[MD] The morality of trolling a list

[Andy Skelton]

When I join a list I am always on the lookout for the camouflaged
troll. This might be the sincere old-timer who has gotten away with it
since day one, or the newbie who plays the active members the way an
itinerant pool shark plays the hall regulars, or the girl who stands
in the middle of the road screaming about her cat up a tree. Every
substantial list has them.

Most members would identify certain other members as trolls. Not
everyone agrees who the trolls are because their disguises are fairly
effective. But almost everyone suspects that the group would recover
and flourish if only certain others would cease posting.

I have seen lists improved by the activities of trolls. I have seen
them wrecked beyond repair. You never know whether a troll would ruin
it by pissing on it, or just pissing in an ocean of piss, or even
pissing in a primordial pool that could put a bit of urea to good use.

Given that the effect of trolling on a list is unknown at the outset,
how should one evaluate the opportunity to troll a list? How should a
moderator evaluate list members?

Andy