Talk:Trolls

• XML DTDs and Schemas are under GPL

This much is true.

or LGPL (more licensing schemes are considered) - again viral so that no bad copies or self-interested forks can be created without us stopping them.

What the ******* rubbish troll shit is this? Can you explain 142.177.X.X??Juxo 14:29 Jun 19, 2003 (EEST)

Only the User:MotherOfTrolls can explain User:142.177.X.X. Until then, this one issue can be explained (below). Trolls prefer however the term compost to "rubbish" or "shit", as their output is wholly organic.

hum. shit is organic too, but it has a very negative connotation. It is untransformed waste, with microbial contamination perhaps. Not safe. A troll would not put that on your floor. Rubbish is somehow implying it is an end product, with no value whatsoever. Plastic bits. This troll would not put that on your floor. A compost is a co-product upon which a garden may flourish. It is a well-balanced medium upon which something can feed and grow. Remember, a waste may stop being an end-product if you decide so, and be renamed natural resource. This troll is there to spread compost everywhere on your floor

LGPL is the opposite of the feasible licensing model (proprietary), if stopping modified copies undesired by the original author is the goal.

Stop lying. It's not trolling, it's vandalism! Juxo 16:02 Jun 24, 2003 (EEST)

---

The references to m:troll and w:Internet troll are a bit out of date - the article in Wikipedia has been improved, and the one in Meta-Wikipedia has been vandalized by the imposition of m:community point of view. Which sadly used to be something they tried to work against and balance, but now try to enforce. If they get a trademark on the term "wikipedia" (Which should be generic) who knows what damage they'll do?

Troll ethics (GFDL by Sean B. Palmer, with replies)

What makes an introlligent person these days? Trolls contains some pertinent information, but consumerium has a brand of troll which, whilst not just limited to consumerium:itself, is defying categorization under the current notion of "troll".

In a sense, the following rough criteria also provide a counterpoint to the highly optimistic Trolls article:

• Identitylessness. These trolls espouse identitylessness, but they fall extremely short for two reasons. 1) They are limited by the media within which they work, viz. language and online communication from IRC to wiki. 2) Some trolls are sloppy and haven't read The Hobbit: they come out during the daytime. As amusing and as ironic as this is, it's so counteracts the core troll criteria on Trolls that one wonders whether the trolling faction as a whole has some collective ego that it's unable to shake off, a pride in what it's doing, and a mischevious sense of wanting to effect so much of a change in the community that it's effectively becoming a part of it. Trolls are only human, after all.
• Cognitive dissonance. This cannot be over emphasized. The more intelligent the troll, the better it is at covering its tracks. The better it is at covering its tracks, aliasing, subverting its inherent persona, and using cognitive dissonance. It's hard work being a troll; the effort spent in employing all of these tactics is diverted from the core aim of being an efficient cultural unit.
• Refutation of opinion. If you seek a troll's identity, as one troll said you are making an "ontological death threat". Said troll would be advised to avoid the use of the word "ontological" in future; nontheless, trolls in a sense don't have an identity which can be discovered. Just as the meatball wiki community has no centre,

This is nonsense, Sunir Shah is that centre, and what's more, he probably claimed to be the first Lowest Troll anywhere. But broke troll protocol in many ways probably, including his support for outing which trolls do not do (it being a glass houses thing).

and ESP has no centre, trolls have no center. It's a suffusion of opinions that makes a faction, and as troll:illusionated said (troll:rottentroll was much more careful, incidentally) even the concept of a faction is liquid.

So liquid that nobody will know what you're talking about in trying to differentiate the two. Liquidity begins by dissolving something solid, like identity. There's no interwiki identity standard so it's very hard to know what you're referring to with those names. Imposed pseudonyms or throwaway identity is remarkably bad as a way to deal with alleged and collective identity.

This is not anti-troll propoganda: very much to the contrary, it illustrates just how much of an impact trolls can have in so short a time. But it's also a warning to the introlligent community that organization and openness does have virtues,

but others pursue those - to be a troll is to break up institutions and seek closure and privacy and secrecy in very specific ways, not to oppose those concepts in general; Trolls do not oppose any concepts in general, that would make them guilty of theology or philosophy. And trolls are more like an ecology thing.

and that whilst seeking the way of the troll can have many benefits, its dangers and disadvantages are legion.

Thus the [m:legion of trolls] which included a few notorious wiki witchhunters among its self-declared ranks, and others who ended up being confused for being trolls, etc., etc., etc. In a phrase: Yeah we know.

If you display intelligent and creative thought whilst hiding your identity, people will becomed intrigued and try to establish your identity so that they don't lose a valuable source of information. It's not malicious, it's natural. It's only malicious when one tries to seek a troll's identity to destroy that troll, and note under refutation of opinion in the criteria above that this may be less of an issue than the troll collective seems at this moment to think.

but of course, once semi-reliable troll tracking exists, then, ANYONE who seeks to silence that troll may be able to do so. When the enemy actors much outnumber and outpower friends or even those committed to fairness by some definition, it is wise simply to count on people's natural curiosity and ability to use google and such to keep the "valuable source of information". Really all they need are verb phrases and noun phrases that are re-usable. Consider the Freemasons. They invented this technique, and secret handshake too probably. Reds, Greens, Golds usually recognize each other through a rhetoric, also.

