White Rabbit

This page is a step by step guide to handling a Troll on Usenet, or any other discussion forum on the Internet. Or, more precisely, it is a step by step guide to beating a Troll at their own game.
There are too many Trolls that infest Newsgroups and discussion forums - this site gives you some ideas about how to stop their antics permanently.
Before we begin, though, understand this: the best way to deal with a Troll is to ignore them entirely. They are not worth your time, however you may feel about their comments.
However, this site recognises that sometimes you may be unwittingly drawn into a 'conversation' with them. This site will help you to deal with that situation.
"How To Handle A Troll" is updated on a semi-regular basis. You might like to visit this page again to learn new tactics against the Trolls. Similarly, you might like to let your friends know about the site. After you have finished reading, please link to this guide from your website.
Don't let anyone get destroyed by the Trolls!

1. What is a Troll?
   The best way to know what a Troll is, is to see what they do. The following link is a humourous look at how to Troll, even encouraging people to take up the habit. Note how the author himself distinguishes between the Trolls who are just trying to gain attention, or are trying to create havoc.

Yet the author has made a fatal flaw: He fails to see that ALL Trolls crave attention. That is the sole reason they exist - whether or not they want to feel that they have achieved something (even if it is destruction) or to be recognised for doing something deviant, they want just a little attention in their direction.

Remember: Without attention, Trolls are nothing. They have no audience, and no victim. To read the website, click here. NOTE: The previous website has been removed. I will try to find a replacement site that demonstrates Troll mentality, but until then, you'll have to make do with my explanations, sorry!

I would encourage you to read the whole page. We'll come back to it later, but it is well worth it anyway.
The mentality of a Troll is obvious - he wants a cheap laugh, and that is all. The offense that may be caused is of no concern to him, as are any other ramifications of his actions.
This Usenet post describes what many people consider to be trolls. There are hundreds of such definitions across the 'net, on various different websites (including this one, and many that are linked on this site). Ultimately, these many definitions of trolls, all vary slightly, but they all sum up to this:-
Trolls are a nuisance. They purposefully cause annoyance to other users, but their approach can, and does, vary. Some trolls are obvious, some are not. This website attempts to show you some of the different approaches that trolls take - to keep you, as an Internet user, prepared.

1. Are there different sorts of Trolls?
2. 
   Yes. There are several types of Trolls, and each is discussed on in more depth later in this site. They are: The Bored's, The Liars, The Confrontationalists and The Controversials

Many Trolls just want to be a nuisance. They're kids who aren't mature enough to have a sensible conversation. These Trolls fall under The Bored's category, but that does not necessarily mean that all Trolls are children. Many "mature" adults find enjoyment in Trolling groups.
But there are other trolls who set out to cause havoc. This may include posing as a regular poster in the group (then acting in a way to deflame that person's good name). Or it may be to draw members of the group into an argument.

You can read about that sort of behaviour here. Here, a Troll has managed to draw people into an off-topic discussion that has resulted in an innocent poster losing his ISP access. This is all part of the entertainment for the Troll.

NOTE: The previous website has been removed. I will try to find a replacement site that demonstrates Troll mentality, but until then, you'll have to make do with my explanations, sorry!

1. Why don't people like Trolls? Surely they're just having fun!
   Trolls are a nuisance, as they frequently set out to antagonise other people who post in the same forum. For example, take the following post by "Drew" in the Usenet foum alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise

By the way, you can Click Here to see the message on Google
The above message is a prime example of a Bored Troll post. It is almost unreadable, atrocious grammar, and blatantly insults the show that the newsgroup focuses upon. The Troll is probably a bored teenager.
STNG is supposed to read ST:TNG (or, Star Trek:The Next Generation). The bad spelling is a part of the Troll - attempting to provoke insults from the regulars about his spelling.

