Symposium 1001: a beginners guide to spot McBloggers, freepers, Paulites and other trolls. Updated.
by Student Guy, Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:22:47 PM EDT
by Student Guy, Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:22:47 PM EDT
The Freepers are obvious to spot. The ones who really do the most damage are the "concern trolls". It's so easy for the deadenders to bite and rec. these masterpieces.
you know, looked at in the proper context, the vast majority of the diaries here could be called "concern troll" diaries.
until I got sick of it, and let a few real opinions slip out, then I was banned.
i've been wanting to do this a redstate for a while, but that would be crossing a line for me. maybe someday.
between concern and parody
the parody trolls can be amusing at first but they grow really old after a while.
The concern trolls do the most to divide us.
The freeper/Paultards actually unite us in bashing them.
its "asherrem" actually ;)
I have to print this out, good work!
I noticed it was wrong when I was reading after I posted, I caught a couple other mistakes too.
Thanks for the compliment. I hope part two gets as good reviews.
EVAR! Happily rec'd. And concern trolls are definitely the worst.
SevenStrings as he prompted the question that spawned the thought.
Concern trolls are the worst (I am building a case to expose some of them in part two, I have at least 8 IDed with valid evidence) but I think parody trolls are really annoying too.
whatever happened to not personally attacking anyone?
Why would you take this personal Diamond?
What's your concern?
to state the truth, do you disagree with any of my sentiments in my diary and if so back them up because I can provide proof of the type of troll for every one I listed.
I didn't read any personal attacks in this diary. It was pretty straight-forward.
Now if it said that mrXYZ was a stinky scumbag . . . that would be personal.
Saying that they are a category 1, 2, 3, 4 . . . is just analysis.
histories (both posting and rating) to prove my case. I can do this for every one of the people I listed, I have many more in mind, but I am compiling evidence so I can be sure my case is made.
I wish there was more out there to link ChiTown . . . maybe just being paranoid.
Superb diary, kudos to you, Doc. I think we should form a neighborhood watch, to root out these trolls and drive 'em off.
and the comments are open to strategies to ID trolls, what we did in rankles thread really cemented the sock puppetness of rankles and lemon714.
That is an effective strategy to deal with a freeper/paulite.
I'm thinking of going on offense and trolling the freepers spawn points.
they are far less tolerant of opposing viewpoints and they are very distrustful (from knowledge of trolling Ron Paul sites).
I can speak to having gone on Freerepublic - you'll be banned instantly. I was a concern troll when it came out that Rush Limbaugh was a junkie. No, I was a parody troll - because I was rooting him on while using phrases like "chasing the dragon" and other hits from afterschool anti-drug specials. I had about an hours worth of posting before I was detected.
They spot ideological heterodoxy so fast it's scary.
they have a lot of practice at trolling themselves and are expert in it.
That and they do not allow dissent which makes the job of trolling much harder.
what is a sockpuppet?
is some one use uses multiple accounts to try to influence debate. Sock puppets are often used to troll rate decent comments and up rate nebulous comments.
For an example look at the comment rankings of the users rankles and lemon714. They both are sock puppets of the user switching sides.
(note I don't know if the people I mentioned are banned yet).
I say keep posting the rec. list in each diary. I can't rec. so I have to always ask, but if we post who rec.s a list can be made.
Hey, SG, the old lady here needs an explanation. I think I've figured out that "sock puppet" in blog-speak isn't one of those cute monkey-faced hand puppets with which I used to entertain my kids when they were little. But what is it?
BTW: I just loved this diary. Who knew there were so many annoying people out there? To my chagrin, I realize that I have probably fallen for at least one of every species of troll on this site, since I have an unfortunate tendency to assume that people are who and what they say they are. Now I have some way to sort out the trouble-makers from the people with whom I just disagree. Thanks.
Oops, I see you've already answered this question. To quote the immortal Gilda, "Never mind."
Just a suggestion. I think it would help for you not to use Paultard. It obviously implies retardation, and that is offensive to a lot of people especially if they have family members with mental retardation. It is just in bad taste even if it is accepted as slang by a certain group of people.
once i get done with this. I used it because it was popular lingo and the ones who come here aren't very smart.
What can you call a Paul-tard if you can't call him a Paul-tard? What other name will suffice?
I hear "-bot" and "-tron" are popular ;)
I use Paul-ite.
I get offended when people call us democrats bots or trons. While some of the paul-ites are bots some aren't and don't deserve the insult as a whole. After all we kind of like them for being against McCain.
Why not just call them Paulxors?
Where there is a difference between being a Ron Paul supporter (a Paulite?) and a Ron Paul crazy (a Paulbot).
