I guess that you’re right, it is a question of intent… which is something that is usually impossible to determine, hence the point of trolling. I don’t think that patterns of fallacy are helpful, as people tend to tend to hold archipelagos of allied irrational opinions. It’s not like someone who is anti-evolution is going to be pro-choice and pro-gun-control. The bad faith element is the signature of a troll and I can’t see how that would be determined. I also find myself arguing against my own opinions to test my reasoning, challenge irrational alliances (such as the anarchist-vegan complex) and just so that discussions don’t become complete circle-jerks; because it seems that when we aren’t complaining about trolls, we’re complaining that the internet confirms our own biases.
Frankly I’m more concerned about being involved in discussion where self-appointed arbiters can cry ‘troll!’ whenever they come across an opinion that is not formed within parameters they find acceptable, than to be involved in discussions where the opposing perspective is given in bad faith.
Dealing with arguments which are fallacious has been the purpose of debate since forever, and I consider it irrelevant whether or not that fallacy is unintentional, the consequence of other fallacious views, or a fallacious understanding of the necessary relationships between views (“I’m a Christian, so evolution is a myth”), the intentional use of fallacy to annoy, distract, or mislead the opponent, or more likely a combination of factors. Remember that Socrates was executed for trolling.
