Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 22, 2004, at 14:06:47
In reply to Well, that's not what I meant to say either :), posted by Dinah on October 21, 2004, at 7:11:38
> > Careful analysis might prove that, when the term isn't used simply to exclude those with ideological differences, it is most often used to exclude those whose rhetorical skills either fail to meet or exceed the general skill level of the group.
>
> All I meant to say was that people may have other reasons for what they do. I didn't intend to say anything negative about the group's behavior. Or to comment on the group's rhetorical skills.
>I did not comment on this groups rhetorical skills or dynamics, nor did I intend to paraphrase your point of view for you. I was referring to casual recollections of analysis of the term troll as used in internet groups in general, specifically not at this group, where the term is rarely used and possibly not permitted in most contexts. I could be be more specific in reference to rhetorical skills associated with negative perceptions among virtual large groups and say the relationship appears to correlate not with discrepencies of total skill level, but rather with discrepencies relative to expecations of rhetorical styles employed among various virtual large groups.
To site the difference, outside the context of the label of "troll", in your reply you seem to suggest rhetorical skills related to revealing personal emotional information may be more highly valued here than some other categories of rhetorical involvement.
> Or, as Dr. Bob says (in paraphrase), perhaps it would be helpful if you (or anyone) explained a bit about the why of what you're doing. Not globally or in terms of protecting current posters, but personally, in terms of your own pain that arose from participating in Babble.
>I don't understand why my explanation can't be accepted at face value. It pains me to see other people hurt.
> If all people *see* is a behavior, then it's hard to see the whole person, and the whole person tends to seen *as* the behavior.
>I don't recognize the difference -- why are my posts "behavior" while others are revelations about the "whole person". If I act out of pain resulting from witnessing others' suffering, that is a big part of the whole person I happen to be.
> Of course, if you don't wish to reveal too much of yourself personally, that's your choice. But you might consider that what you call labelling of "popular members" might be more accurately considered insight into more self-revelatory members that results *from* those revelations.
Could be, except I was not basing my assessment of popularity on the nuances of this site; I based them on a general assessment of polarization in asynchrynous virtual large groups. Across the board, popularity can be a result of an infinite variety of circumstances, and in many cases among that very broad set, the lack of disclosure of personal information assists in building popularity.
poster:Mary_Bowers
thread:403649
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/405957.html