Responses such as "You're an idiot. You can't even spell." is what the Troll is hoping for. This way, he can draw you into a prolonged argument about who is the bigger idiot. Sensible ways to respond (if you have to at all) are discussed below. Trolls who throw insults across the 'net are Confrontationalists and relish seeing any response that indicates the respondee is wound up, or aggravated by their Trolling.
It is fair to assume that people who regularly post to an Enterprise newsgroup will be fans of the show. By saying that the show is not up to par, "Drew" is hoping for other posters to get angry with him, degrading themselves to the mentality of schoolchildren in the process.
Trolls are the Usenet equivalent of the School bully. They don't have to be that big, hard, or clever to throw their weight around - but they do enjoy watching the over reactions of the other posters.
Their messages are poorly laid out - usually on purpose, with bad grammar, spelling, and, more often than not, written entirely in caps.
Some Trolls can be entertaining, but that may not be their intention, nor may that be the intention of any troll.
The Troll Sukami Master infests the newsgroup alt.fan.harry-potter (among others), and after one post titled "Trollness", OnsenMark followed up with... (click here for google)



But Sukami Master isn't trying to entertain the group. He (it is usually a he) is trying to entertain himself. Perhaps this highlights just how shallow Trolls really are. So, in response to the question (finally), yes, trolls are just having fun, but at the expense of every one else in the group.
Trolls will happily do the exact opposite of what you want them to do. Sukami Master might be accused of being a "boring" troll, but he gains a reaction every time, because he does not act how people expect a troll to act.

1. How do people respond to Trolls?
   Usually the most obvious way - they get offended.

"Drew"'s post was not as offensive as many you may have come across. Others pick on individuals - either by name calling, personal insults, or by posing as that person to degrade their character.

Naturally, people don't like this! Who would?
And so, the general result is a range of insults flung across the Internet which does nothing but antagonise the regulars on the board, and entertain the Troll.

1. What is a good way to deal with a Troll?
   It depends upon the Troll - If you realise that a Troll is just trying to wind you up, or offend you, Be Calm. Don't rise to them.

Let's take the example of "Drew" again. How would you react? These are three responses to "Drew"...









This is possibly not the worst way to respond - but it does show the Troll that you have been wound up by their post. There is a certain amount of gratification for him in that!
Quoting your side of the argument to him will not help. Even quoting facts will not help. Across the great Internet divide, facts may as well be nonsense figures.
By "SHOUTING" you are expressing your anger, which to him is humourous. He is safe in his room, and so such agression means nothing to him.



Again, quoting facts will do nothing, except possibly force an argument that he will relish in, and, whether or not you win intellectually, he will draw out until you couldn't stand it any longer through mis-quotes (of your posts), lies, and perjorative comments.
Facts and arguments are a waste of time.






Start with a compliment! As shown above, accept that they may well have a valid argument, and therefore have a necessary place within the forum.
Keep Calm! Don't let your anger show through.
Compliment them before any criticism - and keep that criticism to a minimum. They don't how to react. Before long, they may find themselves drawn into sensible conversations with the group.
If possible, make any criticism sound like a criticism of yourself, not them. Here, the responder has made the caps problem seem like the readers fault, rather than the posters.

1. What about other types of Trolls?
   Some Trolls will pose as regular members of a forum - either by pretending to be someone else, or by joining in some conversations, letting their subversiveness slip through very slowly.

