Are we all trolls?

[Reynard]

Okay, that thread title is a little over the top, but that's actually kind of the point.

I was reading through some threads, long and short, and began to notice a pattern developing. So I started looking at thread titles and first post contents versus numbers of posts and views, and the pattern coalesced: threads titles something contentious or divisive, and/or with a first post that is contentious or diviseive get the most posts and views (Gygax, R.I.P., Q&A threads notwithstanding).

Maybe I am looking at it through rose colored glasses, but it seems to me that prior to the 4E announcement, ENWorld was a place where ideas were bandied about and traded and discussions could occur without necessarily being automatically vitriolic. Since that announcement, though, the threads (in General at least) that "rise to the top" are those that turn into arguments and (to be kind) two or three people talking past one another, with a few others munching on popcorn and occassionally tossing a log on the fire.

This got me thinking about my own reading and posting habits. "hey look, 100 posts, it must be an interesting discussion." which leads to "Poster X is an idiot -- let me set him straight!" more often than I would like to admit. Moreover, if I join or start a thread that is a good discussion, I get kind of irritated if -- no, when -- it disappears. That irritation breeds a desire to keep it going and suddenly a vicous circle appears: say something contentious and the thread is more likely to live on, but the quality of the discussion is likely to drop, too.

I don't know. It is a strange thing. Although i admit to occassionally being too short, or not being able to communicate myself with a short post made during a "breather" at work or whatever, I feel like a message board is the perfect medium for involved, complex, just plain "wordy" discussions about gaming. But the reality seems to be that brief, easily misunderstood (or not), angry posts are the surest way to get a response.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I think the answer to your title question is: yes, we all have a little troll in us. It isn't necessarily malicious, but I seriously doubt anyone who posts on these boards can honestly say they don't care whether anybody replies to a thread they start.

I hate when I start a thread and it is completely ignored. It is kind of embarrassing. I don't try to stir controversy just to get replies, but that may be one reason I don't start very many threads, either.

I would have to say you are right that controversial threads will garner more attention. Heck, it isn't anywhere as interesting to read a thread where everyone agrees with each other. The trick is to avoid the talking past each other, and purposely fanning the flames. Make sure your replies are well thought out and turn the thread into a debate or a discussion rather than an argument. If others cannot reply in kind, turn away from the thread rather than take the troll bait.

 

[Elodan]

...
Maybe I am looking at it through rose colored glasses, but it seems to me that prior to the 4E announcement, ENWorld was a place where ideas were bandied about and traded and discussions could occur without necessarily being automatically vitriolic. Since that announcement, though, the threads (in General at least) that "rise to the top" are those that turn into arguments and (to be kind) two or three people talking past one another, with a few others munching on popcorn and occassionally tossing a log on the fire.
...

I don't think the issue started with the 4E announcement. I think it brought it more to the forefront. I remember several numerous page threads that ended up being pretty vitriolic before then. I think you can see example of this in any paladin ethos discussion. I usually avoid any thread over 5 pages as by that point, the discussion has devolved into one poster's line by line disagreement with another poster's points which continues for the next several pages (like the Monty Python argument sketch). Sometimes with the original combatants being replaced by new ones.

I think a couple of factors contribute to the "trollishness" (for lack of a better term). The relative anonymity of the internet causes some people to say things they would never say to someone face to face. Without non-verbal queues its real easy to misinterpret what someone is saying and a natural reaction is to attack when one has been "attacked." People feel the need to "correct" someone on some issue; ye old superiority complex. People like to be winners so they need to be on the "winning" side so they'll argue endlessly about why they've "won" or look to see "who's with me?" Finally, some people are just jerks.

I know I've come close to PWA (posting while angry) but, for the most part, I wait to post until I cool of (maybe that's why my post count is so low) and can re-examine what set me off. Sometimes self-restraint is difficult to do.

We all like to be acknowledged (I too, like to have my posts recognized). I think to some extent we all like attention. In some cases I think it's easier to get that attention by posting something inflammatory that you know is going to get you noticed.

 

[blargney the second]

I think I know what you mean, Reynard. I'd attribute it to something else though: when ENWorld switched to a smaller number of threads displayed per page, competition for attention increased.

 

[Reynard]

More and more I am realizing that for me, responding in short form is much more likely to cause me to say something (usually unintentionally, but I know I ain't no saint) inflammatory. usually I am just using sarcasm or a cliche or some other form of "humor" (I know, I know) to make a quick point because I am just glancing quickly while at work (again: I know, I know) or while the kids are playing by themselves and I don't want to lose the thought. Then, when the post gets taken wrong or inspires someone else's snark or whatever, I go on the defensive and it devolves from there.

I like discussing D&D (and gaming in general). I like engaging in a "live" discussion, as well as a "protracted" one. Sometimes, I think, my desire to see that discussion continue clouds my judgement. Threads fade into obscurity so quickly that it seems that a discussion on the merits of, say, racial class and level limits only remains on the front page (and therefore gets viewed by enough people to garner some responses) if it truns into an edition war or badwrongfunism.

 

[Nifft]

I think the answer to your title question is: yes, we all have a little troll in us. It isn't necessarily malicious, but I seriously doubt anyone who posts on these boards can honestly say they don't care whether anybody replies to a thread they start.

Yep yep yep. To coin a catchphrase: "There's a thin line between thought-provoking and plain old provocative."

Cheers, -- N

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

More and more I am realizing that for me, responding in short form is much more likely to cause me to say something (usually unintentionally, but I know I ain't no saint) inflammatory.

I tend to be quite verbose, most of the time, unless I just want to make a quick funny remark (well, you know, one I thought might be funny.)

I hate when I start a thread and it is completely ignored. It is kind of embarrassing. I don't try to stir controversy just to get replies, but that may be one reason I don't start very many threads, either.

I never considered posting something inflammatory to get more attention.
I suppose I really shouldn't start with it, though. But it's interesting that some people might do it deliberately to not end up on page 3 after 30 minutes...