Over the weekend, the issue of "trolling" was brought to the JettBoy's attention. Admittedly, I'm still the new kid on the block 'round these parts, or one of them anyway, so I thought I'd take a few minutes to review the Renderosity T.O.S. It defines this practice as "destructive commentary/communications made with the intent to disrupt or attack". Hmmmm, that can be interpreted in any number of ways, such as;

Using rude, vulgar, inflammatory or otherwise socially unacceptable terminology? Example: "This piece is absolute rubbish not fit to hang on a shithouse wall!"

Expressing a negative opinion using terms that, while not actually vulgar, are meant to belittle or humiliate? Example: "I dislike this piece...the head looks like a big ol' pumpkin, and the amateurish lighting makes it hard to see anything at all. Pathetic all the way around, but keep practicing, you may get it right eventually"

Expressing any negative opinion at all? Example: "I just don't like this piece."

Voicing an opinion that differs from the norm? Example: "I hate to be the lone voice of dissent, but the colors are all wrong and the head looks out of scale."

Attempting to disrupt the flow of commentary and stop others from others from enjoying the work? Example: "ARRRRGHHHH! Turn back! Run away! What ever you do, don't look at this tripe!"

And is it "trolling" if you tag your commentary with some sort of positive statement? Example: "This is a sad, trite, and downright ugly attempt at art, in my opinion, but the lighting is magnificent!"

These are of course deliberately heavy-handed examples, but you have to wonder where the line gets drawn. I have seen commentary similar to the above noted on a regular basis...the JettBoy, acting strictly out of his own ignorance of the rules, maybe even left a comment or two that might be construed as "trolling" (oops!). Not trying to pick a fight, honestly, I am just sincerely curious as to what the general community standard is on this.

Ooooh...don't get me started :) There are some images you just want to leave a rude comment on sooo badly...but, I practice restraint. IMHO, trolling is more defined in the way a comment is posted rather than if its negative or not. Example~ -The hell no approach- 'Ur stuf sux! U not vry good!' -A nicer way of saying...You suck :)- 'Please don't take this the wrong way but...I believe you could improve this image by doing the following (yada, yada)...wish you luck/your getting better...etc.' I get IM's like this the most, its amazing how far politeness will get you/how much more respect someone will have for your opinion. -Don't think an image is approporiate...simple, to the the point...no personal attacks :)- I do not believe this image should be posted here. Although it is very well rendered (or other random compliment...lighting, pose, texture...whatever) it violates TOS and some may find it offensive or disturbing. Please feel free to post again, but I suggest different subject matter. Yeah...I know I sound like I'm kissing the person's ass in the process in some but...at least hopefully it is within TOS enough not to get me banned...and it makes it clear I don't like the damned thing! :D :::Needs more coffee::: Just my humble $.02. -Des

To me trolling is making a negative comment without giving a reason and a suggestion for improvement, or making a negative comment outside of the artistic merits of the work. Flaming is one step up from trolling: saying something to intentionally offend or start an argument. We've had some flamers here once in a while too. Trolling: I hate this, it's stupid. It's too sweet and sappy to be able to stand. This is crap. This is offensive to all decent people. You're work makes me sick. I don't like this kind of crap. If you're going to say something negative, then make a suggestion for improvement. Saying something is crap is just rude. Say you don't like it, give the reasons, and make a suggesion for improvement. Negative content opionions don't help anyone. If something someone does doesn't agree with your belief structure, then go on and don't leave a comment, and avoid their work. My rule is that if I can't think of saying something to someone's face, I'm not going to type it in the comment. We're supposed to be helpful here. If you can't help, then go on. And whatever you say, try common curtesy.

One other thing, words like crap, shit, fuck, and others like them will always be trolling in a negative comment. Sometimes the artist is cool about language (I am), but unless you know that, why use it? And we do have younger members who view comments here. Don't use it at all unless you know it's an adult piece.

The Scottster recently became aware of the fact that posting a thread containing: ""TROLLING"... what's YOUR definition?" Is also termed as trolling by some members here. The Scottster isn't sure what to make of that. But the Scottster is not really bothered by it.

In all the forums I've been involved in "trolling" refers to somebody who comes along and asks a question where they don't really care about the answer, they just want to stir things up. Or where they make a statement with a lie or a half truth, again to stir things up. The common example is "Which is better, Mac or PC?" They really don't care, they just want to see how big a fight they can stir up. Another might be " is not only cheaper, it's far better than ". (this would be trolling if posted in the forum of product y, but not if it was posted in the forum of product x) The term came from "Fishing for a reaction", or "Trying to bait someone into an arguement".

