[MD] The morality of trolling a list

[John Carl]

So Andy, how many lists have you joined?


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.
>


I've only been part of this one, and two others.  Thus my experience is
limited.
I'm not even sure what "troll" means exactly.  The picture that forms in my
head is a dark creature lurking under a bridge, ready to pounce and devour.


But there's also the seductive lure, like in a fishing boat, goin' slow.
Bait on the hook, takin' it easy, waiting for a nibble.

The active vs. the passive troll, as it were.

Around here, it'd be exciting to encounter either one, either way.  Around
here you've got a relatively small circle of people, call it "Camelot",
rehashing the same ol, same ol, day in day out, and their swords so sharp
from constant practice and sharpening on one another, I can't see anything
more fearsome invading from without.



>
> 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.
>
>

See, that's the part I don't get.  In this day of easy delete, I'd think the
wider variety of expression, the better.  And if you didn't care for a
particular personality, you can easily ignore them.

I'm so loquacious, I'd feel guilty spouting off in a room full of important
academical type people with sheepskins on their wall, and epaulets on their
shoulders and all.  But here in e-mail, it's relatively painless for them to
just wipe away my foolishness without having to bother reading a single
word, and so I feel a bit freed up, as it were, to just say whatever pops
into my head.



> 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.
>
>
Cute.  I like them primordial pools.  Also putting a bit of urea to good
use.  Making treasure out of trash.  Did you ever see that movie "Fastest
Indian"?  I liked the way he'd wobble outside to do the bushes some good.



> 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?
>
>

Just like anybody, I guess.  Read what they have to say.  Is it good?  Do we
need to ask anyone else how we know this?