Definitions of Trolling
So, thus confused, I looked up "trolling" once again, because I'm the kind of guy who tries to use words whose meaning he understands. Other can reference this post in the future.
From the Cambridge English Dictionary: the act of leaving an insulting message on the internet in order to annoy someone.
From yourdictionary.com: Posting derogatory or false messages on social media.
From meta.wikipedia.org: An important part of the definition of trolling is that it is always something someone else is doing. The archetypal example of trolling is the deliberately inflammatory edit or post.
From unlcms.unl.edu: Trolling is defined as creating discord on the internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people by posting inflammatory or off-topic messages in an online community.
From Merriam-Webster: To antagonize (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments.
From thefreedicionary.com (the noun, troll): A person who posts inflammatory or otherwise unwanted material on an electronic forum.
Well, "The Adventures of E.R. Dietz" was certainly not offensive, inflammatory, derogatory, or false. All of the events actually happened. There is even a poster of Nastassja and the Snake in the closet here. Syracuse was 360-1. Someone named Dietz cashed in nine consecutive poker tournaments. The house filled with smoke from the utility company. And there is Wild Turkey and Jack Daniels in the kitchen.
The problem with labeling everything as "trolling" is that it contributes to the silo effect of how people think and operate online these days. Everyone can be upset by something. We have reached a point when the truth is upsetting, so the truth gets defined as "trolling." It's ridiculous. When a site starts suspending people because one individual gets upset for something they perceive as distracting their playground, well, the question arises as to why that person has that status and other people do not.
Axelwolf got it right. The win/win/win posts were obviously, from the beginning, going to be inflammatory to any APs or serious gamblers on this forum. I don't see any way around that. That is much more the definition of trolling than anything in "The Adventures of E.R. Dietz."
Any serious gamblers can contact me at integritysports@aol.com. Check out my blog at theskepticalgambler.blogspot.com if you have the chance. Now that March Madness is drawing to a close, I'll be back to generating articles on a several-per-week basis.
Quick shout out to TumblingBones, God Bless, and to paraphrase T'Challa in InfinityWar, "Somebody get that man a library card!" If you're running the Wizard of Vegas, you gotta know when the 50th anniversary of Fear and Loathing kicks off.
Some interesting definitions of trolling. Thank you.Quote: redietzI was suspended by the inestimable Wizard for my "Adventures of E.R.Dietz" thread. The reason given was "trolling." I had some misgivings about this, since the thread never mentioned MDawg, contained unlikely but verifiable events, had mathematically sound and verifiable occurrences, and was an homage to the 50th anniversary of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.
So, thus confused, I looked up "trolling" once again, because I'm the kind of guy who tries to use words whose meaning he understands. Other can reference this post in the future.
From the Cambridge English Dictionary: the act of leaving an insulting message on the internet in order to annoy someone.
From yourdictionary.com: Posting derogatory or false messages on social media.
From meta.wikipedia.org: An important part of the definition of trolling is that it is always something someone else is doing. The archetypal example of trolling is the deliberately inflammatory edit or post.
From unlcms.unl.edu: Trolling is defined as creating discord on the internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people by posting inflammatory or off-topic messages in an online community.
From Merriam-Webster: To antagonize (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments.
From thefreedicionary.com (the noun, troll): A person who posts inflammatory or otherwise unwanted material on an electronic forum.
I'd add my own further interpretation. "Making mischievous posts which are technically within the rules, but with the intention of causing suspensions of others."
Quote: OnceDear
I'd add my own further interpretation. "Making mischievous posts which are technically within the rules, but with the intention of causing suspensions of others."
Wow! If you REALLY believe that you should be suspending people left and right because there are a number of folks here that is ALL they do.
Yes, I understand that your hands are sometimes tied at time's. 😆
Moderation in moderationQuote: kewljWow! If you REALLY believe that you should be suspending people left and right because there are a number of folks here that is ALL they do.
Yes, I understand that your hands are sometimes tied at time's. 😆
Quote: EvenBobTrolling is when you post something somebody else doesn't like. It's really no more complicated than that. They don't like what you just wrote and to them that's trolling. Every mod I've ever dealt with has their own definition of trolling because trolling has no definition, it's whatever you want it to be..
It’s another way of saying I’m offended and I want that persons opinion to be labeled As hate and to get the person banned.
And when a mod decides to take action for the person who can’t seem to control how they react themselves, nor how they feel - because you know feelings are actually psychic and I can easily make you feel sad or mad and you have no choice to feel otherwise - it never solves the issue where the original person gets offended because they once again don’t understand that it’s their choice - to be here - to feel the things they do - to read the things that other people say.
Quote: EvenBobTrolling is when you post something somebody else doesn't like. It's really no more complicated than that. They don't like what you just wrote and to them that's trolling. Every mod I've ever dealt with has their own definition of trolling because trolling has no definition, it's whatever you want it to be..