Just like there is a difference between being an ardent Clinton Supporter and being a Clinton crazy (Clintoninista).
And I presume/hope there is a difference between being an Obama supporter and an Obamabot.
My daughter has Asperger's Syndrome, and yeah, we get the comments. I'm not overly sensitive to it because I can tell when someone is trying to be mean and when they're not.
So yeah, I mean, I think its pretty clever, but I can see where it delves into "offensive" territory.
How about RuePauls.
I would certainly rue the day that guy became President.
There is a small town near me loaded with lots of anti-government, land-use rights libertarians. Last year, the town board finally passed some mandated zoning regulations and the Paul People went into full rebellion. They packed the annual meeting and voted to strip the town of it's village powers. This stopped the zoning process, but means they also can't pass any other ordinances.
I forgot about that until I entered back into my own diary. Once again thank you for pointing this out.
maybe it could be tweaked a little. isn't a "petard" an explosive device? i think that's where the phrase "fall on your own petard" comes from. it'd be like jumping on your own grenade. maybe the "paultards" are here to cause chaos...like an....explosive device.
oh, never mind.
You forgot the Unity Police Troll.
The Unity Police Troll is a thinly guised militant Obama supporter and purports to squelch all dissent and opinions within the party that deviate from TeH NaRRaTive (TM).
Common tactics include guilting supporters on rival factions of being responsible for the destruction of the party, having the blood of dead soldiers on our hands, and troll/hide rating posters on account of viewpoint disagreement rather than breaching the site's rules.
and qualify as Chaos Trolls, but as for what they say they are justified if the person is pulling a Concern troll act and saying they will vote for McCain.
in part 2 i think you should include the Unity Police Troll (although i would rename them since that's not really what they are) since they are as destructive as the other trolls you mentioned and dont forget to include the spamming of diaries in it!
fit very well into the Chaos trolls as they cause chaos and make the work of genuine Obama supporters who have this as their main internet place much more difficult.
I will be including them as an addendum of Part 1 in part 2.
I was thinking about this and had two in mind already.
Also, there are plenty of "Is this Snark" Trolls.
Serious Question Trolls?
He's right. Alegre chaired that movement, and it's grown beyond parody now.
they are steamed about the recent rec snafu, I would include myself in that category if I considered it a category as I am a very bad culprit of that (I did eight in a row after the update of alegre's diary last night (tonight I haven't gone in them).
Might want to not call them trolls. They have the same effect, but most don't seem to want to cause damage, they just sincerely believe one candidate (almost always Hillary) should withdraw and haven't twigged that this isn't going to be well received by partisans of the other side. Their hearts are in the right place but their psychological insight is lacking.
Never put down to malice what can be ascribed to stupidity, and all that.
Is it bad that I secretly hope to be listed under the Obama Unity Police section? I mean, I don't really write diaries because I don't have more than a few sentences to say really. But I like fighting fire (the "I will vote for McCain"ers) with fire ("enjoy your coat hangers").
Ah well, I will have to wait and see!
The Unity Police Troll is actually the partisan mirror image of the Concern troll.
Concern Troll: Barack Can't win In November! Change your mind!
Unity Police Troll: Stop attacking Obama! He's going to be the nominee! Change your mind!
The problem with both designations is that both caring about electability and caring about party unity are legitimate positions. Having terms like the above trivializes and troll-ifies perfectly valid viewpoints.
about concern troll, I don't include people saying that Hillary will win by a bigger margin I say it about people who say Obama will never win, saying he has problems is a legitimate point to debate.
You mean like engels.
I won't have any trolls left to unmask that is number 3 that is out of the bag, people do have good troll-dars they just need to use them.
Also engels name makes him a likely plant as not many people would willingly take a commie monkier since we get a lot of crap about it
engels! LOL! Always cracks me up. Real bad spelling. Always insulting (I'm chuckling while I write this) and over the top. Really gives me the giggles. I thought he/she had been banned but he/she popped up in another diary tonight. High comedy.
Not sure about that one. I remember there was a Karl Marx a few months back. I had my suspicions, because he seemed rather too far to the right for that name to be appropriate, but his arguments for Hillary appeared to be made in good faith. Besides, random accusations from freepers of communism aren't that hurtful and Engels isn't that well known.
Although I'm not denying that engels appears to be a troll. We just need to wait for him to come back as lenin, trotsky or thalmann before we can be sure about the communism angle.
Engels usually merits a TR, just on general principles.
There are only so many times you can call Obama supporters a cult before the accusation loses its sting. It's just tiresome at this point.
Actually, I think I captured the nuance (or, more aptly, lack thereof in the concern troll position).
