Knowing how the enemy sees you is critical in avoiding the enemy finding out you are you...
Blue_Tires (39,193 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/118710366
How to identify a troll on DU almost as fast as Brother Blue_Tires:
Last edited Tue Dec 9, 2014, 02:16 PM - Edit history (2)
This discussion thread is pinned.
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 )
Soooo..... let's begin!
Blue_Tires (39,193 posts)
5. Part 1: The Basics -- The who, the what and the why
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_
ugh... really!? this deserves a sticky on DU? This sucks.
Blue_Tires (39,193 posts)
12. Part 2: Learning the Universal Trolling Playbook used daily on DU:
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 rumorsâ€. 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 “kooksâ€, “right-wingâ€, “liberalâ€, “left-wingâ€, “terroristsâ€, “conspiracy buffsâ€, “radicalsâ€, “militiaâ€, “racistsâ€, “religious fanaticsâ€, “sexual deviatesâ€, 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 knowsâ€, 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 criticismâ€.
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__
~This reads more like typical behavior of DUmp monkies than troll finding tips~
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
I have to say this looks exactly like a good majority of the DUmp monkies really act.
Blue_Tires (39,193 posts)
14. Part 3: "Is this DUer trolling me?"
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)
this is a bit better... but it's really shit we've been saying here for years. Rarely to leftists remain 'hidden' here more than a week or two at the most. The usually lose it with-in a few days and flame out.
Even those who come here openly, Banesbane for example, rarely survive more than a few days before the freak out and start calling people out.
Ronulans last even shorter time before they start dropping the Ronulan code of "True Conservative" logic on our poor dumb asses...
MADem (107,219 posts)
22. You can often spot a sock by their dumb tells....
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....
afterwhich there is a picture of your typical DUmpmonkie living in his mom's bacement...
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.
sounds a lot like a DUmpmonkie...
Blue_Tires (39,193 posts)
24. Part 4: "OK, troll spotted! What do I do?"
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...
yes... yes..... just give up silly DUmpmonkie....
BlueCaliDem (7,696 posts)
26. Take the wind out of their high-flying sails - IGNORE them. Move on and don't 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.
We call that the Nadin gambit...
Oh- this is in the African American forum of DU. No African Americans on the list there however...
edited by franksolich to resolve formatting issues; image removed because it was way too large, cutting off half the text, and one primitive link broken in half so it'd fit--sorry
