2014 Season of Shenanigans

[HollywoodLeo]

See. I've never understood the appeal of trolling.

"I'll argue against you with something I don't believe and then laugh that I got you to make an argument on the internet".

Unless you get somebody to go into irrational curse-laden tirades what's the appeal?

I mean, I know you and knew what you were doing and just didn't care when I chose to respond anyway. I'm just commenting on the concept of trolling as displayed here.

[Mach]

because it was 90 degrees and I had run out of things to do and wasn't ready to go to bed yet.

[Mach]

although the porpoise was more just general annoyance. A good trolling is succinct and believable. I don't think anyone knowing me could have honestly believed I think anything of pitcher wins.

[HollywoodLeo]

To me, unless you're baiting an irrational blowhard into a curse ridden tirade I don't get the appeal at all.

Even if I didn't know you and truly felt you believed that and continued to argue my point rationally only for you to keep coming back and finding different ways to tell me that wins are what matter most....what's so appealing about getting somebody to keep doing the same thing you must also keep doing to keep it going?

I've never understood it whenever somebody's roped me into prolonged arguments just to laugh that they "trolled" me at the end.

I get it when the blowhard gets roped into cursing and "yelling" and getting more and more irrational about it because I figure eliciting an emotional response carries some appeal. I just don't get the appeal to merely illiciting any kind of response when there is no distinction between the debate you generated by taking a position you do not believe and a natural one with somebody who actually holds that position.

[Mach]

To me, unless you're baiting an irrational blowhard into a curse ridden tirade I don't get the appeal at all.

Even if I didn't know you and truly felt you believed that and continued to argue my point rationally only for you to keep coming back and finding different ways to tell me that wins are what matter most....what's so appealing about getting somebody to keep doing the same thing you must also keep doing to keep it going?

I've never understood it whenever somebody's roped me into prolonged arguments just to laugh that they "trolled" me at the end.

I get it when the blowhard gets roped into cursing and "yelling" and getting more and more irrational about it because I figure eliciting an emotional response carries some appeal. I just don't get the appeal to merely illiciting any kind of response when there is no distinction between the debate you generated by taking a position you do not believe and a natural one with somebody who actually holds that position.

For me? I covered that. I typed roughly, 3 sentences, so it wasn't much effort on my end. I know considering the general intelligence of the board, someone was likely to get agitated though so it was worth 3 sentences.

[Providence A's]

He shouldn't have struck out so many batters. He could have pitched longer than 7 innings. Strikeouts may be sexy, but high pitch counts are not.

[HollywoodLeo]

For me? I covered that. I typed roughly, 3 sentences, so it wasn't much effort on my end. I know considering the general intelligence of the board, someone was likely to get agitated though so it was worth 3 sentences.

But who was agitated?

That's another misconception about why I don't get the appeal. People assume long response/multiple responses = agitation/aggravation. It does not. I simply replied with an opinion and an argument to back it up.

[Mach]

He shouldn't have struck out so many batters. He could have pitched longer than 7 innings. Strikeouts may be sexy, but high pitch counts are not.

Can't believe I forgot about that one, damn it.

[HollywoodLeo]

That's an argument I can actually buy. There's a delicate balance, though. Less bats on the ball means less chances for error and unreachable balls that turn into hits. But it does come with the cost of a higher pitch count which could lead to a shorter outing.

[Mach]

But who was agitated?

That's another misconception about why I don't get the appeal. People assume long response/multiple responses = agitation/aggravation. It does not. I simply replied with an opinion and an argument to back it up.

I don't know, Porter seemed agitated, maybe, annoyed's a better way of phrasing it? Mildly unamused! You're always long winded, so there was no assumption based on that. I'm not sure why you think I'm talking about you though?

[HollywoodLeo]

I don't know, Porter seemed agitated, maybe, annoyed's a better way of phrasing it? Mildly unamused! You're always long winded, so there was no assumption based on that. I'm not sure why you think I'm talking about you though?

I don't think you're talking about me. I'm just talking about people in general who approach internet debate with the intent of "trolling" by taking an opposing point of view and bragging about how they got someone to argue by arguing with them.

[Mach]

That's an argument I can actually buy. There's a delicate balance, though. Less bats on the ball means less chances for error and unreachable balls that turn into hits. But it does come with the cost of a higher pitch count which could lead to a shorter outing.

Last I looked though, which admittedly was years ago before the new dead ball era, there was very little difference between pitch counts of high strikeout pitchers and low ones. Very few pitchers induce a first couple of pitches in play contact, especially for outs (and if not an out, those are just more pitches, while strikeouts are outs)

[Mach]

I don't think you're talking about me. I'm just talking about people in general who approach internet debate with the intent of "trolling" by taking an opposing point of view and bragging about how they got someone to argue by arguing with them.

So we're no longer talking about the initial situation then?

[HollywoodLeo]

But if you want to dissect the "trolling" in here...how do you know Porter was agitated, annoyed, or anything?

Unless somebody makes it painfully obvious through cursing and personal insults, or just plain spelling it out you can't in any way possible discern somebody's mood when reading your post on the internet and replying to it. But that doesn't seem to stop people from trying to do so and pretending to have done so successfully.

[Tobywan]

although the porpoise was more just general annoyance.

What do sea mammals have to do with pitching?