Which is better, red toenail polish or pink toenail polish? Not that I really care...lol Marque

Sometimes the fact that person is obviously getting off on the grossness of their comment is a giveaway. Like let's go to the galleries and hoot at the crap. I have, from time to time, just not been able to stifle, but it has usually been when the piece in question is reeeeely in question, so to speak. I did for example, mention that a picture looked like a girl giving herself a breast exam naked in a public place which didn't suit the romantic title, but purely as a render it was pretty good. But that's honestly what it looked like to me. Mind, I'd seen a lot of tripe that evening and I suppose this was the last straw. I generally like to be positive at least 50% of the critique-- more if justified. Emily

Ah, yes, "argument". Iovely word. It used to mean intellectual reasoning applied to a subject in order to learn a truth which would withstand further arguments. We need difference of opinion, and we need tolerance of such differences. However, we don't need worms eating at the root of our community by casting out divisive comments purely in order to feed on the remains. Perhaps the best way to treat this is to think of where the comment originated. Is it from the head (the seat of reason) or from the heart (the hearth of pure emotion) or from the spleen (the storage-place of poisons)? The galleries and forums can suffer a large amount of unthinking emotion ("Ooh, I really like this!" or "Creeping crapola!") and survive. We as individuals can even withstand unthinking comments. However, poison kills. Whether it is poisoning the atmosphere or driving an individual to leave or maybe give up creating altogether, it is still too deadly to tolerate. Although I still do not like the misuse of "troll" for "trawl", I feel that what is at the core of the problem is DESTRUCTIVE comments. Whether it is a snicker or a diatribe, the intent is to destroy... and THAT is a problem. Carolly

well, i'll tell you. even with the very best of intentions, it is probably not a good idea to tell ANY one in the poser gallery that they need to work a bit on focussing vicki's eyes, correctly. those eyes are my pet peeve, but, the folks that leave 'em crossed just don't see it, i don't think.

If you think trolls are bad, you've never run into an ogre, nor would you want to, believe me.

Two kinds of trolls in my opinion. I derived my opinion from what I have seen other people say and do and from the definition...which, basically, means to fish for something. In that regard, trolling was hit right on the head by what daverj explained. Meaning, fishing for guppies to bite on the bait. Trolling in the other sense, to me, means to be upset with someone and cruise (hence the word, troll) around looking for ways to "attack" them and their work. JB and I have had our differences of opinion and perhaps one could accuse me of seeing his thread and wanting to jump in and "spar" with him again. That's not the case. I try to take every subject on its own. In this case, IMHO, he is asking a very good question and one, I suspect, there is no good answer for. Mostly because the examples he displayed are borderline. I'm not sure his examples are exampels of trolling (although they COULD be), but they are examples of a crass way of giving critism. Indeed, some of his examples offered no constructive critism at all. I think if a person looks at a piece and likes it except for a thing or two, then they should point it out. And say why (or what may improve it) (in their opinion). If someone just doesn't like it at all, I think they should just move on.

looks over the thread. Nope ... not a troll... and wanders on

LOL @ Lyrra !

I think if a person looks at a piece and likes it except for a thing or two, then they should point it out. And say why (or what may improve it) (in their opinion). If someone just doesn't like it at all, I think they should just move on. yeah, well...in theory, that is fluffin swell...but, in reality...there is someone, here....with a lot of either friends, or clones, i might add...whose work i think could use some improvement in the eyes...i HATE those out of the box, gooch-eyed vickis. well, i commented on 2 of this person's pics....saying what i DID like...the reflections, etc...and, then bringing up the eyes....ya' know...the eyes need some work on focus...something like that....this person went through my ENTIRE gallery the following day, and brought down all the ratings on the things that had few enough rankings to be changed. also, this person, reported ME for trolling, and, sent me ims to the effect that my gallery had been trashed. currently, this person has 2 pics in the poser hot 20. the powers that be, here....told me NEVER EVER to mention that person's name in the forum, again...NEVER, EVER post another comment to that person's gallery, AGAIN, etc. NOW, THAT IS TROLLING...BIGTIME. bitter, me? hell no...it will just be a very, very cold day in hell before i post an honest comment, again, on someone's work, who, imo, could be good with some improvement. pop..pop...Poppi!!!

