Flame Warriors ~ View topic - Gender Identity, Hetero Warrior, Closet Case

Wordy Bore Joined: 08 Mar 2009 Posts: 314

How many times do I have to say I'm not a troll? I'm not doing this just to get you all to bitch and moan. You bitch and moan anyway.

I merely bringup points for others to consider. I think of myself like the David Icke of the internet. I expose mods and fags for what they are, I give you the information, and let you make your own judgements.
_________________
The mass, whether it be a crowd or an army, is vile.

Ah, David Icke, the chap you thinks people are reptiles.

I always thought Darling Reagan had a bit of lizard in her.

He is aware David Icke is very active on the internet, right?
_________________

He's never been aware of anything else, so I doubt it.

There's a difference between trying to be a Therapist and just busting a troll's balls because it's funny.

I'm doing the latter Smite, but I wouldn't expect a retard who hasn't been relevant on this forum in a long time like you to understand.

I'm guessing Smite wants to side with Jim in some kind of an attempt to become relevant around here again?

Smite: OMG, IF I SIDE WITH TEH TROLL, I'LL BE IMPORTANT AGAIN, LOLZ!

Too bad you suck Smite.

Edit: Oh and, in b4 "OMG, YOU GUYS ARE JUST MAD CAUZE YOU REALIZE YOU'RE ALL GETTING TROLLED, LOL, NEWBS!"

Really I think this all depends on what a person views is behind a statement. Is it just someone who writes and wants anyone to respond, ie just a Troller, or is it someone who's trying to stir and rub the membership into a meaningless argument.

But I think that, as I have done for fun poking back at trollers, it's also a legitimate sport to respond and not actually be thought of as being "trolled," when responding to some trollers, as long as one can deliver the "goods."

It's really pretty fucking stupid to call someone trolled if:

Plausible Troller: launches Stupid troll bait.

Responders: Take stupid bait and proceed to jam it where it looks funny.

Evil Therapist is practically always going to win on stupid "gay" bait, with the exception of a few peculiar forums. I warned Jim in sightings what might happen, and similar noises are happening at this forum now, and no one is really seriously hammering it home. I mean Jim might actually be offended by gays and not a closet case, and we could delve deeper into what might have occurred to cause ... ( Evil Therapists can be complete bastards)

Anyhow, like I was saying it is sometimes subjective as to who or what was trolled or who is trolling in a manner deemed to be considered well executed.

stupid typo
_________________
The important thing is knowing who owns the fence

Well, what I said wasn't just for Smite. I was saying it depends on what is seen as trolling and the perception of being trolled.

I suspect Smite views Jim as the type - as trolling for attention - any. The cards Jim deals out all the time pretty much fit that categorisation. ie, I'm a commie black jew hating gay basher. I guess there may be more cards in the deck that are capable of focusing attention, but I wasn't looking that hard. Those who are after any type of response seem to get pleasure from a number of responses, even if they are taking the piss out of their "supposed" views.

There again I would say it is subjective as to who or what gets "trolled" when a member posts a heap of responses as a result of "supposed" lure. .

Plausible Troller: Launches obvious grenade or lame idea

Responders: Having grown bored of contemplating how many more grains of sand different styles of glasses might hold than a standard glass, the stupid arguments on how to best calculate the limit of when a glass would be deemed full , take the time to address the obvious grenade or lame bait, often with a touch of humour and nothing better to do than to speculate how the Troller might respond next and how many pages it might be before the Troller wakes up that - Yes the people responding will do so until something more interesting comes along.

It really would only be successful trolling if the kooky idea divided an amount of "serious attention" away from other subject matters under discussion.
_________________
The important thing is knowing who owns the fence

*Last edited by Kramer on Fri Sep 24, 2010 12:16 pm; edited 1 time in total*

Darling Reagan's problem when it came to her continuing an argument was that she would continue arguments when it just couldn't be continued anymore. She'd start to go way overboard and way to long into overtime, and it just got sad.

We have to take what we can get at this point.
_________________

I'm Sisi's entertainment.

Pretty much Smite, I'd agree with your profile of Jim. My involvement is only to point out the stereotypical lame crap cited as "reasons," for the "supposed" anti gay view and the danger of picking that particular Issue ie Evil Therapist.

