Quote:
That's because the definition is almost completely subjective - one person's comments are trolling to some but telling it like it is to others, a Muslim player might have considered the cheers and shouts of the news of OBL's demise to be trolling while a Democrat might consider have considered people cheering last November's election results the same way, many probably consider telling off poorly playing party members to be trolling.
Then there's griefing - while technically different due to it being "actions" instead of "words" I'm sure many don't make the distinction as, while the means might be different, the intent and effect on the target(s) is the same.
So saying that people don't use the word "troll" correctly is like saying that one should only put ketchup instead of vinegar on french fries or that salad dressing and pineapple slices have no place on pizza.
No. Exactly not. The point you're making is exactly the point I'm argueing against. What I see so incredibly often is people calling folks that simply swear or disagree with them "trolls". That's so off the point. I'm not saying 'trolling' has to have ONE PURE AND CLEAR definition, but somebody cannot "consider" something trolling. A Muslim who has problems about cheers and shouts of OBL's demise can consider the shouters ********. Not trolls. What they're doing has nothing to do with trolling.
What you're argueing about is the definition of '*******' or 'prick', I'm trying to say that trolling is different from that. Whatever your assigned meaning, 'a troll' != 'an *******'. They *are* to different things. It might be my own fallacy, but it annoys the crap out of me when person A insults person B and person B calls person A a troll in return. That would be similar to you insulting me and me replying "Well yeah, but you're being a car mechanic now!".