Trolls

almostgothic wrote:HiDeHo - snap!
I do all that stuff too.

I first discovered the usefulness of those little tricks when I noticed years back that a long-standing pro troll would use a certain word quite regularly and always misspelled it in exactly the same way. Thus, any of their new socks would be revealed!
Grammatical errors are useful too because they are usually repeated.

Also, there is the style of writing which, even when initially disguised, emerges eventually. I have a list in my head which includes such things as 'long-winded', 'penchant for long embedded quotes', 'passive-aggressive', 'authoritarian', 'pompous' etc.

All grist to the mill. And not done to cynically 'out' a person, but more a clue as to if said person is on the level or not.

Velvet wrote:Oh what a shame, it was nice to see a completely different opinion to the majority of posters. Afterall what's a debate when everyone has almost similar views! I'm probably one of the few who will miss there intriguing posts.

Claudia79 wrote:

Velvet wrote:Oh what a shame, it was nice to see a completely different opinion to the majority of posters. Afterall what's a debate when everyone has almost similar views! I'm probably one of the few who will miss there intriguing posts.

If intriguing now means telling other posters what to post and where to post it and telling mods that threads are relevant or irrelevant and that threads should or shouldn't stay in certain areas of the forum, then yes, very intriguing indeed.

Velvet wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

Velvet wrote:Oh what a shame, it was nice to see a completely different opinion to the majority of posters. Afterall what's a debate when everyone has almost similar views! I'm probably one of the few who will miss there intriguing posts.

If intriguing now means telling other posters what to post and where to post it and telling mods that threads are relevant or irrelevant and that threads should or shouldn't stay in certain areas of the forum, then yes, very intriguing indeed.

Yes I agree some of there posts were not brilliant, but they did write enough on there very short stay here to make some interesting points!

Velvet wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

Velvet wrote:Oh what a shame, it was nice to see a completely different opinion to the majority of posters. Afterall what's a debate when everyone has almost similar views! I'm probably one of the few who will miss there intriguing posts.

If intriguing now means telling other posters what to post and where to post it and telling mods that threads are relevant or irrelevant and that threads should or shouldn't stay in certain areas of the forum, then yes, very intriguing indeed.

Yes I agree some of there posts were not brilliant, but they did write enough on there very short stay here to make some interesting points!

The End Is Nigh wrote:No doubt - people are only human and not everyone can be broad shouldered in the face of an unpleasant onslaught of rapid-fire posting that demands far,far more than it gives.

I thought that particular poster was female, though, not that it matters.

But as for getting through the trees as far as the wood, these episodes help mightily in reminded the open-minded just how incredible the utterances and behaviours from those who insist Madeleine was abducted were (and still are).

HiDeHo wrote:THE most difficult thing to do is to IGNORE irrelevant disruptive trolls, but the fact is they cannot continue with no responses.

In real life, the worst reaction you can have to someone is to not care. They are devastated they are not important to you.

Even a negative reaction shows they are worthwhile and they feed off that.

Try it....next time someone says something that makes you angry or upset, just walk away. You take away their control.

The second you respond to them shows they have gained control over your feelings.

It works the other way too. If you need to tell someone about how they have upset you or what they have done that makes you angry, you want them to respond so you can continue to argue your side of the story. You seek validation.

If that person shrugs their shoulders and walks away it leaves you frustrated and angry because you can no longer control the situation.

Trolls feel that too......by ignoring them you take away their control and leave them frustrated and angry with nowhere to go, because noone cares.

Ignoring someone is the worst kind of insult.

AnnaEsse wrote:There are people who tend to lurk around this and other fora and only contribute when specific issues are being discussed. The dogs? here comes ****. Gasper? Oh oh! Here's so-and-so! Very often when these lurkers join in, the topic degenerates, not because a contrary opinion is not welcome, but because of the way people choose to express that opinion. I'd love it if a pro joined us and gave me good reasons to believe that Madeleine McCann was well and happy somewhere and could be found. That would be wonderful, but so far, when they join us all they tend to do is end up insulting people, rather than give good reasons for their own opinions. Not helpful!

malena stool wrote:

Velvet wrote:Oh what a shame, it was nice to see a completely different opinion to the majority of posters. Afterall what's a debate when everyone has almost similar views! I'm probably one of the few who will miss there intriguing posts.

