Episode 63 - Beth Mutes Her First Troll

Troll: someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response

As regular readers will know – Beth’s Operator does her utmost to keep a healthy distance between her avatars and herself. And mostly that works just fine. But sometimes that distance collapses, and then boy, can things get icky. When they did, Beth went straight to a friend, who runs a training business in the real world and SL. He specializes in communication and negotiation. And has some excellent advice for dealing with difficult people – in particular how to communicate well during online interactions. So forget subtlety – here’s a full-on analysis and debrief for the next time it happens to you. OK kiddies, let the case study commence…

It started off so well. Beth was Instant Messaged by a fellow writer who had snooped her profile and got in touch. They found common interests, including certain writers, roleplaying and not suffering fools gladly. They complimented each other on their spelling and typing prowess (which always goes down well with people with literary pretentions!) There was a little too much probing into Real Life information for Beth’s liking. But she managed to skirt around issues such as age and gender, and asked about groups he’d listed in his profile – especially the Para-writers.

Beth was feeling relaxed enough to play the ‘guess where you’re typing from’ game based on timezones. It’s usually harmless enough. They worked out that he was in the UK and she in New Zealand. Beth was still trying to steer the topic of conversation onto something more SL-related, when the guy threw in a comment about a recent high-profile RL re-trial that had a New Zealander released from prison after 13 years when the Privy Council quashed his conviction. Beth’s Operator has a real aversion to injustice and had followed the retrial with great interest. Which is probably why she got ‘hooked’ by the following comments.

He says: I was actually just reading about your David Bain. I think he did it, personally. Interesting case, but I hope to God he doesn't get compensation
Beth’s thinks: That’s pretty harsh, and what does it matter what you think personally anyway? The guy was found ‘not guilty’

Beth’s Operator doesn’t want to be dragged into RL conversation but she knows that Beth is keen to share some ‘on the ground’ information with someone who perhaps doesn’t know as much about the topic as she does.
She says: Oh - it’s a shame it’s being reported that way outside NZ

Negotiator:
This starts off OK conversation-wise. He expressed personal opinion – nothing wrong with that. Beth’s Operator expresses personal opinion back. But if this guy was ‘trolling’ – then you took the bait. If you’d wanted to shut the conversation down at this point you could have said “Actually, this is back to RL conversation – I’d rather talk about SL”


He says: To me, it seems pretty clear that he did it
She says: Absolutely not. There was a miscarriage of justice
He says: Not true.
Beth’s thinks: Not true!!! Whaddya mean, not true? The Privy Council said there was a miscarriage of justice and then he was found not guilty in the High Court! How that’s ‘not true’?

Negotiator:
You’ve been hooked. And you are now in an arm wrestle – you’re talking in counterpoints. If you’d wanted to move on from this deadlock you could have asked probing questions to see if he had an opinion with a rationale or was just making a provocative statement, for example “what evidence have you seen, I’d be interested”


He says: Hold on, let me find you a brilliant article. It'll certainly make you think
Beth’s thinks: Well, this had better be something spectacular matey, cos I don’t usually need someone to point out when I should think about something

Beth’s Operator clicked on the link and saw the article in question. It was one of several that came out after the trial rehashing the worst kind of Talk Back Radio speculation, attacking the evidence, the jurors and also Bain himself. A successful libel action put a stop to the worst of this nastiness. She felt disappointment, and knew Beth wanted to ‘put him right’.
She says: Yeah - I read that one. There were a few others like it at the time. Nasty sensationalist stuff

Negotiator:
You fell into a common trap here – you used a bald assertion instead of an assertive ‘I’ statement, effectively fuelling the argument. To keep it as a conversation you could have said “to me they seemed nasty and sensationalist” as talking about your own thoughts and feelings is less provocative than asserting ‘facts’ about the world.