Poppi, If they ever get an animation gallery up so I can link my stuff to it, you're one of the people I'd most like to hear from. I trust that you'll be straight forward and honest. I also believe that, if I don't understand your reasoning, I can ask you and you'll try to explain what you mean in terms I do understand. Of course I also know that not everyone will like what I do, and that there will sometimes be subjective differences of opinion. That's human nature, that's life, and I accept that. If I ever get anything up, IM me.

Carolly, In the dictionary the definition of "trawl" is "1) To fish with a trawl. 2) To troll." Diane

One of my images got over 500 views in the first 48 hours and a comment was that it needed something. So I IM'd the guy and ask what it needed. He said he forgot. Now keep in mind that the osity gallery invites this kind of stuff by saying that criticism is welcome. yes, constructive criticism is, but if no one can remember what the image needs, then that's not constructive.

ROTF Eric!

If they ever get an animation gallery up so I can link my stuff to it, you're one of the people I'd most like to hear from. I trust that you'll be straight forward and honest thank you. that is my nature. i feel bad when i make an honest comment, and am mistaken for a troll. i think some only care about hitting the 20, and not saying anything with their art. i think they may even use clones to get there, as i have actually checked some of the oooh, ahhhh, folks who commented, and, perhaps voted...no gallery...no posts to forums...no nothing. oh, well, around here, the times they are a changin'...if i hate that enough, i will move on.

What's sad is the number of times I've seen language usage get in the way. For example, I remember one person posted an image that had a rocking horse in it. One of the comments was that it had several good qualities but it appeared a little "flat." The person who made the comment was blasted as a troll. Less than 2 days prior, I'd been talking with a friend who's the Director of Photography for an independant film. We were talking about lighting and he was explaining how he used the lights to give a greater sense of depth to an image. If the lighting wasn't optimal, the image appeared "flat." When I looked at the piece in the gallery, I could see why the term "flat" had been used. It wasn't an insult. It was simply pointing out that the lighting could have been used to give a greater sense of depth between parts of the Rocking horse. However, those who weren't familiar with the professional use of the term almost crucified the one who used it. It was a constructive comment. If the person who'd done the picture had understood the term, they might have had an opportunity to learn a little more about lighting. However, the language got in the way and someone who had tried to be helpful got smacked down.

When I noticed this term being bandied about, I wasn't sure if it was a reference to 'troll', the nasty creature from myth and folklore, or if it was rooted in 'trawl', the fishing term often spelled as 'troll' (as mentioned above, thank you very much). Just from what I've heard/read here, the whole concept seems pretty wide open to interpretation. If a comment hurts someone's feelings, bruises their ego, or if they just disagree with it I think someone could say they were being 'trolled'.

"If a comment hurts someone's feelings, bruises their ego, or if they just disagree with it I think someone could say they were being 'trolled'." That's part of the problem with defining (and dealing with) it. This statement implies that trolling is in the eye of the beholder. Yes, the beholder usually is the one that applies the word "trolling" to a post. However, we don't always behold accurately. Trolling is really based on the intent behind the comment. That's not always easy to determine. Thus, we end up with all sorts of problems. The beholder is not always correct. I don't envy the Mods & Admins.

Whenever I respond to an image I try to say one nice thing about, and then... I begin my list of constructive improvements. I always try to remain neutral and - unemotional - but it's always interpreted as me being a dumb stupid bitch. Yes, you're dumb and stupid if you criticize an image of a nude woman with breasts larger than her head (and brain combined). Do I sound bitter? :) After two years it gets tiring.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=286417

I think the better question is "What is THIS SITE'S definition?" It doesn't matter what you think trolling may be, only what the PTB (powers that be) think it is. And it is: And comment that can be considered negative, no matter how "contructive" the author may have intended it. For example, if someone posts an image in the Poser Forum (not the Poser Gallery) and you say that the image belongs in the Product Showcase Gallery, then that's "trolling" (and you may get a "warning" about it). If you make a comment on a gallery image about how the lighting doesn't look quite right and that the image needs more work, that's "trolling". Basically, "trolling" is any comment that would cause a sensitive or thin-skinned artist to get upset. Before you comment on an image, remember that people don't put their art up for honest criticism on how to improve their craft- they put it up for praise and compliments.

