Needs Help: Sliding Scale Of Troll Cruelty

This whole trope cluster is a mess.

• Troll
  • As described on its page: "A malcontent that posts messages specifically designed to enrage, confuse, and/or infuriate as many people as possible."
  • As described by its examples/wicks: The above, but not just on the internet and often targeted.
  • As described by The Gadfly: Like The Gadfly, but on the internet and likely more malicious.
  • As described on Manipulative Bastard: Someone who manipulates for "cruel amusement"
• The Gadfly
  • As described on its page: "A character who often says things they don't necessarily believe in order to get a reaction."
  • As described by its examples/wicks: As above.
  • As described by Troll: Someone "not necessarily a troll but often partakes of some aspects of one."

So Trolls have single targets or multiple, are only on the internet except when they're not, and are usually malicious except when they're not. The Gadfly is like a Troll off the internet, except when usually (but not always except always) not malicious the way Troll sometimes, usually, and always are.

Then there's the page under discussion, which rates trolls, but not necessarily Trolls, on a scale based on the balance between humor and cruelty. (Type 1 is funny and not malicious, while Type 5 is malicious and not funny at all.) Then it serves to make things even more confused:

• Troll
  • As explicitly placed: 4 or sometimes 3
  • As placed by the scale via "internet trolls" (i.e. the version described on Troll): 4 or 5
  • As placed by Troll: 2-5 so long as it's on the internet
  • As placed by The Gadfly: 1, 2, or sometimes lower, on the internet
  • As placed by Manipulative Bastard: 4
• The Gadfly
  • As explicitly placed: The defining trope of 1, except when they're actually 2
  • As placed by The Gadfly: 1-3
  • As placed by Troll: A lower number than Troll itself (and therefore 1) except for when they overlap (and thus also some spots lower than 1).

So, The Gadfly defines Type 1, but isn't always Type 1, and will in extreme cases go as low as Type 2, except when Type 2 is normal and Type 3 is the extreme end. Troll is only Type 4, except sometimes it's Type 3, and on the internet it's often Type 5 , but so long as it's on the internet, it's Types 1 or 2, except when sometimes it's lower.

---

So, the real question is: why are we trying to fix a page that contradicts itself (compare the descriptions of Type 1 and Type 2), when we can't even get the base pages to agree with each other?

I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.

We're trying to do it like that because attempts to fix Troll have been met with locked TRS threads. I've never been sure as to why.

edited 4th Jan '13 7:46:23 PM by Arha

Given that such unannounced thread locks are Fast Eddie's MO, I think the only way to get this all fixed is to call in his opinion on the topic and on the fact that troll's definition/description is at odds with the usage.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

What's being attempted here is classification purely based on cruelty. The only reason humor gets mentioned is because the page is trying to report the very real audience reaction. The audience almost always finds the antics of type 1's and type 2's (The Gad Fly) funny, though being an unfunny gadfly is certainly possible due to delivery. The darker ends of the scale can just as easily be hilarious, but it depends on the delivery, though it is actually quite hard to make a type 5 funny (The Joker being a example of rare success in that area).

The page does mention some of the things that previous TRS topics came to a general consensus about.

1. Being a Troll has absolutely NOTHING to do with the internet.

2. The core difference between The Gad Fly and Troll is in their motive/maliciousness. A gadfly is only in it for harmless amusement, thus is never malicious about their antics. A Troll either doesn't care if people get hurt (lower grade ones) or actively seek to bring harm to their targets.

3. As seen earlier in the discussion, the Manipulative Bastard manipulates and hurts people mainly for the objective rather than for dark amusement (i.e. Kyubey). —Personally, I'd be inclined to allow a character to be BOTH a Manipulative Bastard and a Troll if both cruel amusement and the objective are important in equal measure, like with Terumi.

We would love to fix the Troll page with the updated definitions agreed to, but alas, the page is locked. The objective of the TRS thread was to create a clear definition so that the page could be unlocked. The page is easily the biggest train wreck on TVT, loaded to the brim with examples that are incorrectly placed there but can't be fixed due to the lockage (many of them would actually be more appropiate as gadflies based on the maliciousness of the characters.

Note: Type 2 is just a darker version of Gadfly (similar to the comparison between an Ideal Hero and a type 2 antihero). There is no overlap between Gadfly and troll on the scale

edited 5th Jan '13 6:44:31 PM by magnum12

I have just finished talked to the Fast One, and he has given his blessing to making Troll not just restricted to online. Once there's space in the TRS, we should make a thread for that. I recommend we put this thread on hold until then, since fixing this thread is dependent on the new description for Troll. Before I close this up, we should outline the plan for the new trope descriptions. My thoughts:

• The Gadfly: a character who often says things they don't necessarily believe in order to get an amusing reaction.
• Troll: a person who often says things they don't necessarily believe for malicious purposes.
• Sliding Scale Of Troll Cruelty: Obsolete with the official Malice/Amusement split.

