Does the word "troll" necessarily have negative connotations?

Does the word "troll" necessarily imply negative connotations?

More specifically, can the word "troll"/"trolling" be legitimately used to describe a posting which is clearly made with intent of merely generating laughs on April 1st?

Please note that the question is specifically about connotations involving intent - e.g. the assumption is that the posting is otherwise on-topic and not disruptive (e.g. a standalone question on a Stack Exchange site, which would be classified as on-topic AND not disrupting existing questions).

More specifically:

• Urban Dictionary defines "Troll" as:

  One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

  This seems to imply a clearly negative intent and thus inapplicable to April First jokes.

• Online Slang Dictionary says:

  A person who posts to an internet discussion group or chat room with the sole purpose of disrupting it.

• Wikipedia defines:

  In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

  Again, making the assumption that the posting in question is not "extraneous, or off-topic", this seems MOSTLY to imply negative intent connotations to me.

  However, recently someone made an argument that, since "aiming to get laughs from people on April 1st" can be classified as "provoking readers into an emotional response", it should fit under definition of a troll.

So, my questions are:

• Is there a well accepted connotation that "troll" implies negative intent, as opposed to including intent to provoke harmless April 1st laughter?

• As a side question, does the wording in Wiki article (** or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion**) also impose a negative intent on "emotional response" part via the use of "of otherwise"?

Solution 1:

Definitely. You have all those links to prove it already.

In usage, it is always used with negative connotations. Someone who is annoying online is usually dubbed "trolling".

I wouldn't describe an April Fools' Post as trolling. "Humorous" perhaps.

The fine line dividing an April Fools' post from a trolling post is, as you have already stated, harm. An April Fools' post, if harmless, would not be called "trolling".

However, if this April Fools' Post causes considerable disruption and harm, then it can be rightly called a trolling post.

Solution 2:

Troll is negative - unless you're fishing.

(Fishermen troll, but trolls phish).

Solution 3:

Edit 1/6/17: In hindsight, even if you're trolling for good, you know you're being a pain in the ass to somebody. So I'm on the fence as well w/ OP.

Previously: If a Troll provides counter-arguments, it thusly negates (something). Synonyms of negate include nullify, neutralize, etc. Arguing is not inherently negative. Propositional Logic uses the term argument to describe the basic structure of any dispute. In a dispute there are contradicting ideas: arguments. Upon the resolution of a dispute, ideally one (set of) argument(s) appeals to logic and prevails and any adversaries to said arguments learn.

"One man's hero is another man's tyrant".

If a troll disrupts interaction they perceive to be prejudiced, bullying, corporate tyranny, imperialism, etc. -- your dichotomous assessment of the action would be dictated by your agency in said matters.

So trolling can be positive.