Psychopants,
You've made your cynical point it was noted when you made the point under you other pseudonym. Continuing in this vein simple devalues you. Perhaps your alter ego's discussion technique/persona needs more work.
Don't unerestimate a person's smarts on your misinterpretation of what YOU interpret as non genuine. Some of us acknowledge good views even those we don't agree with.
You catch more with honey than turpintine.
I's better to be kind/polite and achieve discussion perchange learn something than to be rude/alienate and learn nothing.

This is a site where people make contributions.

This topic is about contributions and labels given to people who make contributions of a certain nature.

Not all 'opinions' are right. Not everything is subjective. If your opinion is that the majority of human beings have three eyes, and my opinion is that they usually have two, then my opinion is right and yours is wrong.

Sometimes there is absolute truth, sometimes there isn't. That is an absolute truth.

Here's another: some people contribute more to a thriving debate than others.

Of course, people can just comment without needing to put much thought into it. But, if they're stirring up hatred, in my opinion they need to be prepared to say why what they're saying has worth.

My definition of a troll is one whose arguments provoke hatred but they have no substance.
(Along with the already-mentioned hallmarks of stalking horses and repetition).
Of course, people often protest being labelled a troll. Their protestations are valid when they can point at valid points they have made to a debate.

So what's a 'valid' point? If I were assessing, I'd say there are four ways to define worth - logic (one point leads to the next in a concise manner), insight (originality of thought), language (well spoken, beautiful use of words) or reference (hard facts from reputable sources).

Topic should be irrelevant in all situations except defamation, vilification or discrimination (all of which have shifting boundaries, granted).

I've just come across an interesting website:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html

It's The New York Times Magazine article,
"The Trolls Among Us."

Scary stuff - and hopefully it doesn't happen so much
in Oz as it does in the US.

The article tell us that, "Today the Internet is much more
than esoteric discussion forums. It is a mass medium for
defining who we are to ourselves and to others ...

As our emotional investment in the Internet has grown, the
stakes for trolling - for provoking strangers online
have risen."

Apparently the joy of disrupting another's emotional
equilibrium - plays a big part in trolling.

One good thing is that trolling is considered unacceptable
on most Internet sites.

Interesting article. Recommended reading.

Fractelle,

What a relief to find that we are still talking. I was thinking that my most recent post to your discussion thread may have constituted a bridge too far. I trust I made myself sufficiently obscure therein.

Me Psychophant? No way! Yes, I did use the word (decapitalised you will note) in the post to which you have referred, but may I point out that I, too, read many other threads on OLO, and that included this one where so much of this barely concealed branding of some posters as sycophants started to emerge. (Besides which, all my phantasies I believe to be quite healthy ones, even if some might insist they must be all visually cued by female stereotypes in 'men's mags'. Some could be quite wide of the mark.)

I can understand how this chill wind of laconic branding could have been applied to me, as it was earlier in this very thread, with the laconic poster mistaking my good, if somewhat mischievous, humour for malice directed against OLO users and implied support for the known positions of certain posters of which he, Psychophant, does not approve.

I have seen in recent days a definition of trolling as being a breach of online trust, but I have not been able to run the reference to earth, which is why I have not already raised it prior to this post. I value the integrity of my online persona as much as I do my real world integrity. That is why I have never engaged in sockpuppetry. By the same token, I tend not to be too offended if some other user's sockpuppetry is sufficiently transparent, and it is not used to beat the Forum posting limits or attack specific posters.

Literary style is almost unhideable, which is, I suspect why Psychophant is using such brevity of expression. Trolling in the timestamps. Almost original. Supposedly avoiding the posting of sufficient words upon which a judgement as to style could be made.

I applaud certain regular users for their restraint in outing him.

An absolutely capital masquerade, Kumbaya.

(continued from last post)

Of course, some would reject there is any validity in attempting to discern the worth of comments. My attempts to do so might be judged as elitism.
Evidently they come from the "nothing has more worth than anything else" school of thought.
Hear them cry "fascist! censor! Enemy of free speech! There are no trolls! It's just a tool of the oppressor!"

KMB, this is for you.

If you disagree with what I've said in relation to trolls, say why. If you just want to call me some kind of comment fascist, please tell me if you believe all points are of equal worth.

I'd be obliged if you could put a link to any worthwhile post you have made which fits my classifications. If you can't, please tell me how you'd judge a comment.
Of course, refuse if you wish, but at least go away understanding why I think in some of your posts you've behaved like a troll.

And before you play the victim card, I'd make the point I don't advocate censorship and I've never called for a comment to be banned. I just call a spade a spade, a troll a troll and uninspired worthless comments inciting hatred uninspired worthless comments inciting hatred.

And to those of you who disagree with me or call this pedantry, I say fine - but explain exactly why I'm wrong.

Just for the record: I really don't think that PsyP has done anything really awful..