For example, this Troll started by joining in some conversations on the alt.movies.spielberg group. "Togetherinparis" slowly began to lie, about progressively implausible situations, until eventually most regular posters left the group. Now, several years on, the Troll appears to be the only person left in the group - still proclaiming that he came up with the ideas for Minority Report, The Force (as in Star Wars) and Close Encounters of the Third Kind.
How is the best way to deal with this? It may be difficult to recognise his lies to begin with, and then it is easy to fall into the trap of outright believing him.
As soon as you recognise a Liar, don't try to get him to prove his facts - it's impossible across Usenet, and he knows this.
You may like to try some of the above tactics - try to draw him into a sensible conversation, without dropping to his level.
But, ultimately, there can be only one way to deal with him: Killfile him. Do not let yourself be seduced into having an argument over the validity of his "facts".
Other Trolls will try to draw you into a futile argument by a variety of means, but usually by saying something controversial.
A Trolls message may be as simple as "Prove that God does not exist" that has been crossposted to a range of religious newsgroups. A Troll is usually idnetifable, as he will often refuse to take a stance on either side - at one time arguing that God exists, and another that He doesn't.
These Trolls are Controversials.
A Trolls message will often be crossposted to one or more newsgroups that have nothing to do with the subject. By clicking here you can read a Troll thread that spanned for more than four hundred messages - just because it was a controversial subject, and in spite of the fact that the subject had nothing to do with one of the forums in which it was posted.
Trolls revel in their threads lasting such a long time - the longer a thread is, the more legitimate users have been sucked into their little game.
All Trolls, Controversials, Liars, Boreds and Confrontationalists use "Logical Fallacies" - in other words, they lie, change their minds, or otherwise simply claim any perspective other than the concensus.
Logical Fallacies can be a legitimate form of discussion in many instances. But Trolls can use this to their advantage, suggesting that fallacies arise in their "opponents" arguments, where, in truth, those fallacies may, or may not exist.
For example, in the following theoretical trollish encounter, the USER follows some of the above steps when approaching the troll...






At this point, it is unlikely that the Troll would respond - he has made his statement, and enough people may have argued against him that he is wrong, causing havoc in the group, that his work has already been done for him. We will presume, however, that the troll wishes to create a prolonged thread about Mr. Spielbergs work.



Arguing with the troll will get you nowhere. The counter-argument misses half the point, and they will claim the same of you. What's the best way of dealing with this sort of Troll?
Ignore it. Killfile the thread.
Others will join in, undoubtedly - but the more people ignore it, the better. Even by acknowledging to the Troll that you know what it is ("You are a Troll! Go away!") will boost his ego.
Like the best way of winning a fight, the best way of beating a Troll is to not get involved. That way, you can't get hurt.

So, in brief...
BE CALM - Don't rise to their antagonising attitude.
DON'T LOWER YOURSELF TO THEIR LEVEL - Don't start throwing insults at them. It's what they want.
PAY A COMPLIMENT - It is the last thing they are expecting - and the opposite of what they want.
ENCOURAGE THEM TO JOIN IN - Let them know they have valid points, and make their faults seem like yours.
But, above all else, USE YOUR KILLFILE - It is there for a reason, and it is your most powerful weapon.

1. Will this advice get rid of all Trolls?
   No. There will always be the persistent ones, and their will always be people in the discussion forum who will inadvertently feed the Trolls ego.

But even for the Trolls that don't completely disappear, your actions will sow the seed of doubt in their minds about their passtimes. For Trolls that just won't go away, there is always the ultimate weed-killer application - The Killfile!

1. Who is NOT a Troll?
2. Just because someone has said something you happen to not like, it does not mean that they are a Troll. They may just not like you, or you may have a difference of opinion. It happens! Deal with it.

If a post is on-topic, assume that it is not a Troll. The more wayward it gets, the more likely it is to be one.
This takes a little bit of common sense. In uk.media.dvd for example, Off-Topic posts are common, and Trolls are infrequent, partly because of this relaxed attitude.
Everyone posts something they regret later on - so give the poster some leeway. If they really offend you, just Killfile them - I can't say this enough.
Similarly, YOU may be accused of being a Troll. In which case, don't get upset. Find out what it is that people don't like you doing, and stop it. Or move on to another, more accomodating group. There's no real harm done.

sunflower

And you go off in a huff because you set the rules for the debate, and we won't play.

Business as usual, indeed!

__________________
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act”.

George Orwell

************************************

The owners of this country know the truth. It's called the American Dream....'cos you have to be asleep to believe it.

George Carlin

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r...m8fo8ne6xy.gif

sunflower

1. Was the U.S. government involved in 9/11 either as a passive bystander or an active participant?
There appears to be evidence of both...in either case, passive or active, still criminal. Ask any lawyer.

2. Were the WTC towers felled by the aircraft that flew into them or by some pre-arranged demoltion techniqe?
The jury's still out on that one. NIST couldn't have determined that possiblity, since they never entertained it nor tested for it. FEMA's report is by far the most honest...it doesn't give credence to the fire theory as much as others do. They were baffled by it.

