A Troll's Guide to Blogging Effectively (or die trying)

A Troll's Guide to Blogging Effectively (or die trying)
or:
Just How Naïve Is Spunk-Monkey? I Mean Really?

I must preface this by saying that I do not presume to declare rules. So far as i know, these are NOT rules. I only recently dragged my ass up from lurker status, so just know that I only have as much authority as any other member. Probably less, in fact.

A lot has been discussed here about new members, and suspecting one or another as being a troll. I for one sure can't say who is or isn't; it's a slippery slope to judge anyone's intentions, but i suspect a few people are being mis-labeled. As long as a poster is not actively engaging in name calling, i would like to give him or her benefit of the doubt. Conversely, if a post is factually inaccurate or just fucking goofy, i'll respond to it as time permits. Therefore, on the premise that some people who post are in earnest and unjustly receiving the stink-eye, here's a handy list of ideas to keep yourself more welcome than not, in no particular order, suitable for framing or wrapping fish...:

Get to know people. Be social. First post? Say hello. Discover each other's personalities, posting habits, ideas, etc. Earn a little respect by showing a little respect. That doesn't mean you have to do a dance on everybody's birthday, but any shared forum is just an extended community. Remember that the reaction to a newbie anywhere is guarded, and largely based on first impression. Imagine if a stranger walked into your living room and told you that your opinion on this is or that is just plain wrong because talking-head "___" said so. I imagine you'd have a strong negative reaction as well. If you get to know others here, you'll probably find you like the people (when you agree or not). The more you like interacting with them, the more they probably like interacting with you. The best, most constructive debates are invariably among friends.

Tact. Be respectful. If someone makes an attack on you, the messenger rather than the message, try not to rise to it. Ignore it and remain on topic. In the end, unless the parties involved are known to be good friends, the insult-er will probably come off looking like a horse's ass whether that blogger "wins" the argument or not. So unless you know it's going to be taken in jest, it's probably not worth engaging in insults. I've experimented by engaging with unwarranted barbs to relatively respectful trolls, seeing if they would take it in jest, but it doesn't help. As it wasn't responded to in kind, i just looked like i was being a dick.

One huge reason for this is the most obvious tell: if someone joins the blog, immediately posts articles meant to get a rise out of others, but does not have enough affinity to chat or enjoy other's company, that's probably a troll. A genuine blogger enjoys the company of others here, and it shows.

Try and keep relatively on topic during a discussion. Trolls are notorious for scatter-shot postings that can't be taken seriously for the sheer number of logical fallacies they contain. It's a favorite of the conspiracy theorists, like that video about the World Trade Center being a controlled demolition. In it there are an incredible number of inaccurate and misleading proposals, each one put forward before the previous one can be honestly addressed. The final result gives an impression that it's irrefutable, when in reality it's just too tedious and time consuming to refute each point one at a time. Troll posts are often like this, and are usually ignored or responded to in the briefest of responses. The troll does a little dance thinking he won, when in reality he hasn't convinced anyone.

Consider your sources, as well as how others will consider them. Suppose you want to share smoking-gun proof about any issue, like: without provocation, candidate "A" just called candidate "B" a big fat doodie head. If your only source is someone with a detailed history of distortion and misdirection like Limbaugh, Coulter, Stossel, or anyone at FOX, it's almost guaranteed to be ridiculed. Find a reliable source for it; any mainstream journalist is a step, albeit a limited one. Footage or audio of it can provide some degree of evidence, but it's usually not very hard to fake or edit any footage to change context. And anyone can get something listen on Wikipedia, at least for a while. If, however, you can find corroborating reporting from someone you suspect is more widely respected by your target audience (like Seder, Maddow, FAIR, etc.) at least you will have something to build from. Sure, even Sean Hannity can tell the truth when it suits his purposes, but many sources are more known for dubious claims than verifiable accuracy.

Try not to be too suspicious of trolls. Some people might be returning trolls, but maybe not. We could play "who's who" all day, but without a lot of effort it's neither verifiable nor constructive. Personally, even if i knew someone had been banned for abuse but came back under a new name, i would like to extend the courtesy of a second chance (under a watchful eye, but still an honest chance). If they get banned again, so be it. But it's not worth the potential cost of harassing a newbie just becuase there's a similarity to a known asshole. If you suspect a troll, the SPIT rule does very well. If a blogger does have trollish intentions, engagement, confronting and even banning tends to just validate the troll. Ignoring a troll will make him feel unwelcome, smaller and more insecure. If you suspect a troll, it's usually not a good idea to call them out unless there's a particular fact that you can refute empirically and letting it stand unchallenged will fuel myth and misconception.

Brush your teeth. Nobody brushes or flosses like they should, as my intensive dental repairs can attest. It's just a good idea, and blogging is as good an excuse as any. And smile while you type.

Bottom-line for me: The blog only gets poisoned if we respond with poison or let trolls chase us away.

I'll stop here before i ramble on about the differences between FACT and OPINION, the incredible coolness of a person when they graciously admit to having been wrong, how dubious poll results can be, etc... but that's really the kind of difference that makes people interesting. Season to taste.

I'm sure there are many more ideas, and perhaps others would like to contribute?

Respectfully shutting the hell up now,
- your friendly neighborhood Spunk-Monkey