Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 02:30 PM Dec 2014

How to identify a troll on DU almost as fast as Brother Blue_Tires:

Last edited Tue Dec 9, 2014, 03:16 PM - Edit history (2)

DISCLAIMER:

This information is just for everyone's benefit -- We have to tread lightly here because we're going to be getting into some unsavory stuff, and too many past discussions of the topic have descended into shriek-filled accusations of "purity purges" and the like...I'm *not* saying everyone needs to use this guide to "out" some posters they may have a grudge against; this guide is just so people will recognize when these techniques are in use and act accordingly...

EDIT: It is also critical to remember when we unconsciously revert to these techniques ourselves, since it only serves to perpetuate the problem...(Even I am not immune to this )

58 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
How to identify a troll on DU almost as fast as Brother Blue_Tires: (Original Post) Blue_Tires Dec 2014 OP
where's the guide Skittles Dec 2014 #1
maybe that is the guide? Warren Stupidity Dec 2014 #2
I was expecting some kick-ass tips from Brother Blue Tires regarding identifying troll ass Skittles Dec 2014 #3
SCHEDULING TROLLS FOR ASSKICKING steve2470 Dec 2014 #11
heh Skittles Dec 2014 #17
Sang like a bird. GeorgeGist Dec 2014 #4
What happened? link? nt bananas Dec 2014 #16
Part 1: The Basics -- The who, the what and the why Blue_Tires Dec 2014 #5
thanks heaven05 Dec 2014 #21
Rec'ing for this post alone! Number23 Dec 2014 #23
oh dammmm, this is a good post. BlancheSplanchnik Mar 2015 #46
the shill (paid) troll are the only kind that truly bother me because they do it so well yurbud Jun 2015 #48
Excellent advice. RoccoR5955 Aug 2015 #51
Bookmarking. Control-Z Dec 2014 #6
same here nt steve2470 Dec 2014 #7
This is awesome! JustAnotherGen Dec 2014 #8
Would a troll be anyone who doesn't agree 100% with the dominant narrative? JEFF9K Dec 2014 #9
if you don't act like a troll, no nt steve2470 Dec 2014 #10
Not concurring 100% is enough to get accused of trollhood. JEFF9K Dec 2014 #19
If you like, feel free to start a different but similarly important guide: Blue_Tires Dec 2014 #20
LOL - the poster who cites Giuliani is asking this question JonLP24 Dec 2014 #29
The citing of Giuliani was incidental. JEFF9K Dec 2014 #30
I replied to your post when you posted it JonLP24 Dec 2014 #31
Your comment is intellectually dishonest. JEFF9K Dec 2014 #32
Your post didn't mention autopsy results JonLP24 Dec 2014 #33
You have to use common sense ... JEFF9K Dec 2014 #34
I agree JonLP24 Dec 2014 #35
This is off the top of my head ... JEFF9K Dec 2014 #36
Wilson DID shoot when Brown's back was turned, so it was reasonable for witnesses blm Jan 2015 #37
I feel sorry for you ... JEFF9K Jan 2015 #38
It's not - But, correcting Rightwing BS can be addictive. blm Jan 2015 #39
Pathetic reasoning. JEFF9K Jan 2015 #40
Can't address the fact re the shootings, so…. blm Jan 2015 #41
I love the way you handled this. nt brush Feb 2015 #45
Part 2: Learning the Universal Trolling Playbook used daily on DU: Blue_Tires Dec 2014 #12
Goddamn. Trolling is a lot of work. MrScorpio Jan 2015 #43
I hope your not giving the trolls here now... Historic NY Dec 2014 #13
Probably...But it's much better now that everyone sees them laid out Blue_Tires Dec 2014 #15
Part 3: "Is this DUer trolling me?" Blue_Tires Dec 2014 #14
aw OK I see how you're laying this out Skittles Dec 2014 #18
You can often spot a sock by their dumb tells.... MADem Dec 2014 #22
That's *exactly* how I see each and every one of them! :-D BlueCaliDem Dec 2014 #27
Part 4: "OK, troll spotted! What do I do?" Blue_Tires Dec 2014 #24
Haha, I kind of do that too. lovemydog Dec 2014 #25
Take the wind out of their high-flying sails - IGNORE them. Move on and don't BlueCaliDem Dec 2014 #26
What do you do when they stop playing before you are done with them? nt Kalidurga Dec 2014 #28
Good stuff! Bookmarking Hekate Jan 2015 #42
MRA activist gets trolled by a bot for three hours: Blue_Tires Feb 2015 #44
The Troll Hunters Blue_Tires Mar 2015 #47
I'm AA and have been blocked from AA group underthematrix Jul 2015 #49
When, how, why? JustAnotherGen Jul 2015 #50
textbook example: Blue_Tires Aug 2015 #52
I see that, and I am also seeing post after post of immigrant haters here at DU. randys1 Aug 2015 #53
+10000000000000000000000000000000 trillion Feb 2016 #56
CREDIT to the EDIT, that is pretty stand-up. nt Snotcicles Sep 2015 #54
The threads about photo gate JustAnotherGen Feb 2016 #55
Message auto-removed Name removed Jan 2017 #57
The problem is and has been all during the campaign is.. coco22 Feb 2017 #58

