“In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant 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 an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.” – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Trolling does not have to resort to slang like “twat”. It can be done by refine language of standard English!

Whether a posting is “controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic” “provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion” is adjudged by the content/context of what is posted in entirety. Hence a person can “troll” even if he uses standard English without a single derogatory slang word.

For illustrations:-

Loh in his posting #20 on October 3rd, 2009 17:46 has expressed an opinion how UMNO by virtue of certain factors will prevail in its political domination. It is not an assessment that many will like here, and most assuredly not even him but it may well be a “realistic” assessment based on current facts. So what is the justification for LimKamPut to say this is “defeatist”, “this is “stupid”, we may as well not contest….”???

Based on a given set of facts, Loh’s assessment may be described as “realistic” but if one does not agree, does it mean it is “defeatist” and “stupid”???

Take another example of the thread “A vote for Pakatan is a vote against corruption”.

The same poster in his posting #40 on October 2nd, 2009 17:49 came out of the blues and said “by the way I was the first one to mention the Financial Procedure Act and someone has subsequently written eloquently on it without given me the due acknowledgement. Before that there was no mention of this act at all by this person. In fact, he even said that letters of support, if properly worded, could actually be letters of guarantee. I just want to keep the record straight.” Is this posting relevant?

Then what about posting #45 by limkamput on September 17th, 2009 16:52 under thread page 1 of “ Cleaning up the Judiciary – was the Chief Justice right?” where this was posted – “Orangrojak, that is why you are not a referee because obviously you do not know who is winning. And please write proper English here because we Malaysians read and write standard English, unlike the poorly educated class from UK”…

Don’t such posts written in standard English without slang like “twat” but judging by their content and choice of words qualify to be “controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic message” intended to provoke an emotional response from ones against whom such a post was obliquely directed causing disruption of online discussion?

As Loh said, my comments were not a defense of him as if he needed support. There are those like him who would not dignify an uncalled for remark or trolling. However there are those others who would be provoked to an emotional response and end up getting into arguments/mutual recriminations disrupting normal on-topic discussion in this blog. Yes I am not judge here but just as Lim KJam Put has the right to appeal to the moderator, I am also addressing my comments to the Moderator of what constitutes “troll” so that he/she could appreciate the bigger picture and be fair and moderate in his/her determination.

In context of what OrangRojak posted, it may give an impression that trolling means just using derogatory slang like “twat” when what I want to emphasize is that trolling is adjudged objectively by what is written in entirety and may take place with the best standard English without a single slang or vulgar term.

In fact according to definition of “twat” posted by OrangRojak it can, depending on context, be even used as “endearing” term.

Unfortunately, in selecting illustrations of how trolling could, judging by context, take place even in standard English without a single slang or vulgarity, it just happened that Lim Kam Put’s postings taken are most apt for illustration of my point. It is also convenience. This blog is replete with such examples, easy to just scroll over and there are ample pluckings!

Limkamput, I won’t respond to your posting #45 on Financial Procedure Act etc. To do so would engage this thread on a matter irrelevant to the thread, which is unfair to both blog & readers and ENDANGERED HORNBILL will once again have to suggest (legitimately) that such arguments be taken to another private forum!

On the matter related to this thread, I’d just comment a little on what ENDANGERED HORNBILL said about if “a vote for Pakatan is a vote against corruption”, then a vote for BN is a vote for corruption. Makes sense? Yes, good sense”…

Here we have to look at the idea of “corruption”, how narrow or wide one attributes to it. ENDANGERED HORNBILL refers to corruption of political kind, ie political corruption. It is not confined to just bribery and kickbacks or giving moneys to delegates/voters. In the widest sense, it covers for example favoring supporters and those who vote for a candidate with ‘special’ favours, an exchange which becomes illegitimate when all citizentry/tax payers are entitled equally to these favours, regardless whether they vote for one or not. For examples if I say the exchange is – if you vote for me I’ll bring development to your area ie bridges, schools etc or if you continue to vote for me I’ll perpetuate your priviledges and entitlement based on race. This kind of promises is illegitimate because all citizentry/tax payers are entitled equally to these favours ie development and no racial discrimination regardless whether they vote for you or not.

