I thought it was common to invent new terms or repurpose neutral ones rather than subvert common, loaded terms for your own purposes?
I would not call it "oddball", I would call it either "intentionally misleading" or - granting benefit of doubt - a "misjudgment causing more harm than good".
How about "cyberterrorism", a reasonably established term?
The word itself doesn't matter. That's the whole point.
Call it "foo". The point is that I create a symbol that has these attributes. We can then reason about this symbol.
You cannot do this by picking up an already-loaded term and working with it. It doesn't work. So by redefining "foo" or "terrorism" or "cyber-terrorism" or whatnot, you then have to go back to where the old word was used in context and see if it works. In some cases it works. In some cases it does not. You find out all sorts of interesting things by slightly formalizing your language in this manner.
I would not call it "oddball", I would call it either "intentionally misleading" or - granting benefit of doubt - a "misjudgment causing more harm than good".
How about "cyberterrorism", a reasonably established term?