Hi Velvet, I fail to see the point in joining a forum in which the members express complete and totally opposite opinions to ones own... other than to gather information and/or disrupt the subjects being discussed.

HiDeHo wrote:THE most difficult thing to do is to IGNORE irrelevant disruptive trolls, but the fact is they cannot continue with no responses.

In real life, the worst reaction you can have to someone is to not care. They are devastated they are not important to you.

Even a negative reaction shows they are worthwhile and they feed off that.

Try it....next time someone says something that makes you angry or upset, just walk away. You take away their control.

The second you respond to them shows they have gained control over your feelings.

It works the other way too. If you need to tell someone about how they have upset you or what they have done that makes you angry, you want them to respond so you can continue to argue your side of the story. You seek validation.

If that person shrugs their shoulders and walks away it leaves you frustrated and angry because you can no longer control the situation.

Trolls feel that too......by ignoring them you take away their control and leave them frustrated and angry with nowhere to go, because noone cares.

Ignoring someone is the worst kind of insult.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:As mentioned before I'm 99% sure that he was also on the Jill Havern forum as Xavier and his behaviour there was beneath contempt; much like the people he supports in fact.

Oldartform wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:There are people who tend to lurk around this and other fora and only contribute when specific issues are being discussed. The dogs? here comes ****. Gasper? Oh oh! Here's so-and-so! Very often when these lurkers join in, the topic degenerates, not because a contrary opinion is not welcome, but because of the way people choose to express that opinion. I'd love it if a pro joined us and gave me good reasons to believe that Madeleine McCann was well and happy somewhere and could be found. That would be wonderful, but so far, when they join us all they tend to do is end up insulting people, rather than give good reasons for their own opinions. Not helpful!

Agreed. Also I am more interested in `the case` and `justice`. I have tried coming from the perspective of the couple being totally innocent and putting all my prejudices aside, but I`m afraid it just does not ring true. However I don`t agree with every statement that purports their guilt and will say so.

jejune wrote:

Oldartform wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:There are people who tend to lurk around this and other fora and only contribute when specific issues are being discussed. The dogs? here comes ****. Gasper? Oh oh! Here's so-and-so! Very often when these lurkers join in, the topic degenerates, not because a contrary opinion is not welcome, but because of the way people choose to express that opinion. I'd love it if a pro joined us and gave me good reasons to believe that Madeleine McCann was well and happy somewhere and could be found. That would be wonderful, but so far, when they join us all they tend to do is end up insulting people, rather than give good reasons for their own opinions. Not helpful!

Agreed. Also I am more interested in `the case` and `justice`. I have tried coming from the perspective of the couple being totally innocent and putting all my prejudices aside, but I`m afraid it just does not ring true. However I don`t agree with every statement that purports their guilt and will say so.

I have never - since following this case in the Mirror forum, through 3As, and now here - seen anybody offer any bit of evidence as to why Madeleine is a) alive, or b) was abducted. The only reasoning that ever seems to be put forward is that Madeleine's not here (so she must have been abducted), and her body hasn't been found (so she must be alive). The reasoning for the McCanns being totally innocent is that they haven't been charged with anything. There may not be the evidence to put anybody in court, but I'm damn certain that the absence of a child, and a lack of forensic evidence, wouldn't be enough in the UK to make the assumption of abduction by a stranger, so why should anybody expect it to in Portugal?

Velvet wrote:

Oops thought that poster was a man, my bad!

I agree with you, the behaviour of many of the 'pro's' is appalling, as is some of the so called 'anti's' on other sites. I tend to stay on here now because of that reason. I know because I haven't wrote many posts people may assume I am a 'sleeping troll' but I can assure you that is not the case. I am new to forums and obviously never picked out platinum as someone with malicious intent. Just someone who seemed to know a lot on the case!!

Loopdaloop wrote:

Velvet wrote:

Oops thought that poster was a man, my bad!

I agree with you, the behaviour of many of the 'pro's' is appalling, as is some of the so called 'anti's' on other sites. I tend to stay on here now because of that reason. I know because I haven't wrote many posts people may assume I am a 'sleeping troll' but I can assure you that is not the case. I am new to forums and obviously never picked out platinum as someone with malicious intent. Just someone who seemed to know a lot on the case!!