hey my breasts in RL are larger than most women's heads and brains combined, and I haven't added in my 158 iq yet! And my hair can cover two scalps! I'm still on the warpath to find a hair model like my hair... the closest so far is Anton's Bombshell hair! (thank you Anton... wish you parted it on the side though!) If I went and posted nakie piccies of myself, I guess EmpressZario would be very upset! Trolls... eh. I consider it trolling when you comment negatively on an image to cause disruption or harm to another person. Some people try disguising this as 'contructive commentary'. If you don't like an image, move on. If you want to change the content of the galleries, my advice is to do some worthwhile art of your own and stop complaining about others' work. At least they are posting artwork. I don't want to discourage someone from posting... I will give critique if I see something that I sincerely think will help an image, such as a technique I use etc. Usually I'll do this on an image I already like, though. I like to post nice comments on people's work I enjoy, even if its to say 'I liked it' ... I think its important to cheer someone on you like so they continue to do more work. The more practice the better you can get!

"Basically, "trolling" is any comment that would cause a sensitive or thin-skinned artist to get upset" Well, every artist I know is sensitive. Some are very sensitive and some are extremely sensitive. Usually, the smaller the talent, the bigger the ego. What Poppi says, on the other hands, verges on the point of insanity. Taking aliases to increase your ratings. How pathetic. Artits have been known to send their editors "fan mail" since the early days of edition. Will we ever learn ? The only conclusion, to me, is "don't trust the ratings or the commentaries. Trust your own judgement".

I think its also insane when I look at a good Poser artist, like ToxicAngel, just to see that some jealous 'artiste' with a hangup about the size, placement, and state of undress of mammary glands - barfed a hairball in the commentary and trolled the rating. I don't get that either. That's trolling. That's what I'm talking about when I talk about destructive commentary posing as criticism. More than a few people have padded ratings and contests around here by gathering up their friends... nothing new. One fairly recent blowup about that concerning the AOY contest too. So that knife cuts both ways. yes I use my own judgement. :) work I like I comment... work I don't like I pass on by. I see no point in commenting or even discussing artwork that I don't like. Move on, there's lots to comment and see, and quite a few jewels to see in all the galleries if you pay attention and look for them.

It's funny to see that we all have some points we are very sensitive to in a picture. It occured to me while chatting with some friends about Lord Of The Rings II, the movie. A friend of mine, who is a teacher of Roman History and spends her holidays in the ruins of Rome found the film great but there was a scene that was really shocking for her : she said the ruins of Osgiliath were totally unrealistic. According to her, these were the ruins expected from a concrete house, not an ancient stone house. The same applied, to Helm's Deep forteress. I had myself completely overlooked this but was fascinated during the whole film by Gollum's back : he has much too much vertebrae to be human (OK, he is a hobbit. Just to say that this wasn't realistic in my eyes since I am a GP). My wife wasn't too much bothered about this but declared that the charge of the Rohirims really seemed completely absurd : they charge down a 30 to 45 slope. She told me (and, given her horsemanship experience, I take her word on it), that a rider would have had a hard time leading his horse by the hand on such a slope without falling, so charging was right out of the question... This is not to criticize the film : we all liked it very much and agreed it was a work of fiction, not for depicting reality. This was just to say that we are very sensitive to some details in other's works. The shocking thing in these details might be in our eyes, not in the work we are seing. Remembering this could help reducing the trolling around... Compiler

When I was a kid, my beautiful great-aunt Ola (still a lovely ol' gal at the tender age of 90) always told me, "Sugar, if you cain't say nothin' nice, don't say nothin' at all." As the years rolled by, I came to realize that my dear aunt, while usually a very wise woman in a homespun East Texas kind of way, could sometimes say things that were absolute bullshit.

I honestly can't imagine where my career would be if I had never been criticized as an artist. ALL criticism I've ever received has shaped and molded not just my work, but me as a person...whether someone was telling me they liked a piece but thought it could be improved, or was writing (actually a published, albeit very old, quote) that my work made them think of "...a drunken, redneck Norman Rockwell, inspired by comic books and bloated with his own ego...". It's all good, in a relative way.

but....what about vicki's vacant stare? i know that i am not the only one that this bothers. still, i see renders that have very nice textures, stuff, reflections, etc....and THOSE EYES....yet, i got accused of being a troll for bringing them up....and it was on a render where i honestly did really, really enjoy the reflections that were applied....my comment was actually deleted. sensitive is one thing. however, how can an "artist" be "sensitive" and think a vacant stare is anything but out of the box, ugly?