He says: Sensationalizing? Umm...a whole family, gunned to death, that's pretty sensational.
Beth’s thinks: Hmmm. This guy doesn’t seem to understand the difference between newsworthy and sensationalizing’

Negotiator:
He’s used a passive-aggressive response to hook you away from the point you were trying to make. Now, passive-aggressive can be fun – but generally it’s used to prolong an argument. To move on from this you could have tried to bring the conversation back to your point eg “Yes, it was tragic and I thought the article was sensationalist rather than factual”


He says: I don't think you read the article or else you don't know what "sensationalize" means. You may not agree with it but if you say that article is "sensational", you're either ignorant or stupid or you didn't read it.
Beth’s thinks: Youch! Did he just call me ignorant and stupid and accuse me of being deliberately uninformed?

Beth’s Operator is starting to feel real anger now. This hasn’t happened in SL before. Her first reaction is to want to defend herself.
She says: Wow! That's one heck of an assumption you just made there fella! Honestly - I read a lot of articles all through the trial. 90% were balanced

Negotiator:
Ah – now you’ve just given your own passive-aggressive response! This is now a jousting match that you want to win. What you could have said was: “Listen, if this has descended into trading insults, then we need to end this now”. This is assertive not aggressive.


He says: Ah, "sensationalized" doesn't mean "unbalanced". That's a different issue. No, wait. You used a word wrongly, yes?
Beth’s thinks: You wanker! What sort of logic is this? Are you taking in anything I’m writing here, or just looking for ways to score points?

In her heart, Beth’s Operator knows she should be stopping this conversation right now. But her sense of injustice has been hooked. She feels an overwhelming urge to ‘correct’ him. Like a fool she gives in to it.
She says: You think I used a word wrongly? Which one?

Negotiator:
Ah, now – he’s ‘called you’ on introducing a new word. Then he goes on to state your ‘wrongness’ as a fact, not a personal perspective. She didn’t need to, but I’m guessing Beth insisted on wading into an argument about word use here (gives a meaningful look – Beth says, “who me?”) There was actually nothing wrong with the statement you made, you asked for clarification.


He says: Do you truly think that something is "sensationalized", simply because you don't agree with it? Then you have poor reading skills, don't listen to me, and you don't accept your mistakes.
Beth’s thinks: Now THAT is personal. Where is the evidence that I can’t read, am not paying attention and especially that I have even made a mistake?

Beth’s Operator is reacting physically to the conversation now (another first for SL). She’s tingling, her palms are sweaty and she’s feeling slightly nauseous. But having knocked around the planet for a fair few years, she recognizes ‘fight or flight’ when she feels it.
She says: I think sensationalised means "taking a lot of opinion from Talk Back Radio and pretending it is factual reporting"

Negotiator:
He asked a question, which is reasonable. But then used an ad hominem attack (using a personal attack instead of an argument to devalue someone’s argument by attacking the speaker) At this point I would definitely be thinking ‘troll’. This seems to be a guy who just wants an argument and will keep on insulting you. See the previous point about stopping the conversation if it has become trading insults. In this case, what you did was mix up a definition with an example – and played right into his hands!


He says: You think that is the dictionary definition of "sensationalized"? Then methinks you need a better dictionary
Beth’s thinks: No, Meathead. That’s a perfectly accurate description of sensationalism

Beth’s Operator is sideswiped again. She’s now convinced this isn’t a spirited debate or logical argument at all. This is something else.

Negotiator:
Yes I’d agree – he is arguing semantics and you are trying to give examples and descriptions. You are now talking at cross-purposes. A classic negotiation tactic is to look to a neutral source right – so you could have pulled up the dictionary description here. This stops it becoming a pissing contest!


He says: In any case "balance" is a silly word. What would a "balanced" article about the Holocaust look like?
Beth’s thinks: You have got to be kidding me! What planet is this guy living on? He thinks you can’t have balance around an emotive or disturbing subject? What an idiot! And besides, we’ve hit Godwin’s Law: he was the first to mention the Nazis, he’s lost. Hardly a worthy adversary at all.

Beth’s Operator is feeling darn righteous now. She feels her feet on firmer ground. This person is just a nasty, stirring, reaction-seeking wanker

Negotiator:
Yes. Godwin’s Law applies – end of conversation! Walk away.


