What constitues a Troll on the Board?

I've been around here (off and on) for a while now (6 years plus more time on ASPD), but I've never been able to put a good definition to the term 'Troll' as it is used here. I'm thinking that a definition of it may be much in the same light as the Supreme Court Justice who said "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it".

So, out of pure curiosity, what, in each of your opinions, is the real definition of a Troll-Tard?

My definition would be multi-part, and any one of the conditions listed below would place someone in the Troll-Tard category:

1) Posts all over the place but rarely if ever attempts to post relevant or insightful comments.
2) Continually takes threads off topic.
3) Likes to trash other members in threads.
4) Consistently violates other Board Rules in their posts.

And as a possible secondary influence, one who rarely or never posts reviews (this one doesn't apply to providers, for some reason ). This one is a bit problematic for me, because I have very few reviews myself. Simply put, I don't get to hobby very often, and sometimes I don't post a review, either because a provider is already well-reviewed enough that I don't see the point, or because a provider has a no-review policy. I don't consider myself a Troll (God, at least I hope I'm not considered one), so I lean towards the 'few or no reviews' being a supplemental condition to one of the four main ones listed above.

I'd like to hear y'alls opinions...

I'd say your numbered list is pretty accurate. I've been known to get in a few arguments with a few special people around here, but I'm also known for being just as equally helpful elsewhere. Some would consider some of my posts to be trollish-- but you'd have a hard time making the pure label of "troll" stick.

Some have taken to considering me a troll because I don't fit their agenda-- I'm fine with that. I don't lose sleep over opinions from those who have never met me.

If you don't know who the troll is - it's you.

Seriously, I think your list is pretty complete. It would be nice to see "On Ignore" counts for users - that would help you narrow your choice of threads to read.

I'd say your numbered list is pretty accurate. I've been known to get in a few arguments with a few special people around here, but I'm also known for being just as equally helpful elsewhere. Some would consider some of my posts to be trollish-- but you'd have a hard time making the pure label of "troll" stick.

Some have taken to considering me a troll because I don't fit their agenda-- I'm fine with that. I don't lose sleep over opinions from those who have never met me. Originally Posted by Grace Preston

Grace, you are definitely NOT a Troll, IMHO, and I for one really enjoy reading your arguments.

Concerning my list above, I've always taken the 'Troll-Tard' tag to mean one (or more) of those things - I just got curious to see if it meant the same thing to the other folks on here.

"MOST" of the trolls on the board openly admit to it. There are a few who try to maintain a serious facade... but most will flat out tell you they are a troll.

Seriously, I think your list is pretty complete. It would be nice to see "On Ignore" counts for users - that would help you narrow your choice of threads to read. Originally Posted by mtabsw

Would it be too big an umbrella to define a troll as someone whose signal-to-noise ratio is less than 1 and approaching infinity?

I've considered posting "Who's on your Ignore List?", but I figured that might start a s***storm, and we don't need any more of those.

Most of the ones on mine have distinguished themselves by their vitriol, rudeness, or misogyny. I don't have many of the time-wasters who never post anything of value, because I don't invest the time necessary to connect their posts with their names and then recognize a pattern developing.

I do encourage the use of the Ignore feature. I have found that life is better when it's applied to those who deserve it.

OP, I've always felt a review of a well-reviewed woman served to keep her in the public eye, so to speak -- without an occasional review, we might forget she's still around. I understand no-review girls, although I have always believed that anyone who advertises anywhere shouldn't balk at having an evaluation of her product made available to prospective clients. But , IMHO, that shouldn't keep you from chiming in when someone posts a query, or from helping a fellow hobbyist out with a PM every now and then.

OP your list is fairly accurate.. i would like to add these 2 items as well:

- trolls are usually very angry and could be prone to violence.

- trolls have no life.. why else would they be trolls?

Would it be too big an umbrella to define a troll as someone whose signal-to-noise ratio is less than 1 and approaching infinity? Originally Posted by Sir Lancehernot

LOL! I love it (especially the oxymoron, intended or not) !!! And I might add, who do not possess a low-pass filter of any kind?

I've considered posting "Who's on your Ignore List?", but I figured that might start a s***storm, and we don't need any more of those. Originally Posted by Sir Lancehernot

I thought s***storm was one of the definitions of Eccie.

OP, I've always felt a review of a well-reviewed woman served to keep her in the public eye, so to speak -- without an occasional review, we might forget she's still around... Originally Posted by Sir Lancehernot

I should clarify my comment. I was speaking specifically of providers who already have many current good reviews. Any provider who has a lot of good reviews, but whose reviews are all months or even years old definitely needs 'review refreshers'.

OP your list is fairly accurate.. i would like to add these 2 items as well:

- trolls are usually very angry and could be prone to violence.

- trolls have no life.. why else would they be trolls? Originally Posted by honest_abe

Very good points!

Thanks for the responses, y'all.

Eh.. I have a ton of reviews, but they are sporadic.. as my activities in Eccie active areas is sporadic and there is zero value to someone with 100 plus reviews offering "review specials". When I am active and not on the "IR"... I do make it a point to hit Texas at least 2-3 times a year to keep my reviews somewhat recent-ish.

When asked if I want a review I always tell people... if they need the PA-- sure. If they want to review just to review-- sure. But I don't "need" them to. There is a certain point to where the need for them just isn't pressing anymore.

Good points OP.

Another couple of additions to those points:

--trolls add very little if anything to the info sharing that Eccie is suppose to be about.

--trolls have circular logic mostly caught in an echo chamber of repeating their bias stance of always disagreeing with certain individuals, so other than trying to bait for a response, usually their jaded opinion stated as fact has no supporting evidence.

--trolls refuse to accept proven facts that contradict their thinking.

yes, and thus trolls present themselves as general ignorant individuals as well..

someone who has a high post count w/ little useful info to share in those posts is just a time waster.

in my hobby opinion, trolls are someone who consciously and deliberately either....
#A. lays in wait to pounce on another poster w/ b.s., name calling, derailing, etc.
#B. lays a trap for others to fall into and then proceeds to do #A.

#A includes taking threads off topic, trashing others, ignoring eccie guidelines. ("we dont have to show no rules")

someone who has a high post count w/ little useful info to share in those posts is just a time waster.

in my hobby opinion, trolls are someone who consciously and deliberately either....
#A. lays in wait to pounce on another poster w/ b.s., name calling, derailing, etc.
#B. lays a trap for others to fall into and then proceeds to do #A.

#A includes taking threads off topic, trashing others, ignoring eccie guidelines. ("we dont have to show no rules") Originally Posted by pmdelites

Those are great points as well.

A few more definitions of a troll:


1. High post count (1000+) and low review count (<20).

2. The posts he does make give little or no intel about the hobby other than to provide the intel of his agenda.

3. Tells stories that he cannot back up with facts mainly to get attaboys/fit in with the clique; a) how great a provider's BCD skills are or are not, yet no review of her on his profile. b) throws out baseless accusations as fact, hoping that his speculative theories will rub off on others so they repeat them too.

Too bad this thread cannot be a sticky!

Guess they’re putting trolls on Staff now...someone will have to talk to St. C about this...

Guess they’re putting trolls on Staff now...someone will have to talk to St. C about this... Originally Posted by Wakeup

Well it certainly would explain the sharp uptick in Thunderdome activity UITB.