Yet this exchange is what the ruling coalition is offering on the table for majority of voters in Bagan Pinang to bite….One can call such an offer political corruption or feudal patronage exchange or any other term, but the fact is this offer of an amalgam of ideas comprising Ketuanan/ selective development in exchange for votes and support with one eye closed to the sheninegans of political elites has been going on for more than 50 years witnessing UMNO/BN political domination. So how far does 308 tsunami indicate change in majority’s attitude, extending even to a traditional UMNO stronghold like Bagan Pinang? That’s the question! An appeal to race is an appeal to primodial insecurities. For race not to count at least more than depredations of one’s elected leaders/officials, the majority of voters have to be matured, like what Godfather commented. However one cannot be sanguine that the basic exchange above has diminished in influence and marching to oblivion. Orang Rojak has stated this clearly : “I’m not convinced the lifelong ’support the government voter’ can see the difference – let alone the benefit – in voting PR. I think Bagan Pinang voters should vote PR just for change’s sake.” This is exactly how the existing system perpetuates itself – if “unbroken access to privileged positions makes people lazy and careless” then, the calculations are that people used to them will continue to have insecurities in relation to others, and therefore will vote for a system assuring continuance of the “unbroken access to privileged positions”, never mind that it incurs the downside of leaders being not up to mark, propriety and integrity. An assessment of that might well hold true is realistic and should not be denounced “defeatist” or “stupid”.

One has look at the objective facts when seeking to describe something.

For example, a man acts in a certain way based on his habit or convictions. He will not change, whatever you tell him. These are the facts. However people don’t describe the facts as they are (neutrally) – that he does not change habit or behaviour. They also put in their emotions into their words describing that man. If they believe in his convictions, they’ll describe him as “firm”, if not he’s “obstinate/stubborn”, if they are diametrically opposed to his convictions, then he is described as “pigheaded.” Either way the words used – whether firm, obstinate/stubbon or pigheaded – don’t often throw objective light on what the man really is. They just show where the bias/emotions of the person(s) describing the man lie judging from their choice of words.

Hence in Bagan Pinang a candidate found by his own party as guilty for money politics can be “good guilty” (as if guilty were not guilty) because he never disparaged and acted against his party’s interest just because it found him guilty of money politics. One can also extrapolate to say a person guilty of money politics is also “good guilty” if he ‘shares’ like Robin Hood his money and take care of party or some constituents with it. But is it permissible to twist words this fashion as if telling the objective truth when its far from it?

Like in this blog, just because a poster makes an assessment, which if reasoned and backed by logic and experience, may be described as realistic, can another poster, who emotionally does like the assessment and its inevitable conclusion, just summarily say and reiterate that that assessment is “defeatist” and “stupid” and thinks he can get away with it just because he is condemning the other’s comment, as distinct from the commentator himself as “defeatist” and “stupid” as if there’s a world wide of a big difference in such a case when the derogatory description is based on an emotional rather than a reasoned and intellectual response?

//Racist books were distributed to stir up tribal racist instincts//.

What else to campaign on? If religion, the PAs candidate has arguably better credentials. If financial probity, well the BN candidate had been found guilty by his own party of money politics (mitigated ostensibly by him being “good guilty”).

So the only remaining card is race even if it contradicts the top leader’s “1 Malaysia”!

This (Bagan Pinang) is a very crucial by election. If BN ever loses, it will not recover its confidence. If it wins (not marginally but truimphantly) it means, race is still, after 50 years of independence, a crucial factor that overrides downside of manifestly poor credential leaders. It will be a signal to Pakatan Rakyat that its upholding of multi racial Malaysia, as a principle, will militate against it in many areas where the “exchange system” offerred by BN is still very much alive and kicking.