Fallacy; The Troll's True Vulnerability

[Rokeby]

PRIUSchatters, we can do a whole lot better in dealing effectively with
trolls and other malicious posters whose purpose is to get us all riled
up... which they too often do.

The most effective response is quiet, reasoned, and factually correct.
An effective way to do this is to identify the underlying vulnerability of
the posters unsupported rantings which are typically based purely on
fallicies; statements which are logically unsupportable. Check this out:

Fallacies

The examples of the many common fallacies clearly show how typical
rants arising from anger or ignorance are riddled with self-defeating,
easily identified and exposed fallacies. These can be exploited.

When the common fallacy that is used as support for the ranting
poster's statements is correctly identified, that statement
is by definition unsupported and it is invalid. It can be challenged or
even dismissed as such, and it does not require a direct response.

Two examples:
"Everybody knows that the Prius battery will burn out in 100k miles."

Response: "Everybody knows no such thing. Your claim is based on the
common Fallacy: Appeal to Belief, If you want to have a serious
discussion, you need to provide real, verifiable documentary support
for your claimed battery life; sites, cites, articles, pictures, etc."

"Well, of course you brain washed, liberal, tree hugging Prius scum
believe that."

Response: "This is just the tired, old Ad Hominem Attack Fallacy ."

I expect this type of response will result in either of:
* some evidentiary support being provided, in which case the alleged
"facts" can be discussed.
* the troll cranks up the attack in an effort to make us crazy with
anger. In which case no further response is needed... simply another
case of 'Ho hum, Don't feed the troll."

A caution: there is a hazard here. This tool is a true double-edged
sword. Any post in which it is used itself must be carefully checked
against the list of fallacies. Otherwise you can look really foolish ,
dumb , or stupid .

[JimboK]

Excellent post, though it suffers from what I believe to be, well, a fallacy. And that is that the true troll -- as opposed to a skeptic -- believes his argument to be logical (he does not) and he is capable of reason (he is not). He merely seeks to incite and inflame. It matters not how much data, research, facts and logic you throw at him. I suppose you could argue that countering his attack with logic shows him to be the fool that he is. But he does a fine job of that on his own with no help needed from us. Therefore, my philosophy -- and admonition to the masses -- always is, "Don't feed 'em."

A little more discernment and patience is needed for the skeptic. Skeptics either can be open-minded or close-minded. The former gets the facts before making a decision; it is him I hope to educate. The latter makes his decision without bothering with the facts; it is him I won't waste my time with. Very similar to the troll approach, in fact.

[daniel]

Trolls, however, do not care about the validity of their arguments. They just want to engage people in a shouting and/or flaming war. The best response, IMO is to ignore them completely, report the post, and have the mods delete it.

However, your suggestions are valid for the sort of rants that some regular members engage in, which are less likely to be directed against the car we all share an admiration for, and more likely to be in the politics forum. (Which I try --not always successfully-- to stay away from.)

[TonyPSchaefer]

In my opinion, the typical response I've seen is anger towards the troll or at least an attempt to strike back. This is exactly what the troll wants and they get it every time.

Example? Take a look at the "A question for all Prius drivers" and read the first page of replies.

In my opinion, the best way to discourage a troll is to not reply at all. Fight it, fight the urge. But with such a large population here, someone will always reply. So that brings me to what I consider the second-best approach: a calm request for sources backing their claim. Let's face it, we've heard almost all of the possible rants and misinformation out there. Therefore, we are in the best suited to respond in a manner similar to, "I've heard that claim but haven't been able to find concrete data. What are you using as a source?" I realize that sounds like a really stupid way to address an intentional troll, but think of just exactly how frustrated that troll will get when they receive response after response calming asking for them to cite sources.

Barring that, I have really been tempted to hand out infractions for people who continuously feed the trolls.

[PriusSport]

A pity administrators don't delete obvious troll threads or posts as much as they should. You can recognize troll threads by the misleading titles designed to trump up controversy. And then there are the political hatenuts. They have been active the past couple of days for obvious reasons.

[Rokeby]

JimboK and Daniel,

Thank you for your responses. They have merit and I'm taking them
as valid, constructive comments.

Tony,

It was your calm, well reasoned response to the "A question for all
Prius drivers" thread that got me seriously thinking about this matter.
You see, I was one of the jerks that took leave of their senses in
making posts there.

Originally Posted by TonyPSchaefer

...I have really been tempted to hand out infractions for people who
continuously feed the trolls.

Don't I know! After a particularly boneheaded response of mine in
another thread a while back, you PMed me with the clear reminder
that I was out of hand. No threats were made and I thought I had gotten
the message. But despite my best intentions, I got sucked into a troll
baiting frenzy again.

Well, I've now gone on record with my best shot at a way to handle a
troll. From here on out, I've got a lot to lose if I backslide again. I do
not like to eat crow.

[patsparks]

I quite enjoy feeding trolls sometimes. Bit like feeding other animals by hand.

[TonyPSchaefer]

Originally Posted by PriusSport

A pity administrators don't delete obvious troll threads or posts as much as they should. You can recognize troll threads by the misleading titles designed to trump up controversy. And then there are the political hatenuts. They have been active the past couple of days for obvious reasons.

You're right. Moderators suck!

Actually, you would be surprised with the vast volume of crap you never see. Some trolls, spam, flame is rude, offensive, and violate a flurry of forum rules. They get pulled immediately.

However, for five years we have welcomed differing opinions; we have openly discussed points we don't all agree with; we have answered questions from serious askers, and we have always been hesitant to delete a post that does not violate a forum rule for obscenity, attack, or spam.

We do not operate with a preemptive strike mentality. There have been serious inquiries from serious people who were rightfully offended by the immediate Troll Wagon everyone jumped on just because they asked a common question based out of misinformation they had received. People come here looking for answers and when they do we shouldn't jump on them or ban them just for asking.

[qbee42]

I think the OP is a scum sucking troll intent on spreading his half-baked slop as real ideas. Even his name sounds stupid.



Tom

[daniel]

Originally Posted by TonyPSchaefer

In my opinion, the typical response I've seen is anger towards the troll or at least an attempt to strike back. This is exactly what the troll wants and they get it every time.

[...]

I have really been tempted to hand out infractions for people who continuously feed the trolls.

I like that last idea. Perhaps a more severe policy against emotional responses to borderline posts, rigorously enforcing calm discussion on threads that have the potential to go ballistic.