3. Was the Pentagon hit by a missle or the named aircraft?
Release of videos and other evidence by the FBI would clarify this point. However, a recent FOIA request was again denied by FBI, citing bogus National Security claims (even though some of this evidence was used at a public trial, Zacharias Moussaiou).

4. Did an aircraft crash in the fields of Pennylvania because the passengers revolted against their hijackers and forced it down or was it hit by a missle?
Testimony exists of first-hand eyewitnesses who saw a plane they did not identify as a commercial jet in the sky, flying low and fast, before they heard the explosion. The scene at Shanksville shows very little evidence of a plane crash, as we would understand it. And it is commonly understood that plane crashes leave lots of debris. Except Flight 93, of course.

5. Were the aircraft that hit the WTC real or trickery?
Not worth discussing.

6. Were the aircraft that hit the WTC remote controlled?
If it could be proven that the aircraft were not the planes that took off, i.e., were changed somehow, that might be a valid point of discussion. However, it cannot be proven, while other factors can, that the official story is a lie.

__________________
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act”.

George Orwell

************************************

The owners of this country know the truth. It's called the American Dream....'cos you have to be asleep to believe it.

George Carlin

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r...m8fo8ne6xy.gif

wayside

DDK,
You're right, we have been down this road before but it still doesn't provide any answer as to why the theories keep piling up and the proof doesn't. My "theory" is this. I don't think there is anyone on this board who doesn't believe that the Bush administration is fulyl capable of complicity in any scheme of this type. Whether it was guilt by purposeful failure to act or by direct action has not been determined. That is an issue of itself with its own set of necessary cause and proof. A separate field of investigation, an one that is not at all dependent on the first, is the cause of the WTC collapse, plus the attack on the Pentagon. There are direct accusations that the WTC collapsed due to controlled demolition. There is a direct accusation that the Pentagon was hit by a missile. The proof of either of those theories is not in anyway dependent on the proof of collusion by the government. Another example: You come home and find the front door of your home ripped off its hinges. All your valuable are gone. A burglary has taken place. It doesn’t matter who committed the burglary, it’s still a burglary. No matter if it’s your next door neighbor or someone you don’t know you can prove that your house was broken into. That’s the case here. Prove that your house was broken into first then prove who broke into it. So far I see that your door has been kicked in, I don’t see any of your valuables missing, yet you are spending most of your time looking for a thief. If you want to start hauling people in to the police station at least prove that they did something wrong. See my point? Don't round up the usual suspects if you can't prove that valuables are gone.

__________________
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m...omsmallest.gif

wayside

A lawyer would say prove to me that a crime has been committed before I prosecute. Passive or active means nothing without a criminal act.

Fine, prove something. I'm open, I'm listening. Don't muddy the waters with accusations of culpability without proving and actual criminal act took place.

Good point. If the evidence supports the theory your case here is extremely strong. Get the evidence, don't stream additional theories.

There are cell phone calls that contradict any speculative testimony. More work needed here.

Agreed.

[/quote]What other factors can be proven?

__________________
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m...omsmallest.gif

sunflower

Naturally proof that can be produced to assuage any reasonable doubt in a jury would be needed - but a felony conviction would be obtained IF a conviction came whether of passive or active participation. If you help someone in the commission of a murder, even if only peripherally, you are as guilty of the murder, in some states even moreso, as the person who actually committed the act. Thereby, the charge of conspiracy.

There's lots of stuff that the government itself has provided of it's only volition. Just takes the will to see it and understand what it is.

Evidence is mainly gone or under tight security. How do you propose we do that? We have lots of circumstantial evidence, i.e, videos, testimony. Again, just the will of those who could assist in getting something like that off the ground is sorely missing.

Questionable. Those cellphone calls (if we're discussing 93) went from 33 initially to only 3 by the time of the Moussaoui trial.


To start:

1. The Pentagon. They claim no other videos exists, at least publicly. News organizations have confirmed the existence of at least 80 other videos which might have captured a clear image of 77. Production of that video would be helpful, if only to stop the speculation, don't you think?

