Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 1:12:48
In reply to Not everyone who lives under a bridge is a troll, posted by Dinah on October 20, 2004, at 9:27:37
Well of course I'm going to support your reply, Dinah. The assumption of malicious intent is an element of the definition of "troll" almost everywhere the term is defined in reference to Internet dialogue.
It is interesting that the term evolved from a verb that described a behavior, albeit with the same assumptions of intent, into a noun that assumed an overall character trait related to the assumed motivation. It is interesting how willingly groups embrace assumptions about intent that might be reconsidered if the dialogue were between the one proffering the label and the one being labeled. It is also worth noting that the hidden message revealed in popular definitions of the term is the inference that a person who willingly engages in controversy can only do so with malicious intent. Since almost all groups confront some degree of controversy, the term is essentially a device for selecting who has standing to address controversial subjects and who doesn't. More popular group members who willingly engage in controversy might be labeled "problem solvers", "peacemakers" or sometimes "administrators."
Careful analysis might prove that, when the term isn't used simply to exclude those with ideological differences, it is most often used to exclude those whose rhetorical skills either fail to meet or exceed the general skill level of the group.
poster:Mary_Bowers
thread:403649
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/405362.html