Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trolls (2008)

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 321 posts

Re: Trolls (2008)

#31

Post by figgles »

aidenn0 wrote: post #21
angersock wrote: post #6

Good post, but as someone who dabbles in trolling as a hobby, I'd like to suggest the following: Trolls are important. Trolling, especially as seen on places like slashdot/4chan/somethingawful/etc., can oftentimes be a mechanism of critique for ideas and rhetorical styles. One of the best things about the 'net is that, frankly, none of this really matters. None of it. It's a big joke. My twitters and my wikis and my…

My bank account is just an int in a server somewhere, but that doesn't make it unimportant. Obviously my karma isn't important, but that's because it has little effect on my outside of HN. Being bits on a server somewhere doesn't make it unimportant. Similarly, when someone posted a fake obit of Steve Jobs (well before he died), it caused quite an impact despite none of it mattering.

I hope your bank account isn't stored as just an int(!)

But seriously, it is a representation of something physical. Money. Money which can in turn be used for other physical things. Reputation "karma" isn't. It /is/ meaningless in this context, because you can never log into HN again and your life will go on.

I don't think the argument was "anything digital is pointless."

Re: Trolls (2008)

#32

Post by ericingram »

re_todd wrote: post #26
sukuriant wrote: post #10

Personally, I "troll" in real life. It's usually among friends and just taunting them, lying to them, etc, for the purpose of teasing them. They're trolls too, and it's a bit of a game between us. Really, in communities I frequent, there are so many trolls, we troll them back. Perhaps we're using the term differently from how pg is?

I went camping with a group of lawyers once, and they were a lot like this too. They wanted to constantly argue and debate. They would even assert things that I knew they personally disagreed with, just to start an argument. If nobody was arguing, they'd get kind of tense and nervous as if some calamity was about to happen, and then starting a debate seemed to relieve everyone's tension. Seemed strange to me.

That sounds like fun, I love debating

Re: Trolls (2008)

#33

Post by jtreminio »

angersock wrote: post #6

Good post, but as someone who dabbles in trolling as a hobby, I'd like to suggest the following: Trolls are important. Trolling, especially as seen on places like slashdot/4chan/somethingawful/etc., can oftentimes be a mechanism of critique for ideas and rhetorical styles. One of the best things about the 'net is that, frankly, none of this really matters. None of it. It's a big joke. My twitters and my wikis and my…

I haven't visited the SA forums in over 6 years, but last I remember, trolling in non-troll forums (FYAD) was usually met with a ban, resulting in a loss of your :10bux:. This was loosened a bit with the introduction of the... what's it called? Prison? Time out? that prevents a user from posting for X number of hours.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#34

Post by pnathan »

angersock wrote: post #6

Good post, but as someone who dabbles in trolling as a hobby, I'd like to suggest the following: Trolls are important. Trolling, especially as seen on places like slashdot/4chan/somethingawful/etc., can oftentimes be a mechanism of critique for ideas and rhetorical styles. One of the best things about the 'net is that, frankly, none of this really matters. None of it. It's a big joke. My twitters and my wikis and my…

Your interpretation is that trolls are court jesters.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#35

Post by jarin »

aidenn0 wrote: post #21
angersock wrote: post #6

Good post, but as someone who dabbles in trolling as a hobby, I'd like to suggest the following: Trolls are important. Trolling, especially as seen on places like slashdot/4chan/somethingawful/etc., can oftentimes be a mechanism of critique for ideas and rhetorical styles. One of the best things about the 'net is that, frankly, none of this really matters. None of it. It's a big joke. My twitters and my wikis and my…

My bank account is just an int in a server somewhere, but that doesn't make it unimportant. Obviously my karma isn't important, but that's because it has little effect on my outside of HN. Being bits on a server somewhere doesn't make it unimportant. Similarly, when someone posted a fake obit of Steve Jobs (well before he died), it caused quite an impact despite none of it mattering.

Honestly, your karma doesn't have much impact inside of HN either. It's just a number that lets you know you are a reasonable fit with the community.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#36

Post by scott_s »

scrrr wrote: post #28

Interesting post. I find unsubstantial / uninteresting / obvious / superfluous comments (like "I love it!" ) worse than very controversial or insulting comments. As long as the general information in the forum stay interesting and enjoyable. Also isn't the "naughtiness" (some pg essay used that word I think) part of what some of the best contributors here have in common? And aren't entrepreneurs trolls, too, accordin…

Trolls try to undermine a working system solely for their own enjoyment. That has only a superficial relationship to entrepreneurs, who try to create a new business.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#37

Post by jdp23 »

oscilloscope wrote: post #5

That's 8,000 unique visitors per day? Didn't realize HN readership was so small. I catch people in San Francisco scanning new articles, but it must be location bias. http://www.google.com/trends?q=hacker+news%2C+reddit Edit: That number was from 2008

In October, there were 120,000 unique IPs/day.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#38

Post by jarin »

_delirium wrote: post #30
scott_s wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your view of trolling is colored by your participation in it. I would like to participate in and read honest discussion. Trolls poison honest discussion. The "none of this matters" line of thought is a red-herring. Trolls get in the way of what I, personally, get out of forums.

I like honest discussion also, but also enjoy discussion that's "playful" in various ways, especially when it's on the gray-area border between serious and trollish. You can get interesting sides of people when they have something of an alibi because they aren't "really" saying something (but aren't "really" not doing so, either). I do think it's probably better if it's in areas where there's at least tacit agreement…

FYAD isn't what it used to be, but I agree that it's part of what made SA great. Not necessarily the actual content of FYAD, but the fact that it kept everyone outside of FYAD in check. The other forums did a great job of keeping the post quality high (no AOL speak, etc.), and FYAD did a great job of making sure they didn't get too full of themselves. Even if you were the most popular poster ever, there was always one forum that you would never, ever be accepted in.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#39

Post by anonymoustrolol »

With the recent adoption of voting systems in forums (like this one) we are seeing troll comments often buried, and this will perhaps continue to discourage that behavior. On a bigger note, articles that draw clicks with bold conclusions or headlines (like that nerd baiting article we saw on Gizmodo) are still grabbing eyeball share and thus will continue to propagate instead of real news/information. How that fight for eyeballs is resolved is one that I don't really see a solution to yet.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#40

Post by hansy »

This is an interesting article that sort of answers a question I've had for a while: would the quality of Hacker News remain the same without the novelty of individual karma points?

PG mentions that people seeing "...their reputation in the eyes of their peers drain away..." is motivation enough to keep delivering high-quality content.

Post reply on HN