"Barack Can't Win in November!" is how I described concern troll.
I think that's in synch with how you conceptualized them.
I was implying that there needed to be nuance in the position. If you go with your definition almost every Obama supporter on the site is a unity troll at times, I would say that they need to be unhelpful over 50% of the time with what they post and need to make the job of genuine Obama supporters more difficult. I have 3 in mind already (I know 2 are Kossasks who come over to taunt the Clinton supporters).
I am saying that not all Obama supporters are Unity Police Trolls just like not all Clinton supporters are Concern Trolls.
Does that seem clear as I know I can be very unclear at times.
I think we disagree.
The designation of a concern troll is one of having absolutely no nuance. It's outright hate and unrealistic doomsday predictions. By contrast, people who make reasonable predictions of the difficulty Obama has are not concern trolls. The very nuance we're discussing is what exempts them from the label.
A unity troll likewise is not a nuanced concept. Unity trolls are hyperbolic and uncompromising in their intolerance for any criticism, however justified, of the likely nominee.
People with nuances and reasonability in their positions aren't trolls. Hence, the lack of nuance typifies and indeed characterizes these two particilar troll categories.
And I disagree, as well. It's a subtle distinction, and a good concern troll plays to that line. Intent is the key and it's hard to determine intent from words on a screen.
Obviously anyone who says that Obama (or Clinton) is absolutely unelectable is a troll. I would argue that they are not a concern troll. Concern trolls need to look like their concern is genuine and worth sharing; very few people believe either candidate is unelectable, or find that a view worth sharing.
The perfect concern troll against Obama is someone who argues that Obama is nearly unelectable and will just barely win. That's a position someone can hold sincerely and a position a concern troll would reasonably expect they could get others to pick up on.
Like I said, there's a fine line. Picking through demographic analysis of various states and showing that Obama has issues in certain demographics isn't concern trolling. We know he does. You can do the same thing to Clinton (or McCain, for that matter); also not concern trolling.
Someone who harps on Obama having a "narrow set of victory conditions" or "needing a perfect set of EV results", however, might be a concern troll. It depends how they express it, how often, etc. We can't tell their intent directly; we can't tell if they believe it, don't believe it, half-believe it, whatever. All we can tell is that they're advancing their "concern" in a way intended to sway others to share their "concern", and their motive might well be other than the surface motive they're projecting. That's a concern troll.
You know, political bloggin' on the intertubez is almost exactly like playing Dungeons and Dragons.
It's a geek habit... a hobby. Akin to mental masturbation. Harmless in moderation.
But like gaming or any other hobby, there's always a minority of folks who get so wrapped up in the game that they completely lose their grip on what's important in their immediate lives. I am always amused by the sheer stubborn inventiveness of some internet trolls. It's obvious that they put considerable time and effort into their craft. I am appreciative of their efforts. Other trolls are just sad, sad examples of people who have invested too much of their personal identity with the candidates, and while they are amusing on a whole other level, I have to wonder about their stability.
I can appreciate the parody trolls for a while as they go to great lengths to fit the parody but the novelty wears off after a while.
and well-written, as well as amusing.
Thanks for the grins.
I just called it like I saw it and added appropriate responses to each kind.
My biggest props have to go to asherrem for providing the photoshop of actual McCain swag. and to SevenStrings for getting me to write a brief version of this which I expanded into this form.
You give me way too much credit. I used MSPaint. I've been begging my husband to get me photoshop for years.
...oh the things I could do with photoshop...
whose artist ability is null. I probably couldn't make something that simple look nice.
and asherrem for the art, and SevenStrings for the muse-like prodding.
If you did that with MS Paint, you definitely deserve Photoshop! Or go with Paint Shop Pro, which is less expensive but does about everything Photoshop does, especially with available plugins. I've used PSP for many years and it's quite good.
Insist on an upgrade from MS Paint. Your public demands it!
I will forward the request to the boss...err I mean my husband.
I'm dumb when it comes to computers and fun things to put on them. For instance, I just recently purchased a new laptop. Did I care how much RAM it had, or what programs it ran? Absolutely not. Its lime green and thats all that matters (just like my camera and my cell phone--and they all run like crap).
Take a look at paint.net, a free paint program that's got a whole bunch of features.
I made a quick search and discovered that PSP has quite changed since my last upgrade (and since Corel bought it). The only PSP product now seems to be Paint Shop Pro Photo X2, and I don't know if that's really the same product at all. But you should look at it. You can download a free trial for 2 weeks, and if you like it, it only costs $79 (that's about what I paid for the original PSP many years ago).
Try it! You might like it!