Skittles

(152,963 posts)
3. I was expecting some kick-ass tips from Brother Blue Tires regarding identifying troll ass
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 02:46 PM
Dec 2014

although I *THINK* I'm pretty good at it

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
5. Part 1: The Basics -- The who, the what and the why
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 02:58 PM
Dec 2014

Troll spotting from the early days:

How can troll posts be recognised?
•No Imagination - Most are frighteningly obvious; sexist comments on nurses' groups, blasphemy on religious groups .. I kid you not.
•Pedantic in the Extreme - Many trolls' preparation is so thorough, that while they waste time, they appear so ludicrous from the start that they elicit sympathetic mail - the danger is that once the group takes sides, the damage is done.
•False Identity - Because they are cowards, trolls virtually never write over their own name, and often reveal their trolliness (and lack of imagination) in the chosen ID. As so many folk these days use false ID, this is not a strong indicator on its own!
•Crossposting - Any post that is crossposted to several groups should be viewed as suspicious, particularly if unrelated or of opposing perspective. Why would someone do that?
•Off-topic posting - Often genuine errors, but, if from an 'outsider' they deserve matter-of-fact response; if genuine, a brief apposite response is simply netiquette; if it's a troll post, you have denied it its reward.
•Repetition of a question or statement is either a troll - or a pedant; either way, treatment as a troll is effective.
•Missing The Point - Trolls rarely answer a direct question - they cannot, if asked to justify their twaddle - so they develop a fine line in missing the point.
•Thick or Sad - Trolls are usually sad, lonely folk, with few social skills; they rarely make what most people would consider intelligent conversation. However, they frequently have an obsession with their IQ and feel the need to tell everyone. This is so frequent, that it is diagnostic! Somewhere on the web there must be an Intelligence Test for Trolls - rigged to always say "above 150"

http://www.flayme.com/troll/
http://www.angelfire.com/space/usenet/

The 7 Worst Types Of Internet Trolls. Are You One Of Them?
http://memolition.com/2014/07/03/the-7-worst-types-of-internet-trolls-are-you-one-of-them/

13 Types Of Troll You’ll Meet On The Internet
http://www.buzzfeed.com/robinedds/types-of-troll-youll-meet-on-the-internet

TROLL | The Internet Troll, Troll Types and Cyber Attacks
https://drinternetsafety.com/troll/

Academic:
The ‘‘Nasty Effect:’’ Online Incivility and Risk Perceptions of Emerging Technologies
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcc4.12009/pdf

The Role of Anonymity in Deindividuated Behavior: A Comparison of Deindividuation Theory and the Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects
http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php?id=77099

The Science of Why Comment Trolls Suck:
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/you-idiot-course-trolls-comments-make-you-believe-science-less

The Online Disinhibition Effect
http://www.academia.edu/2386260/The_online_disinhibition_effect

This Story Stinks
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/opinion/sunday/this-story-stinks.html?_r=2&

Internet Trolls Really Are Horrible People
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2014/02/internet_troll_personality_study_machiavellianism_narcissism_psychopathy.html

yurbud

(39,405 posts)
48. the shill (paid) troll are the only kind that truly bother me because they do it so well
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 12:47 AM
Jun 2015

They make their numbers and popularity of their views seem much larger here on DU than they actually are.

