Posted on 01/16/2009 12:36:53 PM PST by Sidebar Moderator
Thanks to many FReepers who have sent us this information. Apparently, this is floating around the Internet now. It is a guide to trolling. While it may or may not be fake in its origins, we do see these techniques all the time and felt it would be good to share with everyone.
______________________________________________________ COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum..
There are several techniques for the control and manipulation of a internet forum no matter what, or who is on it. We will go over each technique and demonstrate that only a minimal number of operatives can be used to eventually and effectively gain a control of a ‘uncontrolled forum.’
Technique #1 - ‘FORUM SLIDING’
If a very sensitive posting of a critical nature has been posted on a forum - it can be quickly removed from public view by ‘forum sliding.’ In this technique a number of unrelated posts are quietly prepositioned on the forum and allowed to ‘age.’ Each of these misdirectional forum postings can then be called upon at will to trigger a ‘forum slide.’ The second requirement is that several fake accounts exist, which can be called upon, to ensure that this technique is not exposed to the public. To trigger a ‘forum slide’ and ‘flush’ the critical post out of public view it is simply a matter of logging into each account both real and fake and then ‘replying’ to prepositined postings with a simple 1 or 2 line comment. This brings the unrelated postings to the top of the forum list, and the critical posting ‘slides’ down the front page, and quickly out of public view. Although it is difficult or impossible to censor the posting it is now lost in a sea of unrelated and unuseful postings. By this means it becomes effective to keep the readers of the forum reading unrelated and non-issue items.
Technique #2 - ‘CONSENSUS CRACKING’
A second highly effective technique (which you can see in operation all the time at *********) is ‘consensus cracking.’ To develop a consensus crack, the following technique is used. Under the guise of a fake account a posting is made which looks legitimate and is towards the truth is made - but the critical point is that it has a VERY WEAK PREMISE without substantive proof to back the posting. Once this is done then under alternative fake accounts a very strong position in your favour is slowly introduced over the life of the posting. It is IMPERATIVE that both sides are initially presented, so the uninformed reader cannot determine which side is the truth. As postings and replies are made the stronger ‘evidence’ or disinformation in your favour is slowly ‘seeded in.’ Thus the uninformed reader will most like develop the same position as you, and if their position is against you their opposition to your posting will be most likely dropped. However in some cases where the forum members are highly educated and can counter your disinformation with real facts and linked postings, you can then ‘abort’ the consensus cracking by initiating a ‘forum slide.’
Technique #3 - ‘TOPIC DILUTION’
Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a ‘RESOURCE BURN.’ By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt (trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a ‘gossip mode.’ In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The less informed they are the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to ‘drive in the wedge.’ By being too far off topic too quickly it may trigger censorship by a forum moderator.
Technique #4 - ‘INFORMATION COLLECTION’
Information collection is also a very effective method to determine the psychological level of the forum members, and to gather intelligence that can be used against them. In this technique in a light and positive environment a ‘show you mine so me yours’ posting is initiated. From the number of replies and the answers that are provided much statistical information can be gathered. An example is to post your ‘favorite weapon’ and then encourage other members of the forum to showcase what they have. In this matter it can be determined by reverse proration what percentage of the forum community owns a firearm, and or a illegal weapon. This same method can be used by posing as one of the form members and posting your favorite ‘technique of operation.’ From the replies various methods that the group utilizes can be studied and effective methods developed to stop them from their activities.
Technique #5 - ‘ANGER TROLLING’
Statistically, there is always a percentage of the forum posters who are more inclined to violence. In order to determine who these individuals are, it is a requirement to present a image to the forum to deliberately incite a strong psychological reaction. From this the most violent in the group can be effectively singled out for reverse IP location and possibly local enforcement tracking. To accomplish this only requires posting a link to a video depicting a local police officer massively abusing his power against a very innocent individual. Statistically of the million or so police officers in America there is always one or two being caught abusing there powers and the taping of the activity can be then used for intelligence gathering purposes - without the requirement to ‘stage’ a fake abuse video. This method is extremely effective, and the more so the more abusive the video can be made to look. Sometimes it is useful to ‘lead’ the forum by replying to your own posting with your own statement of violent intent, and that you ‘do not care what the authorities think!!’ inflammation. By doing this and showing no fear it may be more effective in getting the more silent and self-disciplined violent intent members of the forum to slip and post their real intentions. This can be used later in a court of law during prosecution.
Technique #6 - ‘GAINING FULL CONTROL’
It is important to also be harvesting and continually maneuvering for a forum moderator position. Once this position is obtained, the forum can then be effectively and quietly controlled by deleting unfavorable postings - and one can eventually steer the forum into complete failure and lack of interest by the general public. This is the ‘ultimate victory’ as the forum is no longer participated with by the general public and no longer useful in maintaining their freedoms. Depending on the level of control you can obtain, you can deliberately steer a forum into defeat by censoring postings, deleting memberships, flooding, and or accidentally taking the forum offline. By this method the forum can be quickly killed. However it is not always in the interest to kill a forum as it can be converted into a ‘honey pot’ gathering center to collect and misdirect newcomers and from this point be completely used for your control for your agenda purposes.
CONCLUSION
Remember these techniques are only effective if the forum participants DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THEM. Once they are aware of these techniques the operation can completely fail, and the forum can become uncontrolled. At this point other avenues must be considered such as initiating a false legal precedence to simply have the forum shut down and taken offline. This is not desirable as it then leaves the enforcement agencies unable to track the percentage of those in the population who always resist attempts for control against them. Many other techniques can be utilized and developed by the individual and as you develop further techniques of infiltration and control it is imperative to share then with HQ.
