The problem on most forums is that people say “don’t feed” while continue feeding (not necessarily the same people are engaged in both parts). I believe that the not feeding policy works because (1) I don’t remember seeing a really obnoxious trollish exchange not feeded by non-trolls (itself a weak argument, since I don’t frequent troll habitats often), (2) it corresponds to my proto-model of troll motivation, which is seeking attention (also a weak argument, I don’t really understand trolls) and (3) the trolls need something to react to, and the responses to their debate contributions provide more material and thus opportunities (this is a bit stronger argument, it seems almost self-evident).
The continued simultaneous existence of trolls and the no-feeding policy doesn’t say much and is well compatible with the policy being effective. Note that:
The claim isn’t that non-feeding is capable of eliminating all trolls in any situation, but only that it reduces the negative effects of trolling.
The non-feeding policy, although well known, isn’t universally applied, and trolls can easily thrive on places where the local debaters lack discipline and engage them.
To show that the policy doesn’t work you should compare two forums which have (approximately) the same topic, the same moderation rules and comparable audience and differ only in the troll-feeding attitude.
To further support your claim it would be helpful if you provided an example of a troll-disrupted discussion where actually nobody was feeding the troll.
Trolling that isn’t being replied to is simply called spam. Unfed trolls aren’t trolls by definition. That leaves open the question whether a policy of not feeding trolls reduces the the total volume of trolling + spam aiming to troll. The answer seems likely to be yes, but might depend on how rigorously the policy is followed (I can imagine unsuccessful admonitions not to feed them encouraging trolls).
The problem on most forums is that people say “don’t feed” while continue feeding (not necessarily the same people are engaged in both parts). I believe that the not feeding policy works because (1) I don’t remember seeing a really obnoxious trollish exchange not feeded by non-trolls (itself a weak argument, since I don’t frequent troll habitats often), (2) it corresponds to my proto-model of troll motivation, which is seeking attention (also a weak argument, I don’t really understand trolls) and (3) the trolls need something to react to, and the responses to their debate contributions provide more material and thus opportunities (this is a bit stronger argument, it seems almost self-evident).
The continued simultaneous existence of trolls and the no-feeding policy doesn’t say much and is well compatible with the policy being effective. Note that:
The claim isn’t that non-feeding is capable of eliminating all trolls in any situation, but only that it reduces the negative effects of trolling.
The non-feeding policy, although well known, isn’t universally applied, and trolls can easily thrive on places where the local debaters lack discipline and engage them.
To show that the policy doesn’t work you should compare two forums which have (approximately) the same topic, the same moderation rules and comparable audience and differ only in the troll-feeding attitude.
To further support your claim it would be helpful if you provided an example of a troll-disrupted discussion where actually nobody was feeding the troll.
Trolling that isn’t being replied to is simply called spam. Unfed trolls aren’t trolls by definition. That leaves open the question whether a policy of not feeding trolls reduces the the total volume of trolling + spam aiming to troll. The answer seems likely to be yes, but might depend on how rigorously the policy is followed (I can imagine unsuccessful admonitions not to feed them encouraging trolls).