For this sub-category, I would add some other traits:


  • Glib talking points. Ask yourself if this is the kind of vapid talking point you could or have heard on mainstream TV news or radio, if so, it probably is--because it's probably written by the same people.

  • Personal attacks on politicians or DUers instead of arguing policy and facts. Again, if it's in MSM...

  • Emphasis on horse race aspect of politics and won't look beyond either Dem or Republican outcomes.


Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
20. If you like, feel free to start a different but similarly important guide:
Wed Dec 10, 2014, 12:00 AM
Dec 2014

"How to handle being falsely accused of trolling"

JEFF9K

(1,935 posts)
30. The citing of Giuliani was incidental.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 01:56 PM
Dec 2014

He was mentioning something proven by the autopsy.

You are keeping track of my comments?

JonLP24

(29,322 posts)
31. I replied to your post when you posted it
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 07:03 PM
Dec 2014

Other than stumbling onto your post here those are the only 2 posts I have "track" of.

Either way, his claim was suspect based on any number of other suspect claims he made and also Abner Louima, Amadau Diallo, and Patrick Dorismond took place under his watch.

JEFF9K

(1,935 posts)
32. Your comment is intellectually dishonest.
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 09:15 PM
Dec 2014

Giuliani's citing of the autopsy results is totally unrelated to his veracity.

JonLP24

(29,322 posts)
33. Your post didn't mention autopsy results
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 09:30 PM
Dec 2014

It was "remember what Giuliani said" (probably not a word for word quote) then replies mention autopsy results but don't know if there was a follow-up reply but all it basically said he claimed they lied based on the autopsy results.

The witness graph has mass agreement (but the question where you (or Giuliani) claimed they lied isn't on there) on 3 things when you go line by one you see witnesses that agree on one thing but not another.

Which is why I mentioned the Rashoman effect and there is also this -- http://www.nbcnews.com/id/38154937/ns/dateline_nbc-the_hansen_files_with_chris_hansen/t/did-you-see/#.VKNRVcl3XwA

Giuiani claiming that they lied based on forensic evidence (there is also the exit wounds on both sides of the lower arm question) saying otherwise doesn't mean they lied.

JEFF9K

(1,935 posts)
34. You have to use common sense ...
Tue Dec 30, 2014, 09:52 PM
Dec 2014

in deciding whether they lied or were just mistaken. But "mistaken" testimony to the grand jury would have a similar effect to a lie.

JonLP24

(29,322 posts)
35. I agree
Wed Dec 31, 2014, 01:34 AM
Dec 2014

Innocence Project says "Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide".

In the Dateline link I posted "A crime victim points out her attacker in court with absolute certainty. He’s convicted and spends ten years in prison – until DNA evidence proves his innocence." The video shows a picture of who the victim pointed the finger at in trial & the picture of the true perp. You see they look very similar, especially the eyes. I don't believe she lied though when she said the wrong guy did it.

On the other issue, you could have made your own argument like what it is the witnesses said and what the autopsy report said. I forgot what the claim is so could you repeat(not Giuliani but the claim)?

I couldn't agree more about mistaken testimony having a similar effect to lying.

JEFF9K

(1,935 posts)
36. This is off the top of my head ...
Wed Dec 31, 2014, 09:04 AM
Dec 2014

One or more witnesses said that the victim was shot in the back. The autopsy showed that didn't happen.

blm

(112,919 posts)
37. Wilson DID shoot when Brown's back was turned, so it was reasonable for witnesses
Thu Jan 1, 2015, 01:18 PM
Jan 2015

to think Brown was struck by the bullet in the back.

Or did you manage to FORGET how many shots were fired?

blm

(112,919 posts)
39. It's not - But, correcting Rightwing BS can be addictive.
Thu Jan 1, 2015, 03:44 PM
Jan 2015

I feel sorry for those desperate to spread disinformation.

blm

(112,919 posts)
41. Can't address the fact re the shootings, so….
Fri Jan 2, 2015, 03:50 PM
Jan 2015

your desperate attempt at redirection.

Familiar tactic.

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
12. Part 2: Learning the Universal Trolling Playbook used daily on DU:
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 03:15 PM
Dec 2014
Disclaimer: I've had to dig into some nutty sites for this, but so far they are the only ones I can find with such a tight, concise explanation...