You ought to use GIMP 2.0. It's free. The learning curve is a little steep at first, but I think Photoshop is also. GIMP is open-source and you should be able to just find it with google.
Check out latina.
Latin concern troll.
Obama can't win our vote.
yada, yada, yada
Comingawakening made a troll diary today.
Check them both out.
and the other one is new and I require great evidence to make a claim so I am keeping a watch on her.
"Troll" does not refer to mythical bridge-dwelling monsters; that's just a happy coincidence.
It's actually a fishing reference: someone who goes "trolling" will bait a hook and then reel in the fish that bite.
In internet terms, the controvercial diary title is the bait on the hook, and the people who come to yell at the diarist or agree with them are the fish.
Hence the term "fished in" to refer to someone who has been tricked.
Just wanted to clear that up.
I should have gotten that reference as I am a Minnesotan who loves to go fishing (though I do casting with bobbers).
I was about to say that's spelled trawling, but it turns out that both trolling and trawling are (different?) ways to fish. Crazy.
I think trawling's with a net, trolling's with a line.
And thanks Dram for pointing that out.
It's easy to see the confusion though; people who troll are a bit troll-like, which is why they get called 'trolls.'
People who troll, in fishing terms, I guess would be called 'trollers' . . . or maybe 'trollists.'
Ahh, semantic confusion.
My students and I had a big debate about "trolling" vs. "trawling" last semester. They both have literal definitions, but they are also both used metaphorically in different ways. As someone who does not fish, I find it really confusing.
diary pimpers like this:
May 27th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
New diary called Imperial Tales-about how Emperor Has No clothes :)
Please come and visit. You know what to do
May 27th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
mydd diary is now updated with video of Obama on Auschwitz LIE.
See it here:
I'm ignoring everything you're talking about. Come rec my diary.
LOOK. AT. ME. - http://hillaryis44.blogspot.com/
and a special sub category all of her own as she provides a clear example of what a concern troll.
Slightly off-topic, but one more example of Freepers on HillIS44 gloating over a McCain victory:
May 29th, 2008 at 12:30 am
. . .
I was speaking to a friend today who is with the RNC and they are not worried about Barr taking votes away from McCain, because they feel if Obama is the nominee they will more than make up for the Barr loses with Hillary supporters.
She's not a concern troll. Whatever it is that she does, it's outside of that category.
Personally I don't think she's anywhere near as raucous or controversial as people make her out to be.
She dresses it up better but she's every bit as destructive and hateful as Universal and Fleaflicker were.
I'm fairly new to MyDD so I don't know who those two people were. I have heard that linfar was much worse months ago so I understand my view of what she posts now is a much more moderate holistic view than people may have if they've seen the earlier stuff. What I see from her now is a bit provocative but nowhere near troll-level.
She toned it down after she was banned and allowed to return, and now just serves as a conduit for the filth that bubbles up from NoQuarter (where Fleaflicker who was banned from MyDD still posts) and Hillaryis44.
Read Universals crap here
And Fleaflickers MyDD stuff here
And you'll understand why I have no tolerance left for people that far gone.
Thanks for the links. They're both more extreme than what I usually see here on MyDD. I've seen far worse though on H44, NQ, Dailykos, etc.
MyDD is a very clean site by comparison. Ever since I migrated here, I follow politics more than I ever did when I was a "Kossack." Maybe it's the community atmosphere.
I haven't seen linfar's writings recently, but it seemed reasonable when I last saw it.
Whether or not you agree, calling people out is generally against the site rules.
I am calling out the tactic of bringing in crowds from destructive non-progressive sites to taint MyDD.
I didn't see "calling out" in the guidelines.
I saw nothing in the guidelines against referring to other sites where diarists post, like Linfar at Tinfoilis44.
if it was directed at me.
here is some of linfar's work that categorizes her as a concern troll from mydd:
saying she won't vote democrat over how the primary has gone
talking about how Obama is going to lose for certain
Saying that Obama is completely unelectible and a bad person due to Wright
How about "STOP SWIFTBOATING HILLARY".
She accused Obama of exploiting the RFK assassination to "swiftboat" Hillary.
It's quite a doozy.
In all fairness, I don't think it was admirable that Obama publicly defended Hillary and then stealthily forwarded the Keith Olbermann video to major media outlets. That was very televangelist of him, in the "do what I say, not what I do" sense. Calling it out as swift-boating is fair game.
Wasn't that the same video that Olbermann showed first on national cable TV of his own words?
Oops, sorry. I take back the question. Don't want to go against the spirit of the diary.