I have some questions, perhaps a troll would be able to answer. Even someone pretending to be a troll would do, since that would make them a troll. First: do trolls reveal their identities to one another?

Probably not beyond a reasonable doubt

Second: what do trolls do about other trolls that turn bad?

Since the only real power they have is to pick someone out to be driven off by trolls somehow without lying about them, outing them, or breaking any laws, probably, that's what they do. But probably any Recyclopedia:faction has its own way of deciding how to do social exclusion. Presumably also access to proxy servers and such could be withdrawn from those who break whatever counts for "ethics on patroll."

Third: given that no single troll can ever be aware of the direction of the entire troll movement, how do you correct mistakes as a faction?

In principle, that's a problem internal to the faction, that is, one that trolls should discuss amongst themselves. It's also possible to say that "no single Red or Black bloccer can ever be aware of the direction of *that* whole movement", especially if it contains groups that have no operational contact. But even the Blues have this, with their corporate shields. Everyone has their own ideal of privacy.

Greens could answer it simply: they employ metrics like nature's services and natural capital and biodiversity and even agree on some with Pinks like measuring well-being.

Finally, the word "ontological" is a fine old medieval word, and if one is trying to say that a metaphysics is being invoked while not crediting the idea of metaphysics itself, it's a pretty good word for that. Feel free to use it yourself. Also, feel free to claim to be particular trolls, and if trolls of that nesting range vaguely approve, you might well get a validation that you can use to hide your own identity.

It's not perfect, but, to be perfect would require inventing something. And trolls try not to do that. Invention is next to damnation.

It's true that trolls inspire paranoia amongst their opposites, but some are able to keep aloof and remain sympathisers, and what do you do then? What do trolls do when they get trolled?

some are able to keep aloof and remain sympathisers, and what do you do then? What do trolls do when they get trolled?" They troll back obviously. There was a fine example of this on ape mother that demonstrated many of the political virtues on both sides.

Of course, you should ignore me; I'm just trolling here.

Yes. Ignore the trolls and some trolls outrageous claim to be the black faction as I could think of a number of colors that would suit them better. --Juxo 15:06, 19 Aug 2004 (EEST)

---

Hey, our apprentice trolls are improving. That one was not bad. It is vague enough that it is probably not even libel. Though how anyone can "take responsibility" for a pile of vague claims about basically nothing important, is a bit beyond us. Just what exactly do you expect others to do? Separate out your various irrational and incorrect and incoherent ways of stating what you think "happened", and find something in all that to answer to?

We only expect them to blow their stacks when they find themselves subject to their own trolling tactics - and look!

Look? Where? This is fun.

It's actually impossible to tell what you think any of these people you hate, actually specifically did.

Who said anything about hatred? Are you claiming that all trolls hate the targets of their trolling?

No, but those who try to engage in outing no matter how pathetic or inaccurate are betraying a need to drag a body into a situation where it was not previously involved. Hate is the main motive for that sort of thing. It's just not what trolls do, that is, that particular element is not an aspect of trolling, but rather, of power grabs undertaken by sysops.

One is forced to conclude that you just don't know, you just know that they are safe targets for you to direct your w:self-hatred outwards against. Not to do amateur psychiatry, but, why not?

If you must engage in amateur psychiatry, do try to make your diagnoses have some relation to reality - don't fall into the trap of the Witchimedians by making up this kind of nonsense.

There is little "reality" in your discourse, it seems to lack referents. Your faction is unclear, as is your mission. Perhaps you lack direction in your life in general? Let us introduce you to trolling as a lifestyle that will focus you on what is truly important.

You and your friends do plenty of that, right?

My fellow trolls do, at least.

Fair, a sysop is the lowest form trolls take - only when they abandon the technological escalation of the IP block can they actually become fully developed trolls.

That's how you justify your sysop vandalism.

Trolls have helpfully provided us with a response seemingly designed exactly for this attempt to associate us with the wicked sysop power structure:

It requires no particular command hierarchy to have a Sysop Vandal point of view. Some people are raised by parents who beat them or rape them, and such people will in general tend to believe "might makes right" in later life - pardon the psychiatry. But that is not to say that this describes YOU.

• do not claim that others are all funded by some group or part of some party if they have not said so themselves

but they fling so many troll droppings that they can be forgiven for not remembering all of them.

Fair enough. One troll's droppings are another troll's gems. That's what makes for politics as usual.

For instance, if we were all authoritarians then we would be able to identify one source of "truth" about alleged and collective identity and all that. But anti-authoritarianism in practice means some acceptance of ambiguity, uncertainty, and the good humour of political virtues.