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such “arguable rumors”. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a “wild rumor” which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough “jargon” and “minutiae” to illustrate you are “one who knows”, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the “high road” and “confess” with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, “just isn’t so.” Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for “coming clean” and “owning up” to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can “argue” with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they are to criticism”.

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the “play dumb” rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html#Twenty-Five_Rules_of_Disinformation__


Please, anyone -- Print out that list of 25, go read GD, and with a stopwatch see how long it takes for you to cross every tactic off that list as you see it...





Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist

1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentatorbecome argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.

I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

http://www.whale.to/b/sweeney.html



Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression

1.Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.
2.Wax indignant. This is also known as the "how dare you?" gambit.
3.Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors."
4.Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.
5.Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nut," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot," and of course, "rumor monger." You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned.
6.Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money.
7.Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.
8.Dismiss the charges as "old news."
9.Come half-clean. This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hang-out route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken.
10.Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.
11.Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. For example: We have a completely free press. If they know of evidence that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing they would have reported it. They haven't reported it, so there was no prior knowledge by the BATF. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press that would report it.
12.Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely.
13.Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or reporting a distraction.

http://www.brasscheck.com/martin.html

MrScorpio

(73,626 posts)
43. Goddamn. Trolling is a lot of work.
Wed Jan 28, 2015, 10:57 PM
Jan 2015

Assholes, I've found, can't help being who they are.

What they want to do is incite others to be just like them and they crave attention. Half the shit they say they don't even believe.

I've had some success myself in dealing with trolls. It's just that I have to feel up to the task. It's not something I'd rather do on a full time basis.

I wish that I could write a treatise on it, but it's not like it's a planned thing. It's all on a case by case basis.

Thanks for all the great info, B.T.

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
14. Part 3: "Is this DUer trolling me?"
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 03:55 PM
Dec 2014

These aren't hard-and-fast rules, just personal rule-of-thumb guidelines I use when I see something suspicious...

1. Post count -- Most trolls do little to hide themselves on DU, even when their post count is still well under 1,000, so that's an obvious red flag when combined with a sketchy or highly questionable post...Some of the smarter and more patient trolls are at least smart enough to pad their post count in the lounge or subforums, so with a suspicious poster it's prudent to look at their profile and see where the bulk of their posts have been if it's over 1,000

2. Join date -- If someone joined yesterday and is spewing nonsense it's obvious...If that person joined 6+ years ago and has a grand total of 400 posts it's an obvious sockpuppet/trolling alt...More importantly, if for example a DUer has spent most of his or her time poking bears in the Trayvon Martin threads, and you see the join date is April 2012, it's reasonable to assume this person just joined DU to shit all over those discussions...So when in doubt always check the join date

3. Getting to know you -- It's now easier than ever for trolls to rack up 15-25k post counts on DU if they're patient, clever, make a close friend or two and blend in just enough to not get noticed (FWIW trolls were doing that in the old days even when we had mods hunting for them, but it was much more difficult then)...But how well do you know the person? Being on DU for a long enough time means revealing something about yourself bit-by-bit as you feel more comfortable and speak out more often on the political topics most important to you as you become a regular everyday 'established' DUer...Who knows? Maybe you grow bold enough to meet some DUers IRL, if that still happens...Eventually, other everyday posters should get some feel for who you are -- Your gender, age bracket, general interests, occupational field, online personality, your state/country, etc...

Where am I going with this? My point is even when trolls survive for years with fat post counts and are respected by some (if not most DUers), they typically reveal very little about themselves, or have a hard time remaining "consistent" with their backstory when they do...If you're suspicious of someone and want to be sure, sometimes a quick search of the archives (which are so under-utilized it's a crime) shows some clues...For example maybe they were on one side of the issue in the past and conveniently flip-flopped without anybody noticing over time? When trying to assert their expertise on a subject has their occupation changed from being an ex-cop to an ex-marine to an ex-attorney? (Yes, I know it's possible to be all those things perfectly legit, and that's when you need to start pressing that poster about what he did at which time)...FWIW, If you work in the same field as the suspected troll, it's always fun to casually ask a couple of questions only a person in your field would know...(Note: This might be easier for me because my brain quickly identifies deviations from an established pattern, so YMMV)

MADem

(135,425 posts)
22. You can often spot a sock by their dumb tells....
Wed Dec 10, 2014, 04:01 PM
Dec 2014

They know all about the forum, down to personalities, even though they joined a week ago.