Yes it was. You know there's nothing innocuous or kindspirited about sending a video transcript of the scathing anti-Hillary commentary to all major media outlets. It was a barely guised smear job that made Obama's public comment in her defense nothing more than an insult.
I'm confused. Why would the MSM need to be sent a video that came from the MSM? Isn't that like sending MSNBC a video of Wolf Blitzer's broadcast?
Something about this story doesn't sound right...
They sent it to other outlets beyond MSNBC. This maneuver has been all over cable news for the past few days. I'm surprised you missed it.
It was either going to be trying anti-depressants for the first time, or turning off the TV for a few days. I chose the cheaper one.
Sorry to hear that. I hope you're feeling better.
But glad to read this anyways.
I am eagerly looking forward to Part 2.. where you will (hopefully) describe how we can spot the not-so-obvious trolls =)
and I hope your questions got answered here.
In part two I will expose at least 8 concern trolls. and there are some posing on both sides (more on the Clinton side but that is because I can spot them easier (most likely due to my bias), maybe once I post the methodology of the troll it will become clearer on who the trolls are and we can expose concern trolls on the Obama side and then get down to a honest debate).
Yes, I am now proud to know what a "sockpuppet" is (always wondered what that was).
Gives me a few ideas, actually..maybe it is time for 8strings, 9strings and so on =)
As a long time net-citizen dating back to the ancient days of Usenet (now google groups)
"Trolling as an Art" has been around for a long time, and even has dedicated groups and heroes.
There are troll discussion groups and even groups where trolls go to learn their craft and crow about success:
Wiki has an interesting discussion of famous flame wars - which are often related to trolling
trolls here are rather unsubtle, easy to spot, and sophomoric.
Probably indicates lack of net sophistication or inability to use google. ;)
I am sure you have heard of various ballistic missile warfare scenarios.
The nightmare scenario (which does not get any play in the press, btw) is that the enemy will launch multiple warheads from one missile. Most of the warheads would be decoys that do not take up any space/weight on the missile (inflated balloons, for instance), while the real warhead (the one that will eventually go boom) is shrouded in a cold shield making it very hard to detect.
Sounds a lot like your troll warfare. If you do have a method to spot the not-so-obvious trolls, you should give the Missile Defense Agency a call...they might be interested in your skills =)
calculations involved in figuring out the real nuke vs the decoys as the decoys would be lighter (hence less interia and would track differently in space.
An aside, the next batch of trolls are too difficult to spot, they aren't obvious like the one's I listed but if you paid enough attention you'd be able to name most of them, one of two might surprise you.
It is the third wave that is giving me difficulties as the evidence is much slimmer and ever since my Troll-dar misfired badly I am more hesitant to call people out.
I will admit to biting on one from the Obama side frequently.
But upon deeper thought they are concern trolls/chaos trolls (not enough evidence to cite them fully as concern trolls in some cases).
my troll-dar seems to ping really loudly with HRC trolls and much softer with BO supporters, but there are a few that i suspect. so i would be curious...
but often we keep it to ourselves in an attempt to be nice, I have been much more subdued about people on both sides since I got burned but SS's question got me to unload by obvious batch who has been called out by most of the community. The positive reception from the people in my John McCain's swag got my wheels turning on part 2 and part 3 (the very hard to tell trolls (I am probably wrong about 75% of the people in part 3 so it will be a while before I go and write that up).
Student Guy, in answer to your previous question.. No, because there is no air in space, a balloon and a balistic missile (with no engine or its engine off) would track identically in space, with the exception of the possible heat signature of any missile engine (but in a multi-stage missile, which any long range missile would have to be, the rocket engine would have dropped away long before, so in short, no, as far as I know, there is no way. Conductive (metal coated) balloons look just like metal to radar, optical sensors, everything.
Dtecting the difference in weight would depend on weight, but balisstic missiles are weightless as they describe their ballistic trajectory. Above the atmosphere, there is zero drag. Weight doesn't exist. Massy objects do have some gravity, but its infinitesimal, and so, beyond current science I am pretty sure to measure, so unless you had some kind of hypothetical gravity detector, which TTBOML has not been invented yet, you would be out of luck. So, IMO, many of these Star Wars projects are probably basically welfare for defense contractors. Or, something other than they say they are. (like they would tell us!)
In regards to the troll debate, Ive been accused of being a troll, and if I have bothered people, I apologize. I'm not a troll, I'm a longtime Dem, who is currently sick, and at times very bitchy, but I try to be as sensible as I can under the conditions.
I also try to contribute as much valuable information as I can to discussions as perhaps a way to make up for my occasional anger at people.
I've been trying to figure out a way to make some important (to me and I think a lot of other people) points and often I've found myself not doing it well, again, I apologize.
