I think we, as hackers, are somewhat lucky when identifying trolls. This is because our projects, our work with computers encourages less ambiguity. For example, if a troll enters a thread and asks a question about why a product doesnt support feature X we can give good, rational answers. If they don't get our message and press forward with their ignorance we can dismiss them as troll.
We, as hackers, as members of communities outside our work or projects (for example, as an enthusiastic invested consumer of Apple, or a enthusiastic FOSS evangelist) where there is more ambiguity in whats true or false are more susceptible towards trolls.
In the first case there is a certainty about reality, and in the second the troll disturbs a fabricated reality based on social dynamics.
For example, if I were to say that you as part of the HN community believes things on faith which are not real or true, but you only believe these things because the community you belong to wouldnt accept you if you went against the group, you be slightly offended. I would be trolling you, but I would also be speaking the truth.
In both examples, trolls are outside the group, and the best way to identify a troll is to examine you and your peers within the group. How do you label the troll, how do you/they discuss the individual? Look at the words - "neckbeard" "basement" "not educated" "pyjamas" "troublesome" "problematic" - these are all commonly used to further exclude an individual from a group. Trolls can show group dynamics in action.
Codes of Conduct in online communities are all about group dynamics and security and not about making the community more inclusive or diverse. CoCs are anti troll measures.
In summary though - here is a radical idea. Without trolls your group is weaker. Its only by pointing out a threat to a group, by identifying what is not the group that the group is stronger. By fighting against trolls you defend your own investments in the groups and communities (no matter how fake and useless) you belong to.
The fact that people still discuss spaces vs. tabs easily disproves your point. Vi vs. emacs? Again, group dynamics in action, and those discussions still end up in thousands of replies.
I imagine you were referring to the first point - that we, as hackers are lucky in our projects and work in that there is often good clarity as to likely questions, but that vi vs emacs means that there is no clarity. I believe that this is not a good example of our work and our close technical projects but rather that you are agreeing with my other points, that it's about social dynamics and people being invested in a certain community. That is, vi vs emacs is about groups, but it's not about trolling. A troll is an individual. An entire other community, whilst helping to define other communities by its opposition cannot be labelled a community of trolls. Most people do not consider 4chan to be a community of trolls, for example. I don't think there has ever been a community of trolls, and if there has, they have never identified themselves as such.
We, as hackers, as members of communities outside our work or projects (for example, as an enthusiastic invested consumer of Apple, or a enthusiastic FOSS evangelist) where there is more ambiguity in whats true or false are more susceptible towards trolls.
In the first case there is a certainty about reality, and in the second the troll disturbs a fabricated reality based on social dynamics.
For example, if I were to say that you as part of the HN community believes things on faith which are not real or true, but you only believe these things because the community you belong to wouldnt accept you if you went against the group, you be slightly offended. I would be trolling you, but I would also be speaking the truth.
In both examples, trolls are outside the group, and the best way to identify a troll is to examine you and your peers within the group. How do you label the troll, how do you/they discuss the individual? Look at the words - "neckbeard" "basement" "not educated" "pyjamas" "troublesome" "problematic" - these are all commonly used to further exclude an individual from a group. Trolls can show group dynamics in action.
Codes of Conduct in online communities are all about group dynamics and security and not about making the community more inclusive or diverse. CoCs are anti troll measures.
In summary though - here is a radical idea. Without trolls your group is weaker. Its only by pointing out a threat to a group, by identifying what is not the group that the group is stronger. By fighting against trolls you defend your own investments in the groups and communities (no matter how fake and useless) you belong to.