Political Trolling

I was just curious as to what constitutes political trolling.
Can a member bash a Government as a whole without fear of reprisal but not a party?
Is it more defined to include members of a particular party?
Can I bash the republican party all i want but not boehner (sp) and can I bash the dem party
all i want but not Nobama (sp)?
Anyway, where is the line drawn?

The End of Political Baiting and Sniping on ATS (was ALL MEMBERS READ)

This link might give you a better understanding of what constitutes political trolling. Now the staff always deliberate on these actions and so usually it's a matter of group consensus.

For example however, continually referring to the Healthcare Reform Bill as "Obamacare" or "Obamabot" or even the famous "Billo The Clow" (For Bill O'reily") would constitute political trolling.

Certainly criticism of government and elected officials/parties are an everyday occurring here on ATS. However when one uses terminology that is used to bait the other side into an argument of semantics, or to just disrupt the flow of conversation is when the staff will step it.

Hope that helps.

~Keeper
ATS Moderator

reply to post by tothetenthpower



Greeeeeaaattt.... Ive used Obamacare probably a hundred times and it wasn't meant as an insult at all.It is just a heck of a lot easier to type out than "Obama's healthcare reform" I need to keep a list in pencil concerning what's considered an insult or trolling and what's not around here. The only one Im sure of is teabagger versus teapartier... and I had to look up the definition of the first when it was initially used.

OP If you don't want to troll and are concerned with not insulting others, trust me.. someone will point it out. Its easy to apologize, learn from your mistake, and IMO, there's no shame in being ignorant of petty political insults.. who can keep up with the multitude of them!

reply to post by Advantage


Obamacare was overlooked for a long time, due to the fact that EVERBODY was using it (myself included at times). Now that the overall debate is over though, it's no longer appropriate IMO.

I use HCR to refer to it.

And we are all guilty of political trolling at one time or another. Conversations on ATS can have emotions running high and mistakes are made. You're right though, it's easy to learn from your mistakes, apologize and move foward .

~Keeper

For Whom The Bell Trolls

Another (and common) kind of political trolling involves the injection of politics into topics that aren't inherently political. Examples:

Topic: Space Exploration

P-Troll: Conservatives should all be shot into space!

Topic: Dogs Playing Poker

P-Troll: Liberals are throwing this country to the dogs!

Topic: Monoclonal Antibodies

P-Troll: Whatever these are, moderates should be eaten by them!

In general, attempting to inject political debate into non-political topics is "p-trolling", and yes, the kind of dreck we routinely remove from our forums as "p-trolling" is, on average, every bit as vapid and irrelevant as the examples I've provided here.

I think the best way to understand what distinguishes political trolling from political debate is to remember that p-trolling is still a form of trolling, and that the goal of trolling is always to disrupt topical disruption.

Expressing strong opinions about politics, politicians or political opponents is intrinsic to the nature of political discussion and is thus welcome on ATS.

Unfortunately, using politics as a pretext for personal attacks, name-calling and derailing topics may also be thought of as "traditional", because such behavior has characterized political discourse in many societies for generations. While it may be "traditional", it's incompatible with ATS etiquette and simply isn't viable in a culture oriented toward topical discussion.

On ATS, trolling is trolling, regardless of the motive, and although there is a special category for political trolling (mainly due to its prevalence), the bottom line is that it's still trolling, and ultimately meets the same end.

On the bright side, because trolling gets such a cold reception here, the political debates on ATS do tend to be a cut above what one usually sees on the Internet (i.e., page after page of people calling each other poopie heads).

At least, I think so.

You are welcome to believe differently, of course.

reply to post by Majic



Isn't trolling somewhat subjective. What I consider trolling might be simple reaffirmation to another member.

I personally would rather be called a "poophead" than marginalized, segregated and insulted as a "people like you"

is that trolling? It feels like it to me!

reply to post by tothetenthpower


So does that mean it is appropriate to 'report' a post if it uses 'obamabot' in a derisive manner?

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


Yeah, never feel bad about alerting a post. I do it all the time and sometimes I am wrong. It really is dependant on the discussion and the content of the post. The context is important as well.

If you feel that a certain post is only there in order to cause dividse off topic political trolling then please do not reply and hit the alert button.

Staff will decide together whether or not it violates the T&C.

~Keeper

reply to post by whaaa


That is why such things are handled by staff consensus. We all have different opinions on trolling and the more "gray" area kind of posting behaviours, therefore we discuss any and all actions prior to taking them. (Unless the post is clear violation of T&C.)

~Keeper

Troll Call

Originally posted by whaaa
I personally would rather be called a "poophead" than marginalized, segregated and insulted as a "people like you"

is that trolling? It feels like it to me!