When at some point I get up the courage to fully explain my situation and how I got there, I think that everyone will see it and me in hopefully a different light.
There would be...if you could spot the trajectories from a distance. You need to be able to spot them at several 100 km distance if you want to shoot them down (in outer space, things travel pretty fast, so you can close 100 km in a few mins)
I think I can spot quite a few trolls...the obvious ones...now. And yes, I am waiting for part 2 =)
Do you remember the Obama supporter I told you about in another thread? The yam was at it again tonight in her majesty's diary.
I think this troll should be called out in your next diary.
two of them have been identified no (RK got another in a different thread)
on tracking devices but some how I don't think we have the technology yet to get the info in time.
But you analogy and my comparison hold. At first we weren't able to track nukes in space, but we got some better technology and no we can clearly non hidden items.
Their are more difficult items to track and we are developing the tech to be able to track them.
The term troll gets thrown around far too often. Person A disagrees with person B and then calls him or her a troll.
I think there's far too much preoccupation over who is and is not a troll. If someone says something disagreeable then present your opposition. If they're so over the top, downright rude, or just trying to stir shit ignore them and move on.
troll in that they attempt to disrupt honest discourse, the kind described in ragekage's excellent diary that is on the rec list.
This people I describe work to divide us (whether intentionally or not) and thus deserve the monkier troll.
Excellent diary. I look forward to your exposition of the concern troll, as this seems like the trickiest category.
Amazing work, Student Guy.
The only thing I disagree with is your take on Linfar. She's not a chaos troll. Chaos trolls get off on creating division and chaos. She gets off on the attention. She's an attention troll that speciallizes in stiring up hatred so she can be victimized by it. She's like Zelig with the jobs she's had and people she's met and events she's been intimately involved with. It's all about her.
she is a hybrid between the two, but she is a clear example of a Concern troll as seen in the diaries I linked to up stream. Chaos trolls often do what they do for attention.
Good point. Universal certainly fit that mold. I almost felt sorry for him when he got banned and had to come to the realization that he wasn't the voice of a revolution.
That is an interesting thought from above: Would "Attention Junkie" and "Martyr" trolls be a subset of another category?
What are snark trolls? Are they lite-chaos trolls?
It's hard to spot Obama concern trolls but there are a ton of Obama snark trolls.
Are snark/concern trolls two sides of the same coin based on wither you are in the winning or losing camp?
Do you think if the results were reversed the HRC concerned trolls here would be the snark trolls and vise verse?
Yes, I've seen this as well (Is this a snark? Serious question). They are like gnats. It's childish and annoying.
I have 6 suspects in mind and hope you will validate my suspicions. 4 are supposed Clinton supporters and 2 are supposed Obama supporters.
BTW, thanks for the great diary. Troll hunting is a fun activity to while away the time while awaiting the end of the Dem primaries.
about "anyone who currently posts at Hillaryis44" prevented me from doing so. Why? Two reasons.
1. There is still a nomination going on. Hillaryis44 has not (yet) advocated voting for Mcain. Their stated mission is to elect Hillary.
2. The level of vitriol at Hillaryis44 towards Obama can be found in reverse (towards Hillary) at the rec list at DAILY KOS, and you didn't include them.
I partly agree with your first point. There's not a necessary connection between the two, just a very strong correlation.
On your second point, though -- as far as I'm concerned, you're just wrong. I follow DailyKos and MyDD, and just very occasionally peek in at Hillaryis44 to see what they're up to. I have never seen anything on the rec list at DailyKos that even approaches the level of vitriol in the average posting at Hillaryis44. They're not even close. Whenever something bad of that sort (Randi Rhodes, for instance), the comments over on DK are loaded with people denouncing the diary. In my (admittedly limited) reading of Hillaryis44, I've never seen anyone denounce much of anything, no matter how hateful it may be, if it says Obama's bad or Hillary's good.
at the top of the rec list at DAILY KOS:
Clinton would denigrate and dismiss all of that for her own personal gain. I really don't know what else to say. The primaries cannot be over soon enough and I vow to donate money to any candidate that challenges her in the next senatorial election.
How is that any different than Hillaryis44????
If you're putting linfar and the other smear machiners in the Concern Troll category, then that gets my vote as most annoying.
Well articulated and described with good research to demonstrate the various types. Funny yet informative. Well done Student Guy. I suspect that many of the people we commonly associate with the Cliton "deadenders" are actually Freeper trolls.
Brilliant and timely diary my neuroscientific friend, but for your Part II on the PD underlying trolling - narcissism, unresolved aggression, dissocciative identity etc - you might like to consider this strange fact.
