Honestly One of the Dumbest Thread's Ive Seen

The point of trolling isn't to annoy, it never has been.

So if anyone can create a shit thread and look stupid in it, they deserve credit for doing so? That logic makes no sense to me.
 
For what it's worth (which admittedly isn't much):
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

As I said, he provoked people into responding to "set him straight" and generated a lot of discussion which was the point of the challenge. The opinion that he looked stupid by doing so is laregely irrelevant to the intended purpose.
 
thread in question
xNb4G.png
 
For what it's worth (which admittedly isn't much):
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

The key point of that is provoking discussion. Maybe now that's what trolls are seen as, but originally the term meant someone would purposely say something, whether they truly agreed with it or not, to promote discussion, not just to piss people off. Becker fits in easily with what trolling is known as today I suppose regarding this particular thread, but not what trolling was meant to be.

As I said, he provoked people into responding to "set him straight" and generated a lot of discussion which was the point of the challenge. The opinion that he looked stupid by doing so is laregely irrelevant to the intended purpose.

If the purpose, from my understanding, was to garner the most responses then yeah he achieved his goal. That isn't what my problem is. I personally think that is a terrible way of having someone advance in tournament like this but alas it is not my place to decide things like that. My problem is with the thread being complete shit. Which is why I chose the title of this thread particularly. I never said he shouldn't have advanced because he met the requirements needed to advance. People bring up terrible posters or awful threads in here all the time, this is no different.
 
Lulz, I love two paragraphs both starting with "basically".

Doc is master troll. Wasn't this thread copied over many other forums?
 
The key point of that is provoking discussion. Maybe now that's what trolls are seen as, but originally the term meant someone would purposely say something, whether they truly agreed with it or not, to promote discussion, not just to piss people off. Becker fits in easily with what trolling is known as today I suppose regarding this particular thread, but not what trolling was meant to be.
I'm unfamiliar with that alternate history but for now I'll take your word for it. But since that thread took place in less antiquated times where the more modern definition is applicable.
If the purpose, from my understanding, was to garner the most responses then yeah he achieved his goal. That isn't what my problem is. I personally think that is a terrible way of having someone advance in tournament like this but alas it is not my place to decide things like that. My problem is with the thread being complete shit. Which is why I chose the title of this thread particularly. I never said he shouldn't have advanced because he met the requirements needed to advance. People bring up terrible posters or awful threads in here all the time, this is no different.
The tourney's job is to find a mod. A mod's job—or at least one of many—is to drive discussion in his/her section(s). With that in mind, the thread in question seems to mesh well with the tourney. And of course you're entitled to your opinions.
 
So Armbar, according to you, this would be trolling the "right way"?

http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=123069

Ha well since I cannot tell if you were being serious or not and you not only persuaded at least one person (Tenta) but there were strong arguments coming from both sides...I'd call that successful. You didn't set out to annoy someone, or at least it wouldn't seem like that was your intention.
 
Well I set out to mess with the iMPACT Players' heads and see how many people would take me seriously. It was a ton of fun. :lmao: I didn't think that gimmick would really work in a promotion like TNA, ESPECIALLY not to the extent I said in my OP.
 
So I ran out of weed today, my dealer had his phone turned off, and my local "club" has been shut down by the Feds...

While searching through my closet I come across an old dimebag with two juicy nugs in it, I literally dropped to my knees and thanked the universe, now I'm about to get blazed, true story.
 
Well I set out to mess with the iMPACT Players' heads and see how many people would take me seriously. It was a ton of fun. :lmao: I didn't think that gimmick would really work in a promotion like TNA, ESPECIALLY not to the extent I said in my OP.

The point is that clearly some took you seriously shows it was a successful troll thread. Becker had no point, and did nothing but bash something even when clearly everyone had his number.

I know I am not the only person who sees the difference in these two examples.
 
First off, you will NEVER tear me to shreds in an argument/debate. I know you're one of the most intelligent posters here and a great debater, but you will NOT tear me to shreds..

Never said it'd be me. I just said that if you did what Becker did, you'd be met by the same resistance.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,846
Messages
3,300,823
Members
21,726
Latest member
chrisxenforo
Back
Top