She says: I always try to remember that any article I read has been paid for by the publisher because they think it will attract readers to their publication
He says: Well, don't use the word "sensationalized", simply because you don't agree with it.
Beth’s thinks: I’m on solid ground here – I know I didn’t

Beth’s Operator is quite happy to type:
She says: I didn't

Negotiator:
You didn’t walk away, did you! And can you see what he’s trying to do here? He’s trying to perpetuate the argument, not have a discussion. When you made a statement he changed the subject again.


He says: That's lazy, crass and rather arrogant.
Beth’s thinks: There he goes again with the personal stuff!

Beth’s Operator thinks she’s got a handle on this guy now. Just the facts, Ma’am
She says: You just called me lazy, crass and arrogant?

Negotiator:
You didn’t need the question mark. He has resorted to ad hominem insults again – refer to above. This conversation should have ended some time ago; I’m beginning to think Beth was plain enjoying it…


He says: To use that word to describe an article like that, yes.
She says: And you didn't think that might be quite an aggressive and impolite thing to say to someone you had just met?
He says: You used a word wrongly, and stupidly. When called on it, you lacked the guts to admit your error.
Beth’s thinks: Yup – this guy is having a conversation that exists entirely in his own head. Maybe he’s replaying an argument with someone else? Whatever, this is nothing to do with me

Beth’s Operator is now thoroughly enjoying herself. She knows what to do. And she decides to be courteous
She says: Hmmm. Methinks you are something of a rude, attention-seeking and aggressive person with a number of communication issues. I don't need to talk to people like that. Please excuse me while I remove you from my contacts

Negotiator:
Um, no – you weren’t exactly courteous with that last bit, you were in fact passive-aggressive/aggressive! Your previous statement was fine, and it might have been better to stand your ground this second time and say “don’t you think that also may be quite an aggressive and impolite thing to say to someone you had just met?” Calmly repeating yourself is called ‘stuck record’ and is good when someone is trying to provoke you away from your point. Much easier in SL as you have copy and paste!


He says: No guts, no guts
She says: So rude, so rude
Beth’s thinks: Is this joker still trying to win an argument by refusing to back down and just plain insult someone?

Beth’s Operator opens his profile, clicks on ‘privacy’ and finds ‘Block’ in the list

Negotiator:
At last you do what you should have done ten minutes ago! “So rude, so rude” is slightly playground, but its such good matching I’ll let you have it.


He says: I rarely lose arguments lol
Beth’s thinks: In your own mind maybe!

Beth’s Operator clicks on ‘Block’ and mutes any further attempts by this avatar to IM her. Unfortunately, a couple were still ‘in the mail’

He says /me smiles
He /me hugs
Beth’s thinks: Oh how revolting – it’s like an abusive boyfriend trying to ‘make it up’ after he’s blacked your eye!
Beth’s Operator refuses to feel any more repulsed than she already does

Negotiator:
OK. To sum up - if you spot a troll, then the trick is not to feed it. Use ‘I’ statements about what you think and feel, rather than argue the ‘facts’. Have a conversation, not an argument. If not - end it and walk away. Unless you enjoy troll baiting (he casts a suspicious look in Beth’s direction…)

amasci.com/weird/flamer.html
www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll-tactics.html

Beth and her Operator are hugely grateful for the Negotiator’s tips and advice. And they double their resolve not to reveal RL info to people that haven’t been on their friendship list for at least a month. If someone jumped on a court case to ‘put the boot in’ when they saw an opportunity, imagine what it would have felt like if the troll had attacked something about Beth’s Operator’s job, home life, family or beliefs? So armed with a new perspective and a jolly useful bag of tricks, Beth’s Operator feels much more confident that she can now spot and avoid oncoming trolls. However, she is not completely sure that Beth can be trusted to use the knowledge only for good, and not use what she’s learned to provoke and attack trolls more efficiently in the future… We shall see!