I'm not an expert either, but I think this guy might be:
[font=courier new, courier]
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology
Subject: Trolling for dollars (was: Year 2000 urgency not needed?)
From:
kibo@world.std.com (James "Kibo" Parry)
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 06:48:12 GMT
--------
In alt.religion.kibology,
jaffo@onramp.net wrote:
>
> Michael Straight wanted to share:
> :
> : High marks for humor, but multiplied by a fairly low difficulty rating,
> :your total score is still well above average in a slow week for ARK.
>
> I'm sorry, I have to give Maelstrom much higher marks than you do.
>
> The quality of the responses makes all the difference for me.
>
> Every time I read one of these and think, "Naw. Too obvious! He's overplayed
> his hand." He gets three more fish.
>
> FLAWLESS VICTORY!
That, indeed, is what makes a good troll. My strategy is to see how
ludicrous I can make the trollery and still have someone fall for it.
For instance, "William Shatner owns six pairs of green socks." isn't a good
troll if he owns seven pairs.
"Isn't William Shatner a pair of green socks?" is a good troll, but ONLY if
it works, and generates one of the four desired responses:
LEVEL 1 TROLLAGE (GULLIBOZO, 100 points): "He is? Oh no! Now I'd better
tell everyone else I know who used to like him!!!" Believes everything he
or she reads in actual print, which includes Usenet.
LEVEL 2 TROLLAGE (CYCLOPEDANT, 10 points): "No he isn't. I know because he
was on Star Trek last night and spent six hours enlarging every frame on my
computer to look for green socks and you're wrong, you must be stupid or
something!" Lacks a bulls__t detector.
LEVEL 3 TROLLAGE (IMPEDANT, 3.14159 points): "I know this must be an
attempt to troll me, but I'll answer it anyway: No, he isn't. He is a human
being." Bulls__t detector malfunctioning, allowing pedantal lobe to
override.
LEVEL 4 TROLLAGE (OTHER, 1/2 point): "I don't know." Doesn't know but seems
too interested for own good.
The desired response to an attempt at trolling is *not* a flame. Flame-bait
is not trolling, and trolling is not flame-bait, although it sometimes
generates flames from those whose bulls__t detector is connected directly
to the bulls__t generator. Flames generated by attempts to troll people do
not affect your score.
I should mention also the concept of a META-TROLL, which consists of
posting a COMPLETELY ACCURATE, TRUE, SANE statement and having trollage
ensue.
(true statement) "Nichelle Nichols on 'Star Trek' was dating the producer,
Gene Roddenberry!"
(level 2 response) "No, that was Majel Barrett!"
(explanation, not promulgated) Gene Roddenberry really was dating Nichelle
"Lt. Uhura" Nichols *and* Majel "Nurse Chapel" Barrett at the same time.
Meta-trolls generate BONUS POINTS, doubling your score.
There's also the COUNTER-TROLL, which is the concept of parrying a troll
with another troll, often done by people whose bulls__t detector is
connected to the trollerizer:
(obvious troll) "Major Barrett wrote every episode of 'Star Trek' with his
wife, Jean Roddenberry."
(troll detected and parried) "Actually, you're thinking of 'Deep Babylon
Nine', starring George Lucas's pet rabbit Binky."
If the counter-troll generates trollage, the counter-troller receives
double points, and they are deducted from YOUR score, you LOSER!
The first person on the Internet to receive 10,000,000 points will be
declared the winner and will receive "hitsies".
Also you must take a drink whenever someone mentions Star Trek, ever.
-- K.
I invented trolling the year
after I invented the smilie.
Also I didn't say if he _gets_ hitsies
or _GETS_ hitsies.
[/font]
Hong "interestingly, this guy comes from Boston" Ooi