That's strange as in your post history you talk about posting on another forum and a member accusing you of having another alias 'sus' something yet you state that you're new to forums? I agree that you are not a 'sleeping' troll as you are now no longer sleeping.

Loopdaloop wrote:

Velvet wrote:

Oops thought that poster was a man, my bad!

I agree with you, the behaviour of many of the 'pro's' is appalling, as is some of the so called 'anti's' on other sites. I tend to stay on here now because of that reason. I know because I haven't wrote many posts people may assume I am a 'sleeping troll' but I can assure you that is not the case. I am new to forums and obviously never picked out platinum as someone with malicious intent. Just someone who seemed to know a lot on the case!!

That's strange as in your post history you talk about posting on another forum and a member accusing you of having another alias 'sus' something yet you state that you're new to forums? I agree that you are not a 'sleeping' troll as you are now no longer sleeping.

HiDeHo wrote:From my point of view, I welcome a discussion with someone of a differing opinion to mine and use their presence as a 'tool'.

I have no time, and ignore getting into discussion with the disruptors. They feed off the attention and manage to change the direction of the thread.

However, it can be very 'telling' about the original topic of the thread involved and, depending upon the agenda of the disruptor, could give an indication as to the importance of the topic.

Some have discussions, and although it may be to intimidate (its typical for them to tell someone their opinions are silly etc) I find them interesting. If they try to negate my opinions, I use that as information as to the importance of the topic and also to second guess my thoughts. If they continue to have validity after they have been challenged then I consider that to 'confirm' that my opinions have credibility.

Something I find interesting, is, if they tend to use an unusual word or they misspell a particular word, a quick 'Google' adding 'madeleine' 'forum' and possibly 'aimoo' (Madeleine forum with several old threads) will bring up any previous comments on forums and highlights another possible ID they have been using.

A little trick, but it keeps them on their toes!

I just googled a disruptor on another forum and found them using the name they used on an old 3A thread in Madeleine Forum and using a reference to a particular person as back then. Curious..

T4two wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:From my point of view, I welcome a discussion with someone of a differing opinion to mine and use their presence as a 'tool'.

I have no time, and ignore getting into discussion with the disruptors. They feed off the attention and manage to change the direction of the thread.

However, it can be very 'telling' about the original topic of the thread involved and, depending upon the agenda of the disruptor, could give an indication as to the importance of the topic.

Some have discussions, and although it may be to intimidate (its typical for them to tell someone their opinions are silly etc) I find them interesting. If they try to negate my opinions, I use that as information as to the importance of the topic and also to second guess my thoughts. If they continue to have validity after they have been challenged then I consider that to 'confirm' that my opinions have credibility.

Something I find interesting, is, if they tend to use an unusual word or they misspell a particular word, a quick 'Google' adding 'madeleine' 'forum' and possibly 'aimoo' (Madeleine forum with several old threads) will bring up any previous comments on forums and highlights another possible ID they have been using.

A little trick, but it keeps them on their toes!

I just googled a disruptor on another forum and found them using the name they used on an old 3A thread in Madeleine Forum and using a reference to a particular person as back then. Curious..

Yes, that sums up the situation succinctly. There are obviously 'touchy' subjects which bring an immediate confrontational response from posters, but I wonder what the point of disrupting a thread is? I mean, take the subject of the dogs as an example. As soon as a subject is mentioned in a post up pops one of the usual suspects in disguise and lets rip with counter arguments which are usually over the top or reflect the 'official' line. Why go to all the trouble of monitoring discussion forums 24/7 in order to disrupt discussion of a certain subject. Just what is achieved by it?

Conclusion (from the above link)
Some conspiracy theories create serious risks. They do not merely undermine
democratic debate; in extreme cases, they create or fuel violence. If government can
dispel such theories, it should do so. One problem is that its efforts might be
counterproductive, because efforts to rebut conspiracy theories also legitimate them. We
have suggested, however, that government can minimize this effect by rebutting more
rather than fewer theories, by enlisting independent groups to supply rebuttals, and by
cognitive infiltration designed to break up the crippled epistemology of conspiracyminded groups and informationally isolated social networks.