Tuesday, August 22, 2006
blogocombat is not trolling
An online friend asked me today, via email, if I took "the minority position to instigate discussion." He seems neutral, so this is not an attack, it's just a question he presented to me for clarification of my style.
I do NOT intentionally express a minority, marginal, oppositional, contrarian, argumentative, critical, hostile, challenging, combative, or confrontational point of view.
To do so is a criminal act, called "trolling" or "baiting".
Here are my definitions:
blogocombat: online discussions, debates, and defense, thus can be friendly/professional, neutral/fact-finding, or hostile/emotional.
blogodiplomacy: exercising self-restraint, understatement, pacifying remarks, polite wording, and a tendency to favor ending arguments after an appropriate number of comments, from a few to many, depending on topic, host site preferences, netiquette, and honor -- rather than debating endlessly, thread-jacking, or spam commenting.
harshing: making very critical statements to scold, correct, or vilify an online foe or guilty entity, opposite of cringing, passivity, and civility.
trolling: cruising web forums, bulletin boards, chat rooms, blogs, wikis, discussion lists to incite trouble, to stir animosity, to make insincere but inflammatory proclamations to trick or provoke people into fighting.
baiting: making a statement, from hostile to supportive, with a hidden intent to lure people into a trap of saying an absurdity, revealing their true colors and agendas, or to deceive them with a commercial exploitation.
Blogocombat is a volatile, trouble-maker word, that many could misapply or misinterpret. Perhaps a better word is needed. The reason I use "blogocombat" when I mean a wide variety of online, and even offline, discussion is because I'm usually being attacked and have to defend myself sometimes, and it can get a bit intense.
Posted by steven edward streight at 8/22/2006 12:05:00 PM