So now that most of us know who the troller from WisCon is, what do we do about her?

My first question to you is, what about “don’t feed the trolls” did you not understand?

Probably the worst way is to respond with hurt and rage. This is what trolls are in the game for. If you do this, the troll can make more fun of you and the cycle continues.

Another poor way is to respond in kind. Again this perpetuates the dynamic and encourages more interaction while simultaneously corrupting your own side and your moral and ethical advantages.

A good general way to respond is in a way they aren’t hoping you will (Angry Black Woman has suggested an approach of spamming the SASS board with cute pictures of kitties and nice, sweet things). Honestly, this would be a good one if we knew none of the cute-spammers would ever get angry and knew no one would ever stoop to anger or revenge on the side of the righteous. Unfortunately, because we’re human and on their battleground, it’s not likely to go well for us if we do carry out this plan - inevitably we’ll get caught up in the bad feelings and stop doing the right thing.

Another possibility, which grants a moral advantage, is the way badgerbag responded, which was deconstructionist and in sympathy. badgerbag responded by saying, “Hey, this person must be pretty fucked up.” (paraphrase), then did research and found evidence that our troller seems to have some eating disorder-related problems, and then exhorted us to instead try to respond to this person with sympathy, and to interpret her trolling as cries for help. The advantage here is that we move from a moral high-ground and the ethics of this approach are pretty sound. Unfortunately, like the cute-spamming strategy, it puts us within reach and should things go south again, builds in us the possibility to resent and to rage about how it went, despite all the good faith effort we put into trying to build bridges.

I think if I were moved to respond in some way, I would probably choose a strictly formal legal route with hired legal representatives. It is a little trollish to respond with legal measures, but it kind of evens the playing field and from the tactical standpoint, any trollish aggression after the first legal move actually digs holes much more deeply and more quickly for the opposing side (actually, until they realize you’re absolutely serious, you’re likely to get more bullshit than less, which will be to your advantage in the long haul, which is one of the reasons I’d choose this route). Legal responses are formal and impersonal, which helps average out any stupidity and cushions us from the corrupting influences of getting too involved. Also, they are generally ethically sound (as long as you’re careful). Morally sound? I’m not quite sure. I think it may depend on your religion.

But I think the absolute best way to respond is very satisfying in a Zen sense, if you can manage it. You simply don’t. You do not give the troller any notice, credit or attention. You just get on with life and act like they aren’t even there (or even better, naturally exhibit complete ignorance of their existence, because you don’t care). Why does this work so well? Because the troll craves attention, the troll craves a reaction, the troll wants to be noticed. Fundamentally, not noticing, not caring, not responding is the best reaction because they get absolutely no feedback at all, and will eventually go elsewhere for their trollish pleasure.

Tags:   anti-troll · ethics · morality · strategy · tactics · trolling · wiscon1 Comment