Unless you are the topic (and you shouldn't be, outside the Members forum), any comments about you personally (most commonly ad hominem attacks) are off-topic and, if intended to disrupt discussion, constitute trolling.

Yes, that can be subjective, and it's normal for comments to run wide of the topic (usually to explore connections with other topics), but name-calling and insults stick out like a sore thumb and are easy to identify. When someone says "people like you", they aren't talking about the topic.

And therein lies the rub: the ultimate problem with any sort of trolling is that it distracts from the topic. It's noise whose only meaningful effect is to degrade the quality of discussion in our forums and make threads less interesting to read.

Hence the interest in keeping it to a minimum.

Wow, even after the moderators replies. I have to say that the matter is not much
clearer to me than it was before.
According to them, saying something like Nobama, which i do all the time, is trolling but also saying something like
Bushism or how about Reagenomics?
People tend to label things, especially presidents, with something they are famous, or infamous with.

reply to post by TriForce


That is why these matters are best left up to staff .

It's one of the more troubling aspects of monitoring the boards.

Figures Of Speech

reply to post by TriForce

It will tend to be confusing if you're trying to define political trolling in terms of some sort of speech code. That's not what it's about.

I shudder at the thought that there would be a master list of "acceptable" and "unacceptable" words for describing politicians or political groups. That would be somewhat Orwellian, not to mention impractical to implement (who would want to maintain a list like that?).

Yes, the owners have mentioned before that there are limits to how far political madness can go on ATS, and yes, if you use a particularly obnoxious or profane term it may be removed, but by and large, it comes down to a matter of context more than anything.

As an example, you probably wouldn't raise any eyebrows referring to "Bushbots" or "Obamabots" in general, but if you were to refer specifically to other ATSers in such terms, it's likely to be problematic.

Which brings us back to the point that political trolling is really just trolling in the guise of political opinion.

If a post addresses the topic of a thread and doesn't otherwise violate the AboveTopSecret.com Terms And Conditions Of Use, there shouldn't be any problems at all.

reply to post by Majic


What about insulting signatures? A type of perpetual trolling, not directed at individuals but groups.
I could show you some examples if you would like.

the political madness forum is FULL of people using off-topic, derisive terminology like 'tea bagger' and 'obambot' and 'shill' and 'agent'. the fact that there are a small handful of trolls that live in that section makes me think ATS mods don't REALLY care, and maybe even condone such divisive speech.

Ok, well I was just curious and no I havent been busted for political trolling lol.
I did get a mod edit for saying fukerburg instead of zuckerburg though (as in the founder of facebook) lol
Sorry about that mods, edit that ^^^ and I wont do it again.. just an example

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
the political madness forum is FULL of people using off-topic, derisive terminology like 'tea bagger' and 'obambot' and 'shill' and 'agent'. the fact that there are a small handful of trolls that live in that section makes me think ATS mods don't REALLY care, and maybe even condone such divisive speech.

It's hard to keep heated rhetoric out of controversial discussions. But some trolls do seem to get preferential treatment as they are allowed to offend over and over with no repercussions. Usually they are conservatives.....hummmm?

Here is another thread, created by SkepticOverlord, worth reviewing:

Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

From this moment forward, the following rules apply throughout all of ATS:
(1) Politically inspired name calling of an ideological group is not allowed: examples: "Loonie Libs," "Obamaites," "Repuglicans," etc.

(2) Alterations of a politicians name, or any other high-profile political figure, for disparaging political effect is not allowed, including within member avatars and signatures.

(2a) Avatars designed exclusively to denigrate a politician or political figure, using derogatory wording or photo-manipulation, is not allowed.

(3) Posts that continually parrot previously proven false political rhetoric without substantive contribution to the topic are not allowed.

(4) Posts that stray from the discussion of the issue/topic and focus on the political affiliation of members are not allowed.

(5) All other politically-charged trolling and sniping intended, in the opinion of our staff and topic participants, to derail discussion away form the issues are not allowed.

I see almost every single one of these rules broken countless times on a daily basis.

Great! Now that it's clear what political trolling is, and that there's a problem with it, let's not forget that the best way to deal with it is to ALERT problem posts and bring them to our attention.

We always appreciate the help.

Originally posted by whaaa

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
the political madness forum is FULL of people using off-topic, derisive terminology like 'tea bagger' and 'obambot' and 'shill' and 'agent'. the fact that there are a small handful of trolls that live in that section makes me think ATS mods don't REALLY care, and maybe even condone such divisive speech.

It's hard to keep heated rhetoric out of controversial discussions. But some trolls do seem to get preferential treatment as they are allowed to offend over and over with no repercussions. Usually they are conservatives.....hummmm?

edit on 10-4-2011 by whaaa because: (no reason given)

I, too, have noticed how the more right-wing trolls appear to get a blind eye turned towards their trolling and substance-less rant threads.