albert at waller.net
Thu May 24 00:33:43 UTC 2001
At 04:49 PM 5/23/01 -0400, Shawn McMahon wrote:
>You're assuming that the responses are an attempt to convince the troll.
>They're not; nobody cares what the troll thinks.
>The responses are to convince the peanut gallery, because the fact is that
>the vast majority of those reading this (or any) mailing list are not
>posting, and many of them are undecided on any issue that comes up.
>We respond to trolls so that the lurkers will hear the rational sides of
>the story, not just the troll side.
>This has the unfortunate side effect of feeding the trolls, but it's
>an acceptable risk if it enhances the clue level of someone who isn't
I disagree. This isn't CLUELESS-NEWBIE-L. Anyone reading NANOG can probably
smell a troll. I know it's hard to resist feeding them - I participated in
my share of trollfests on SPAM-L in 98 and 99 (not to mention the flamewars
between genuine anti-spammers who disagreed about methods), but I like to
think that I learned from the experience. Trolls don't go away until they
stop getting responses. If you must enlighten the peanut gallery, "Go away
troll" would suffice. Anything more guarantees that he will continue
trolling. Arguing with a troll as if he were a rational person gives him
the appearance of credibility.You can't get the last word. I know, I've
tried. You can't. No matter how irrefutably you prove your point, he will
simply embellish his troll and post it again.
More information about the NANOG