2. A FOIA request for explanation of the identification of the plane parts found in the Pentagon has also been denied. Why? Again, wouldn't this prove their case, and make the speculation go away? It would also, IMO, make truthers like me look like shit, and the admin come out smelling clean and fresh.

3. Eyewitnesses whose testimony was excluded in toto from the 9/11 Commission report, who contradict the official line. There's plenty of reason for that. And these people have said the same thing since day one - they didn't just come out of the woodwork in the last year. But they get zero attention from the media. That speaks volumes to me.

That's a start.

__________________
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act”.

George Orwell

************************************

The owners of this country know the truth. It's called the American Dream....'cos you have to be asleep to believe it.

George Carlin

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r...m8fo8ne6xy.gif

dadakarma

Claims of missiles and CD will persist for a number of reasons: all the holes in Bush's version of events. Alternative theories rush in to fill those holes. Bush's story isn't incomplete by accident. Lots of dots connecting the Bush administration to 9/11 abound and are well-documented, and thanks to their stonewalling of investigations, evidence-tampering and concealment, lies and utter lack of cooperation, 'dots' and theory are all we have. That they are only 'dots' is no different than the 'dots' suggesting the JFK conspiracy. This leadership has the means, authority and resources to reveal what happened and lay to rest all theories, and they refuse - while demonizing all who question them, applying Rovian 'fear' tactics and seditious labels, calling skeptics 'crazy', etc. Hardly "unifying" during times of such professed danger. I'm not buying it. ANY of it. That they get the benefit of your doubt at this point is puzzling and charitable. They do not, any longer, get mine. Far more plausible than their bullshit version is that they were, at a minimum, complicit in a predictable attack by an enemy that was years in the making, a result of our shitty hegemonic policies and arrogance, and that the event would serve as a dovetailer to their PNAC wet dream and fascist bullshit domestic policies. That holds more water and makes far more sense than the steaming pile they're hawking.

As for the valuables missing? Look thee to the exploitation of 9/11 by the Bush administration and what that exploitation has wrought, here and abroad. (I know, that's not really what you meant - but think about it)

__________________
Heck is for people who don't believe in gosh.

anhailla

you didn't answer any of his questions, as usual... it was a long-winded diatribe about Bush.

__________________
...either I go, or that wallpaper does.

Oscar Wilde

wayside

You don’t call for a jury trial when there is not enough proof to get an indictment from a grand jury. The terms “passive” or “active” are irrelevant in the absence of a crime, and to this point no crime has been proven. To get the proof one must assemble facts. You references to helping someone commit a murder are also irrelevant if you have yet to prove that a murder was committed.

No, it is incumbent on the accusers to prove the accusations. It is not the duty of doubters or the accused.
It’s not up to me or anyone else who is not part of those making the conspiratorial accusations to come up with a methodology for your proof gathering. As I stated, I am open but I am not convinced by what has been presented or by anything I have read. I have doubts but no theories or certainties.

OK, questionable, but it is still real time, real world fact. There may be some contradictory facts that can be presented , but to this point it is a very compelling bit of information.

Once again, “claims.” Claims do not trump facts. If you can’t get the videos find another method of proving the theory.

A denial is not an admission of wrong doing. If you can’t get what you want find something else that works. In absence of facts and proof you cannot claim to possess the “truth.”

So you see a collusion between government and the media? You realize that the “conspiracy” you are talking of keeps growing and growing, and in doing so goes against all rules of security for covert operations.

At what? I’m not certain.

__________________
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m...omsmallest.gif

sunflower

Again, I will pose this question:

WHY is it so plausible to believe that 19 arabs with poor flying skills and poor english skills were able to pull this elaborate plan off

BUT

involvement by people within the US government MUST include THOUSANDS?

I'm really curious.

__________________
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act”.

George Orwell

************************************

The owners of this country know the truth. It's called the American Dream....'cos you have to be asleep to believe it.

George Carlin

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r...m8fo8ne6xy.gif