It happened to me about FOUR TIME under my previous Brit username, and was so egregiously similar on all four occasions, that I think there must be something to it:
THE NEED TO CONFESS
Universal confessed his ulterior motives after a long back and forth over Professorgate, a few days before he left. I also had three other trolls around the same time confess they were here 'causing havoc' and would be back in full force in 'four months time'.
I don't know why they needed to confess to ME, perhaps my former Brit handle made them comfortable with their undercover work, and they pictured me as James Bond, or sufficiently distant and irrelevant to spill the beans to. But underlying their motivation must have been a desire to say
Yes, I DON'T BELIEVE ALL THIS BS I'M SPOUTING. I'M NOT A DEMOCRAT, I'M AN UNDERCOVER AGENT PROVOCATEUR, AREN'T I CLEVER?
Which is of course really dumb.
So let's not underestimate
a) The narcissism of pretending to be someone you're not requires that you make people aware of their ignorance and
b) The desire to be caught out.
c) The reaction formation of an undercover freeper is also a potential, thwarted desire to become a democrat and even an Obama supporter. Some tough 'man love' may underly the sexual formation here, but let's not even go there, cupcake.
Hopes this helps for part II of your symposium
I trolled on r0n p4v1 (ron paul) sites for a while to see what was going on there. I often felt a need to confess my thoughts and barely repressed it until the end when I left.
I am guessing there is a cogitative dissonance as everyone likes to think of themselves as honest even though most of us lie like mad. The internet provides the anonymity to be honest and that adds an additional factor to the need to be honest.
I miss Universal, aka General Bethlehem. I go over to His44 and scroll through the shit just to read his stuff.
He's possibly the purest troll of all time.
This is a pretty good taxonomy, but I don't agree with your definition of "concern troll".
The way it's usually used, a concern troll is insincere. If I'm a freeper and I think that Sen. Clinton is the strongest candidate, then I can concern troll by giving deliberate bad advice to weaken her: "I'm very very concerned about our chances in November; I think: (1) We should write the superdelegates and tell them how stupid they are for supporting Sen. Obama. (2) We should do everything in our power to make sure that Florida and Michigan aren't penalized for breaking the primary schedule. This will strengthen the party. (3) Sen. Clinton should come out against Roe v. Wade to increase her crossover support in the general election."
This is separate from the kind of troll who sincerely believes what they're saying. They've gone off the deep end and can't reliably distinguish good advice from bad. If I support Sen. Obama, I might say something like, "I think that Sen. Clinton's RFK remarks were a veiled threat, and I'm very very concerned that someone will act on them. I think that we should all denounce those remarks at every opportunity, and I think Sen. Obama should press charges against her." Let's call this "emo-trolling".
With practice, you can distinguish between a concern troll and an emo-troll. The concern troll typically posts nothing but trollish arguments. The emo-troll can make perfectly sensible posts when they're not talking about the object of their obsession.
Dealing with an emo-troll is a little tricky. Since they're sincere, some of them can be reasoned with, and it's usually worth making the attempt. But advanced emo-trolls are immune to reason.
The "Is this snark? Serious question." response is actually appropriate in that case. I know some people upthread were calling it trolling, but really it's just a shorthand way of saying, "You're so over-the-top that I can't tell the difference between you and a parody troll."
Emo-trolls take themselves very seriously, and hate being laughed at. So this response has the chance of shocking them back to their senses, or at least encouraging them to leave for a more hospitable environment. (In contrast, freeper trolls and concern trolls don't care if you laugh at them. They'll see it as a sign that they need to post more believable trolls, but it won't be a blow to their self-esteem.)
I am very lost and don't understand what you are talking about.
I am new to blogging and do understand blatant trolls that curse, advocate republicans, tell democrats they are wrong, and try to give arguments that undermine democratic causes in a circular argument. They are almost like preachers.
Freeper/Paulite trolls I probably could catch except that a lot of true Obama people currently say they won't ever vote for Clinton and vica versa. I guess if they give republican talking points and bash the whole democratic party, they are trolls.
Parody Troll's are harder for me because I can always find fault with myself and any organization I join. I personally love this sight but hate it when things become too heated. I don't like it when graphs are drawn where the y axis isn't 0 and they become misleading and when my candidate Obama, is trashed with Hillary talking points. If I callenge them on their arguments should I say they are parody trolls.
I was once accused of being a concern troll when I voiced my fears that my candidate, Obama, could be assassinated. I did it out of genuine fear and the media talk and comments by Huckabee, Hillary and Liz Trota aggravated that. I am still for Obama 100%. Does my fear for Obama's life make me a concern troll like I was accused of.