They can tell people what they said on DU2 and link to it.

They've been here two hours, and already they have an avatar, a sig line and an illustration (it took me forever to figure out how to embed a doggone video from YT!)

They have a recognizable writing style.

They get tombstoned for bugging a specific person or persons, and then come back and bug them some more.

If they are a "throwaway sock" they'll have a super-duper "liberal" username, often followed by a number--kind of like those old AOL usernames! Libwarrior29, Progressive246, Dems4EVR984, etc...

I wish they'd just get lives. I would be interested in finding out what motivates these people. I always picture them like that cheater on South Park in World of Warcraft....



Pathetic, but annoying nonetheless. And it turns out that one of the biggest internet trolls ever looks a lot like that guy: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/15/michael-brutsch-reddits-biggest-loses-job-identity-gawker_n_1967727.html

That guy, after being outed (for some unbelievably nasty stuff, too) justified his hate-speech and victimization of innocents by saying I just like riling people up in my spare time. Maybe he should have volunteered at a homeless shelter, or something--or "riled up" politicians to provide better opportunities for the poor and disenfranchised.

BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)
27. That's *exactly* how I see each and every one of them! :-D
Sun Dec 28, 2014, 02:42 AM
Dec 2014

It makes it so much easier to ignore them and move on.

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
24. Part 4: "OK, troll spotted! What do I do?"
Tue Dec 16, 2014, 08:15 PM
Dec 2014

Sadly, not much you can do on the current DU...

The jury system is a useless joke, so I don't bother alerting on anybody anymore, personally...

If you're bored, you can play with him and trade jabs back and forth, or if you're really devious you could turn the tables by employing those established trolling techniques against him -- Which at least used to be a little fun, but the troll tactic now is to trade an escalating barrage of personal insults, and the minute you post something on the borderline, he alerts on it...And there is NOTHING more infuriating than having your anti-troll post hidden while his stays visible...And to make it worse, you're banned from commenting on that thread again, so the troll has successfully silenced you, while making you do all the work...

These days, I'm a born-again believer in the-only-way-to-win-is-not-to-play, and just passively or actively ignore them...For the longest time I absolutely hated the idea of an ignore list and never used it because I still believed in that "Every opinion is valid" -touchy-feely silliness...But now I don't have enough hours in my day, and my blood pressure isn't worth it...

lovemydog

(11,833 posts)
25. Haha, I kind of do that too.
Sun Dec 28, 2014, 01:56 AM
Dec 2014

I don't have an ignore list. I understand if anyone does. Sometimes I try and say something funny. It's a defense mechanism but hey even if I'm the only one who laughs, I guess that's good for me. I like reading when people call someone out. But like you, I don't have enough hours in my day. So I just try my best to ignore. And converse most with the people I enjoy.

BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)
26. Take the wind out of their high-flying sails - IGNORE them. Move on and don't
Sun Dec 28, 2014, 02:41 AM
Dec 2014

pay them any heed. The whole reason that they're online, on this board, is to rile people up. Can't rile up someone who doesn't give a s**t, right?

But as you say, if you're bored - and I admit, at times I am and then I play around with them - go on ahead and play a little tit-for-tat. Then, when you've riled them up so badly...move on.

That's what I do.

randys1

(16,286 posts)
53. I see that, and I am also seeing post after post of immigrant haters here at DU.
Wed Aug 19, 2015, 02:38 PM
Aug 2015

Or to be more accurate, haters of Brown people.

Real sick we are, us Americans.

JustAnotherGen

(31,681 posts)
55. The threads about photo gate
Fri Feb 12, 2016, 08:54 PM
Feb 2016

Oh my!

Evidently Lewis had his talking points in advance!

What's next? He heads a toy cartel?

Response to Blue_Tires (Original post)

coco22

(1,258 posts)
58. The problem is and has been all during the campaign is..
Sat Feb 25, 2017, 03:04 PM
Feb 2017

people putting someone on alert just because they may disagree with them.

I have been here since 2002 and have never been put on alert as much as I did last year,then we were hacked and I had to change my name again.

Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»African American»How to identify a troll o...