You said — “I haven’t read your post, but I think I’ll take the admin moderator’s offer up and hit the abuse button & call you out as a troll, which is basically what I’ve been doing on that other thread. So I’ll hit the abuse button and see what kind of exchange is required to prove that you fit the definition of troll as stated on this thread.”
Ummm..., a troll when you didn’t read my post at ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2165967/posts?page=155#155
I would think that one should read it first before determining whether it was “trollish”... LOL...
I posted already that I’m not going to read your posts, so if they have something of substance, another freeper is going to have to direct my attention to it.
But I’ll be happy to read every word of your posts once again, if the admin mod needs that to establish a case that you’re a troll. The very first sentence of the definition talks about “specious arguments” and you’ve got that part down in spades.
I checked out the individual you mentioned above once she started in on the eligibility threads, and noted that she had posted almost exclusively on the Fair Tax threads for many pp of comments. I can’t grasp that stuff so I didn’t bother to read the comments, then someone else up the this thread mentioned about the Alinsky methods on the Fair Tax threads so I put two and two together.
Another thing I’ve noted is the attempts to get Polarik to reveal his real name, etc. One person - I think the lucy person - when I said that no one knew Buckhead’s real name - said that Buckhead’s findings weren’t that great anyway, or words to that effect.
If people don’t think that Polarik’s analysis has any value unless he reveals his legal name, then their freaking opinions have no value unless they reveal their names. I’ve invited one person who trolls those threads occasionally to pony up with his personal info, if opinions are worthless without it.
(Courtesy pink to Polarik.)
Interesting food for thought.
One thing that a seasoned forum like FR has going for it is that there are a lot of veterans here who can usually sniff out a troll fairly quickly. Some of the techniques described, however, do not necessarily lend themselves to sniffing out what we normally think of as “trolls” - - liberals trying to pretend they are normal, thinking humans.
No, the goal of professional trolls is not to influence opinion but simply to disrupt forums which they believe can influence political opinion.
I found “forum sliding” to be the most interesting technique, and I have often thought I sensed the technique in action. Freepers should try to remember to bump truly great threads throughout the course of the day in order to keep them in view. For example, sometimes in the morning I bump great threads from the previous evening - - “BUMP for the morning crew”.
Thanks, LJ, you are right about the trolls (and I could care less what they call me), but you might wish to check with Lucy herself about Buckhead as that was before my time on Free Republic, as I joined in mid-June as the Hannity forum I started on was way behind the curve on the birth certificate issue. BTW, I've CC:ed her with this reply.
Actually, could you be thinking of Lucysmom? (different FReeper)
I couldn’t remember which person opined that Buckhead’s reseraching debunking the forged letter wasn’t that great; it might have been her.
Heck, I was on that live thread and it was exciting; and Buckhead’s work on it was great. Even though he didn’t reveal his legal name.
Ignore them. The people who need to know, already know.
How many trolls are willing to reveal their real name, address, phone # and CV on Free Republic?
I wasn’t on the Buckhead threads. What years were the Buckhead research happening? Was I registered on FR during that time period?
It wasn’t LucyT - she’s not a troll!
It was either the other lucysmom or someone else.
I don’t remember when the Buckhead expose of the forgery was - I’ve been here since late 2002 but it was at least a couple of years after that.
And no one pooh-poohed Buckhead because he didn’t reveal his actual name. And there weren’t trolls spewing all over the place, either.
The keyword spam is still there:
KEYWORDS: 114birthers; 8balls; 911truthers; bho2008; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; conspiracytheories; eligibility; getalife; itsover; nutballs; obama; obamanoncitizenissue; robertscourt; scotus; screwballs; trollsonparade; whereisrush; Click to Add Keyword
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2162033/posts?page=1130#1130
The old timers call it "10,000 BS seeking missiles"
And they can be very accurate.
It must have been lucysmom.
The "Definitive Guide to FR" posted on a similar page -AND-
A forced search prior to posting for correct topic and similar headline/content - Digg does a really good job of this.
Oh heck yes! Excellent suggestions all. Does it do any good for me to second them? :-)
Ping
In particular I accuse Star Traveler to be an Issue Specific troll, in this case the issue is CoLB. The Orly Taitz interview thread would likely suffice to show her to be such a troll:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2162033/posts
That is, if FR is going to be using the definition cited in this thread as the operating definition. Does it not apply to specific issue trolling? Having a long term signup date is not evidence against trolling behavior on specific issues, such as FairTax. At least the definition above makes no mention of seniority or signup dates as a proof against trollhood.
Noting that Polarik doesn't use his real name does not equal an attempt to get him to reveal his real name.
Re Buckhead - I said like a stopped clock he turned out to be right, however his analysis was flawed. I stand by that statement.
If people don’t think that Polarik’s analysis has any value unless he reveals his legal name, then their freaking opinions have no value unless they reveal their names.
Just curious about the credentials of someone who makes a claim that runs counter to my experience.
BTW, isn't it accepted practice to ping the person you're talking about?
It appears that keyword trolldom is fine, statements by mods to the contrary. Maybe mods think this topic is kookery.
How Buckhead’s analysis flawed? That’s not how I remember it.
And what are you talking about when you say “counter to my experience”?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.