I'm with you Poppi on the vacant stare-- what I like to call Vicki on lludes. Then I glanced through a Town and Country Mag. Looking for hair styles actually. I found a few, but what I found, over and over and over were Vickis on qualludes. Oh, most of them but not all were smiling, none of the smiles touched the eyes, Everyone was vacant, out to lunch, oblivious to the world and more particularly, not making any kind of movement that would break the perfect symmetry of their faces, not even to make them look human. I suppose the fear of wrinkles all came into play but that don't matter on our Vickis, does it? I think the key thought is expression breaks and/or destroys beauty. Not true. Certainly not true in vast proportions one after the other. An occassional reverie picture is lovely, every picture featuring someone so lost in thought they are unconscious, is . . . freaky. Emily

yes, it scares me, too. but, so many don't seem to notice. some of us actually talk with our eyes...hey...some, maybe, many. and, let's not forget...the "eyes are the window to the soul". i hate the vacant soulless mannekins in the gallery. eyes should be alive, and, dancing with feeling. and, an aside to bijouchat....omg...i am so glad to hear that someone else has the non-combable, mega hassle bombshell type hair, in real life. i've been joking about my 3 feet of frizz for a long time. but, my tits are smaller than my head...but, bigger than my waistline, so it works out fine. geeze, and, my head is 12 i.q. points smaller than yours....humpph...i'm feeling sensitive. did you just troll my image of self?

Also, just in the "for what it's worth" department, the human face is an extremely complex mechanism. A lot of people (I can objectively - based on scientific research - make this following statement) especially men aren't very good at reading faces. Therefore I'd say how can one depict what one can't see (the subtle nuances in facial expressions)? I see things in the motion of many of the animations that I've seen here that are, to me, unnatural. I see them over and over. However, I know that I'm trained to see them. Most aren't. I'm not defending "vacant stares" - I'm just trying to offer perspective on why there may be so many.

Also, just in the "for what it's worth" department, the human face is an extremely complex mechanism exactly....so why so many seriously popular images with no arch of the brow, no twist of the smile, no sidelong glances...just postwork and filters? we have the tools...gosh...so many have all the newest market tools...why cannot they just get your principle....the human face is an extremely complex mechanism....without the expressions we might as well just be looking at nicely textured store mannequins.

So much to learn, so little time. You're absolutly correct. The face gives life to a character. I suspect that in visual art (as well as in most any other), popularity = the lowest common denominator. In this community, that means boobs. Duke: "Your highness! Your highness! The peasants are revolting!" King: "Yes they are but you'll get used to it."

Ah, OK, Bobasaur, you are right about us men being bad face readers. I usually am quite good at this sport because it is part of my job to guess someone's untold speech. But I'm getting very bad at this when I see some pics in the gallery : I find it very hard to concentrate on the eyes when someone is pointing a 110C breast at me. I wonder if there are more morphs for the head or for the chest in the average man's most used cr2 ? ;-) Compiler

On the serious side, that statment was based on research done with both adult and infant males. The interesting is thing is that it suggests that, prior to any kind of cultural influence or socialization, males tend to be more interested in objects, and females more interested in people. Males don't take the time to study and understand facial expressions. I realize I'm generalizing but.... I'll leave that alone for now but it has seriously interesting ramifications.

If it were only men who didn't put expressions on Vicki or Posette, I could whomp up some interest for this theory--it's an interesting one in other situations and may explain why women don't feel too well understood by their partners. However, women are by far and away the greatst offenders in this blank faced Vicki syndrome. Male posers often use expressions-- at the very least, salacious delight, or a wicked come on smile. Not every male, it's true. But women posers use less expressions-- personal unverified opinion and worth every last cent you paid for it. Emily

Regarding the first line - It's 100% true. Add that to the fact that males tend to lose their hearing in the frequency range of most female voices as they get older. It's not that he's ignoring you - He really doesn't hear you either. I don't spend much time in the galleries so I have no idea what the ratio of blank faced Vickies for male vs. female artists is. If it is mostly the women, maybe they're blank faced reflecting how stunned they are at the silly men who lust after them for a while and then don't pay attention to them any more. Or maybe they've never truely seen the beauty that is reflected in the faces of women of great character and strong spirit. Or maybe they're just beginner 3D artists.