I finally found something i can agree with the number 1 poster about!
Quote: Marcusclark66I finally found something i can agree with the number 1 poster about!
Trolling is a version of Catch-22. Nobody really knows what it is but if you're in charge you can invoke it anytime and it has to be followed. And you can't argue with it because you don't know what trolling is either.
Quote: OnceDearModeration in moderation
I'm guessing you must be thinking this to yourself quite often:
𝘥𝘰 𝘐 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴.............?........................ 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘤𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘪𝘵........................?
*
Quote: kewljWow! If you REALLY believe that you should be suspending people left and right because there are a number of folks here that is ALL they do.
you have so many complaints about forums
ever think about starting your own forum and running it the way that you know that a forum should be run?
if not..............why not?............................you spend a ton of time on them...............so time can't be the reason
or maybe you enjoy complaining too much to start your own forum
because if you ran your own forum.................it wouldn't be much fun to complain about yourself
it all reminds me of the legendary twitter feuds.......................except that those feuding are not world famous.............I think they enjoy it...........the feuding
*
You’re saying this cousin came back from hiatus on the astral plane (or back from the dead in another thread you created regarding said cousin) is an event that actually happened?
Yeah, no.
According to moderator(s), you were trolling. The definition of trolling is pretty clear and simple to understand.
Good luck understanding what trolling means or maybe you do and created this thread that questions the reason why your other threads were closed because this is your way of passing time? To each their own.
Quote: AxelWolfIsn't trolling one of those things where you just know it when you see it?
You’d think that, but the mdawg thread still exists.
Quote: AxelWolfIsn't trolling one of those things where you just know it when you see it?
It's 'YOU know it when YOU see it'. Trolling is a very personal thing, what's trolling to one person is not trolling to another at all.
But because the OP got the attention and/or validation OP apparently craved, you can now fast forward to today where some are borderline obsessed over OP and/or OP’s threads across multiple forums.
You reap what you sow, as the saying goes. But it might not be too late. I don’t know. Consider this post “advice.”
Quote: gamerfreakYou’d think that, but the mdawg thread still exists.
he's the 𝑲𝑰𝑵𝑮 𝑻𝑹𝑶𝑳𝑳.........................he's supersized trolling - taken it to places it's never been before
*
If you can leave doubt in an Admin's mind whilst making it clear to the person being trolled that they are being trolled, that's high level trolling.
Quote: SOOPOOFor me, sometimes I have difficulty deciding if a post is 'trolling' versus just stupidity on the part of the poster. When someone posts that 'since banker has come up 3 times in a row, I made an easy winning bet on banker the next hand that couldn't lose.....', I can't tell if the poster is delusional or trolling. Pretty much every post in a 'betting system' thread fits that idea.
but it's the maths. The chances of a dealer winning the next decision are slightly more than half. but the odds of him winning five decisions in a row are less than 10%. So if you wait until the dealer has lost four in row, you take your usual 48% chance of winning, factor in the dealers less than 10% chance of winning five in a row and you find you have a 216% chance of at least tieing one of the next several hands.
It may not be the math you learned in school, but Professor Scott Steiner explains it much better than I could. Just google him.
Like this?Quote: billryanbut it's the maths. The chances of a dealer winning the next decision are slightly more than half. but the odds of him winning five decisions in a row are less than 10%. So if you wait until the dealer has lost four in row, you take your usual 48% chance of winning, factor in the dealers less than 10% chance of winning five in a row and you find you have a 216% chance of at least tieing one of the next several hands.
It may not be the math you learned in school, but Professor Scott Steiner explains it much better than I could. Just google him.
Quote:During his commencement speech, Prof. Steiner proposed a novel solution to the Erdos conjecture on arithmetic progressions, did 100 push-ups, and challenged Stephen Hawking to a fight.
Quote: OnceDearQuote:During his commencement speech, Prof. Steiner proposed a novel solution to the Erdos conjecture on arithmetic progressions, did 100 push-ups, and challenged Stephen Hawking to a fight.
Is that the Erdos conjecture of arithmetic progressions or the Erdos conjecture of additive number theory?
You mean if arithmetic progressions of primes can get arbitrarily long for the first? And for the second, is that the a,b,c conjecture? I am guessing, have not Google'd these, but I'd like to know.Quote: unJonIs that the Erdos conjecture of arithmetic progressions or the Erdos conjecture of additive number theory?
My Erdos number is 3:
Quote: teliotYou mean if arithmetic progressions of primes can get arbitrarily long for the first? And for the second, is that the a,b,c conjecture? I am guessing, have not Google'd these, but I'd like to know.
My Erdos number is <= 3 (haven't searched all my co-authors). Me -> Larry Somer -> Florian Luca -> Paul Erdos.
Yes for the first. For the second I had not been aware of it until today. When I saw OnceDear’s post it prompted me to try to Google the connection to Erdos and I sunbird upon it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erdős–Turán_conjecture_on_additive_bases
