just words!"
 
I don't think there are that many real trolls over there anymore. There are a lot of loud opinionated people who never back down no matter how wrong they are.
 
Cheese Grits said:
So, a complete rube with no social skills who annoys everyone by going on an on about his shitty import guitar that he hacked some fucking holes through in order to mount a shitty modelling amp and then insist that it was some kind of genius level workmansthip would not be a troll... just an annoying fucktard.... unless he realized his posting was annoying and persisted with the intent to cause further turmoil.
Click to expand...

Fixed. :helper:
 
Devil is Dill said:
I don't think there are that many real trolls over there anymore. There are a lot of loud opinionated people who never back down no matter how wrong they are.
Click to expand...

Especially fitting since Devil is Dill is a refugee. :grin:

[YOUTUBE]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CnrPP3qkM0E&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CnrPP3qkM0E&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]
 
Sad Navigator said:
JJ (from my experience) exaggerates his position for maximum impact. He mostly believes/likes/embodies what he says he does. He just makes himself obnoxious to prove his point. I have at times used the same tactics myself -- hence the Batman v. Joker situation.
Click to expand...

Ebony...

... and Ivory.
 
Gary Blanchard said:
:cry:

He has, since 1995.

:cry:

Now I'm all verklempt. messedup0
Click to expand...


Sorry breaux.


Back on topic, biggest troll ever at HC was Wayne Vinson because he posted the same shit but everybody (including myself) could not resist jumping in.

If wes_powell didn't firmly believe everything he said then he would be King Troll because that clown inspired more shitstorms than over half the forum did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top