On another subject entirely. Bill Clinton is acting like a concern troll all the time. How can you distinguish between a person who is devoted to their candidate, and paranoid of their competition and a concern troll. What is the difference in their motivation.
Chaos controls I don't know if I understand. There is one self hating Jew who keeps on attacking Israel on this democratic board that I think is weird and have reported to the mods. Yesterday I tried to reason with him but he just refers me to read his literature. I don't think he can be reasoned with and he will never change his belief system.
Here is an idea. I am here to be educated, to learn and as I do so, my opinions can be changed. Maybe the definition of a troll is someone with rigid belief systems who comes to this board to change others but will never be open to really hearing other peoples point of view and changing his/her own views.
"a lot of true Obama people currently say they won't ever vote for Clinton"
I have to disagree with you there. I haven't seen any Obama supporter say that here. I HAVE seen lots of Hillary supporters do the reverse.
They are just hanging on financially, they often can't afford the kind of medical care that rich people can afford (the kind where you get the tests you need to get and they find out what is wrong with you very quickly) many of them have issues that are too complicated for the brains of the members of the medical profession who live in their area so they get broad, garbage diagnoses that basically say 'we don't know what is wrong with you but we dont want to spend any more money finding out' either. Some diagnoses like MCS are both very common and very political. These people literally have had their lives arrested and are on hold until they get better, they can't function until they get better, and they know from past experience that the language that is being used by the Obama campaign means that they have zero chance of seeing any improvement in the affordability or political situations - so they really need Clinton and her much more positive, can do attitude towards finding out the cause of the health problems.
A lot of good research got done during the Bill Clinton administration, for the first time ever, that eight years was very productive, but as soon as Bush came in, the various health related agencies started changing and now they are afraid to do or say anything, Good research people are just hanging on till retirement or taking buyouts.
I don't know what Obama will be like, but for me personally, I can't risk supporting someone who wont help me. Its not just an election, its much more than that.
dont criticise people until you know their situations.
A few years ago I was making a lot of money, had a job I loved, and was very high functioning and happy.
Now I am miserable, spend days really ill, and many days just getting by, and can't even begin to think about going back to work, I used to love to read and I have not read a book from cover to cover in three years. At times -like tonight, I'm in so much pain I can barely walk.
This is because of an illness not only do they claim doesn't exist, they are actively working to cover it up.
You are quite right: "There is one self hating Jew who keeps on attacking Israel on this democratic board that I think is weird and have reported to the mods. Yesterday I tried to reason with him but he just refers me to read his literature. I don't think he can be reasoned with and he will never change his belief system.'
This guy is not a troll - he's a fanatic. You can never reason with a fanatic. The best way to deal with him is just to ignore him.
everyone is here to disrupt discourse than yes, everyone here is a troll, I however believe that most people here want to talk with out disruption and these people only make that discussion harder.
I actually thought your troll diary was divisive; it just opened the flood gate for troll accusations.
Good diary. My personal favorite trolls always yell. They love that caps/lock button.
Excellent work, rec'd. I used to use the term more often, but I became overzealous. I try to wait for them to expose themselves, like Universal or WWGWD, and them call it to attention.
hunting about a couple weeks ago and one late night I felt surrounded by trolls, on all sides, of all persuasions. It sounds paranoid, but you may find yourself in that position once you start defining trolls into too many numerous categories. My troll-dar is not at peak performance as of now.
I can tell you are intelligent, honest, and a good candidate for this Troll Encyclopedia (TM - but you can use it if you want).
But to tell you the truth I am little hesitant to advocate for my candidate for fear of being labled one of the several trolls listed here either in your diary, or by some of the additions or alternatives suggested by the commenters.
Keep in mind every poster here has an agenda; this isn't an accidental meeting ground, people have found what they seek. I don't mean that in a nefarious way. There are innocent bloggers convinced in their candidate and argue zealously, or arrive here to get updates in the politcal scene and get sucked into a primary war diary. On the other hand there are many who are operatives to disrupt and misguide, paid advocates, or just people with issues.
I have no problem with calling out the obvious trolls. Concern trolls are pretty obvious as well, for the most part. That's fine, just be careful this doesn't turn into McCarthyism, where people are afraid to speak their views for fear of being labeled a troll. Obviously, this isn't a free speech site, it's a dem/progressive site, so not every view in the US will be appreciated, but that being said, just be careful about it.
Great, now I feel like a concern troll for writing this, but it is just my .02 from my experience with troll hunting.
It seems you have stronger mental trollitude than I and I wish you luck in your work. I look forward to reading your next piece.