Science has finally solved what causes trolls to troll

>>8660843

stanford is such a normie school

>filename

That's actually a fairly interesting field of research. I wonder if it will get reproduced

>>8660843

>science

>>8661912
I wonder if your mom will get reproduced, you gay nigger trumpet

>>8661920
pennis

>>8660843
>we adopt a definition of trolling that includes flaming, griefing, swearing, or personal attacks, including behavior outside the acceptable bounds defined by several community guidelines for discussion forums
this is considered trolling now. nice research

>>8661928
Because it is, you libcuck neet brainlet.

File: Unbenannt.jpg (29KB, 670x207px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 670x207px

>>8661928
>>8661930
>this is considered trolling

>>8661928
Be more snide.

>>8660843
I only troll for the occasional laugh because I have nothing better to do with my life and want to kms everyday

>>8661928
That is a pretty good working definition of trolling. Do you have a better one? I think flaming and griefing capture quite a bit if you give those definitions some wiggle room.

>>8661933
I agree that is not trolling. Being a dick on the internet is not trolling. I rescind my criticism.

Flaming - getting people in a tizzy with indirect, often leading, posts

Greifing - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefer

To me the 'unintended ways' gives it an essence of trolling.

>>8661937
pretending to hold a certain position just to rile up others.
flaming, griefing, swearing, or personal attacks just count as being an asshole on the internet

>>8661953
That's a pretty perfect definition

>>8661930
Under that definition your statement here is trolling

>>8661928
>>8661953
What if they chose a false definition of trolling just to troll their readers? The title even hints at it: Anyone can be a troll. ANYONE.

File: lizard.jpg (47KB, 789x433px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 789x433px

>>8661928
It's actually kind of genius in a nefarious kind of way if you think about it because it allows them to discard all criticism of their research as "mere trolling".

These guys are truly master trolls.

>>8660843
Pseudo science

paper link
https://files.clr3.com/papers/2017_anyone.pdf

>>8662008
>define trolling as being a dick
>discover the astonishing fact that having bad mood correlates with being a dick
>collect research money
this is why sociology is not a science

>>8662008
>In the NEGCONTEXT condition, the first three comments were troll posts, e.g.,:
>Oh yes. By all means, vote for a Wall Street sellout – a lying, abuse-enabling, soon-to-be felon as our next President.
>And do it for your daughter. You’re quite the role model.

>In the POSCONTEXT, they were more innocuous:
>I’m a woman, and I don’t think you should vote for a woman just because she is a woman.
>Vote for her because you believe she deserves it

troll comment actually gives reasoning while being "offensive"
non-troll comment is an appeal to emotion
somehow we only want comments of the second type in our discussion

>>8662031
Thing is those guys are computer scientists. Nevertheless, this shit was for the CSCW so in contrast to the rest garbage that goes there this wasn't bad.

>>8662034
also
>667 participants (40% female, mean age 34.2, 54% Democrat, 25% Moderate, 21% Republican)

>negcontext post is pro republican
>poscontext post is pro democrat
>somehow it's surprising that there are more "troll" (read: mean) comments under the negcontext comment when there are twice as many democrats in the sample as there are republicans