I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.

Looks good. When we get a finalized page I'd simply make sure we emphasize that trolling is fundamentally malicious in intent and that causing pain is more or less the point. A Manipulative Bastard has a reason for what they do beyond amusement, a Troll largely does not. The Manipulative Bastard can enjoy screwing with people's heads, but trolling is not a means to an end, it's the end itself.

edited 8th Jan '13 10:04:54 PM by Arha

I would can Sliding Scale Of Troll Cruelty if only because it encourages creating sliding scale pages.

By the way, the second troll thread is still unlocked:[1]

edited 9th Jan '13 9:49:56 AM by SeptimusHeap

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Morgued by not locked. Interesting. As an unlocked thread, it really does belong in the TRS.

I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.

Ironeye's suggestion is pretty good. My only complants are as follows, but are just minor nitpicks for the sake of completion.

1. The wording. I get what is meant and intended, but the wording seems overly specific when one could easily simply like messing with people as opposed to saying what you don't believe.

2. What do we do with characters that don't exactly care if people get harmed by their "antics", but aren't actively malicious per se? Basically, what the scale would define as the type 3's, such as Etna, Lambdadelta, Q, etc.

When this solution gets approved, now that in a twisted round about way, this trope has performed its role, there is no point to it existing anymore. I support its axing.

edited 10th Jan '13 7:23:56 PM by magnum12

I was using the existing language from The Gadfly, which I assumed was the most accurate characterization, given that it's the trope the we have been able to make minor tweaks to. We can of course change the descriptions if we decide the "don't necessarily mean" clause puts too much emphasis on that factor.

As for the other concern, the existing Type 3 would be included under The Gadfly by the definition on The Gadfly. Everyone up to Type 3 is motivated by amusement, not malice, which is the key distinguishing feature of The Gadfly (in contrast to Troll). There is nothing on The Gadfly that says that such characters must avoid causing harm (and thus only go as far as Type 2), just that causing harm is not the main reason they do what they do.

I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.

Now that we are on the way to fix Troll by expanding to not only the internet meaning, we might consider doing anything to this.

Personally, I feel that cutting it (or, if 56 inbounds are too much, redirecting it to Troll) and reducing any useful content as proposed here is the best way to do this, considering:

• This page only exists because attempts to fix troll have been met by locked threads in the past.
• It has only 11 wicks.
• Not all items on the page refer to trolls or indeed the name of this page.
• It contradicts the pages troll and The Gadfly as to their relationship, and that is already confusing enough.
• Almost all examples are Zero Context Examples, and many items there come off as But More or But Less of others.
• The distinction between The Gadfly and Troll can be simply drawn according to non-maliciousness vs maliciousness, making this page redundant.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

If The Gadfly and Troll cover everything this page does, it doesn't serve a purpose. The distinctions here are arbitrary anyway.

Check out my fanfiction!

There's no point to this anymore.

Agreed. I say cut once the new Troll page is official.

I agree with cutting this page. It will be made redundant, and for now it encourages "Trope Type X" which I think is supposed to be discouraged now.

Oppression anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere.

It is officially discouraged. See: Type Labels Are Not Examples.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Do we need to have a crowner for whether or not we want to drop this page?

If we need it, here it is. We'll need to add the pros and an "At issue" text if we use it, though.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Eh... adding the pros when there aren't any cons makes the idea seem pointless. I'll just stick anything useful to know in the 'At Issue' box.

Troll has a new description. Calling the crowner and redirecting the sliding scale. Glad this can be destroyed.

We do have a somewhat daunting problem ahead, though: in addition to cleaning up the wicks for this page, we also need to go through The Gadfly and Troll (both examples and wicks) to remove any references to the scale. Since Troll is already getting a wick cleanup of its own, let's use this thread to mark progress on The Gadfly.

While looking for references to the sliding scale, also move any Zero Context Examples and examples with insufficient context to the discussion page if you do not know enough about the work to bring them up to snuff. If we're already going to be checking all the wicks, we might as well do a full cleanup.

I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.

I do not see any "scale"-d examples on The Gadfly.

Did A-D of The Gadfly. And Sliding Scale Of Troll Cruelty. Now going onto E-L.

That's done, so now M-R.

Did that too. Now S and U-Z.

And that's done as well. Now taking T.

T and with it all wicks are done. Other work (such as definition tweaks) is happening here

edited 17th Jan '13 5:20:49 AM by SeptimusHeap

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Great work, Septimus! Locking this as done.

edited 17th Jan '13 2:09:16 PM by Ironeye

I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.