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

51–60 of 321 posts

Re: Trolls (2008)

#51

Post by _delirium »

scott_s wrote: post #46
_delirium wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Playful discussion requires familiarity and trust. Trolls poison trust.

I guess I just frankly disagree with that, though perhaps we have some different definition of "trolls". I haven't seen more trust (and community) in a forum than in the more playful/trollish forums I've been part of. Too much seriousness, on the other hand, I think poisons intellectual discussion.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#52

Post by biznickman »

Really only 8,000 a day? I've received 10,000 visitors from a single post on hacker news ... am I missing something? I definitely do agree however that the conversation on this site is top notch.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#53

Post by mooism2 »

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…

There are plenty of places where it does matter, very much. e.g. support groups for abuse survivors, terminal disease patients, etc.

And even when it does not matter very much, trolls deny others the right to be serious, derail discussions, and spew bullshit. By insisting on turning everything into a joke, trolls are selfish.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#54

Post by namityadav »

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…

They're bits in the stream. My karma is an int on a server somewhere

Like your bank account is just a database entry somewhere, like a dollar bill is just a paper, like all of your life's memories are just some information stored in your brain -- again just a few cells. In the end, everything is just some atoms anyway, right?

as someone who dabbles in trolling as a hobby

Oh wait, I fell for it! :)

Re: Trolls (2008)

#55

Post by scott_s »

robbrown451 wrote: post #43

I think the fact that you don't allow downvoting posts contributes to this. I get that you want to keep things positive. But when you don't provide an outlet for people who want to simply disagree without forcing them to come out of the woodwork and defend their position, it is inevitable that some people will come out with a lot of ugliness. I think there are a whole lot of reasons internet forums are different than…

Users can downvote posts, but only users with karma above a certain threshold. No user can downvote a submission, though - you can only flag them.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#56

Post by Vivtek »

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…

They call us on our bullshit.

It's recursive, then.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#57

Post by cobrausn »

kghose wrote: post #19
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…

But how do we know the real trolls from the assholes? Emoticons help, but we can't see their FACE, so it's hard to tell.

I'd imagine that those two are not a mutually exclusive set.

Besides, if a troll makes a reasonable point, does it matter that he was actually trolling? Truthfully it's snark that bothers me most - I can deal with someone being playful or contrary for the sake of it, but too much snark just triggers a very primal part of my brain that makes we want to start cracking skulls, and that's not very conducive to continuing the discussion.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#58

Post by angersock »

kghose wrote: post #19
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…

But how do we know the real trolls from the assholes? Emoticons help, but we can't see their FACE, so it's hard to tell.

That's part of being a human, right?

I am presented with another person's responses to my inputs in the form of communications, and I build a model of the person. Sometimes this model is correct, sometimes this model is incorrect. I might misjudge a person who is kind to my face as being decent, when behind my back they spread rumors and gossip. Similarly, I might have a coworker who always criticizes my approaches to problems, but is the first to stick up for me in meetings.

Sometimes you judge rightly, other times wrongly, and in either event life goes on (real or virtual). This is just part of the human condition--and trolls remind us of this fact and the fact that sometimes you can't tell.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#60

Post by jasonlotito »

jarin wrote: post #35
aidenn0 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's more accurate than you know. A down voted comment doesn't mean it's a bad comment. Simply that it doesn't adhere to what the community deems as right. This defeats the purpose of shading out the comments. Since the quality of a comment can't be determined by it's color, you have to read it yourself.

Karma has evolved to merely mean: I don't post unpopular opinions.

This is merely anecdotal, of course, and should go without saying (but needs to be said here). I see this happening with other people's comments far more often. It's a shame that while we removed karma from posts, we still display and indicator of the groupthink to the world.

In the end, a comment should either be displayed, or flagged and removed.

Post reply on HN