I see that's the main purpose of the forum. I think most comments are just being playful, as the whole deck of issues aren't dragging up that much interest. Someone did manage to bring choking chickens into it - which was darn funny.

I do realise what Jim is aiming for though as witnessed as per links supplied - a member who, due to the negative image purposely created, will hopefully draw during the course of typical discussions; firstly more hostile replies from members who might ordinarily respond civilly and secondly receive replies from "shier" members who have only entered the thread to abuse someone with such negative views. It's a blanket approach, and though the intentions are not meant to look like trolling, that's what is invoked. If the aim really was trolling bluntly, then it is surly misguided. As I've said a few times, if one has been outed as a Troll or Troller, pretty much within many forums, all is lost,

I thoroughly recommend subtlety. In instances that one needs to be more "In their face" I practice what I refer to as "Stroking the fur backwards," but it is something which should be executed with precision as it's a balance between subtlety and raking the coals and usually best aimed at just a limited group of members (including the likes of the Admin or pet mod,) and done in a manner that they (or the general membership) rarely ever realise they've been singled out.
_________________
The important thing is knowing who owns the fence

Wordy Bore Joined: 08 Mar 2009 Posts: 314

ITT: You all think I'm a troll because you guys are trolls. It doesn't work that way.
_________________
The mass, whether it be a crowd or an army, is vile.

Bravo, ambosen. A very interesting and informative post. Cool

Can't wait to see Jim's reaction to it.
_________________

I'm Sisi's entertainment.

Wordy Bore Joined: 08 Mar 2009 Posts: 314

Thats simple. You could've saved yourself the time of trying to sound like some old wise sage if you had noticed I rant even when nobody is looking. Because thats just my nature. You think I do this for attention? Thats what you want to believe. You want to believe I can be bribed, intimidated, or bullied. But I can't.

What I want is to get rid of internet moderation. Make the internet how it was meant to be. Totally autonamanous. The way people THINK 4chan is. But is not by any stretch of the immagination. There is nowhere on the net that isn't chock full of mods or mod enablers. I won't be sastisfied untill the internet is free to have all the arguments, lulz, and bitchfests it wants. I don't really give a shit whether or not I get credit or fame for it.

I don't know why that's such a fucking hard concept for people too understand... The only reason I'm here is basically to preach like a pastor. Essentially trying to appeal to more people to standup to moderators, and influence other forums. Spreadout and reject their moderation. It doesn't work if only I do it. I need atleast a good twentyfive percent of people who post at message and imageboards to follow suit. Enough people where it actually effects internet demographics. Where with twentyfive percent "trolling" and disrupting discussion by not abiding to "the rules", forcing mods to shut the fuck up and stop trying to control the minds of others...

It flabbergasts me why anyone would just be okay with the fact they can't say what they want. Like they're supposed to be ashamed of what they feel or what they think. That's some bullshit. Why do people die in fucking wars and vote and do all this other drama if it doesn't mean anything and they're just self-loathing husks who will hang their head down when told too anyway?

Humankind was meant to be a beast, and a beast I shall have through the will to power. My options are limited where I can post, but alot of people, though they don't post here. Certainly lurk here. Especially if I talk about my arguments on facebook. Slowly, more and more people will be introduced to the concept of not tolerating moderation.

It won't happen overnight. Might take years. But eventually people will grow tired of being enslaved. Or rather, more people will reject being enslaved and overlapse those who think it's alright. The unsastisfied will replace the docile. The younger crowd especially. With ideas and feelings all circulating in their heads, not yet driven away by cyniscm or mass conditioning. It takes a good amount of time of school, work, and social interaction to completely crush the spirit. My influence can make that proccess a bit more difficult. All I need to do is give them a lingering thought. Make it bug the shit out of them in the back of their mind that no, they do not have to putup with this shit. They may not be able to win all battles, but they are entitled to less battles, so mods need to stop making new ones by telling them what to do.

Basically I want the entire internet to be like /b/. Only without moderation. So a true /b/. A defiant /b/ that even /b/ itself could "/be/". Then and only then will we have something to talk about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxX3JkGHmDI
_________________
The mass, whether it be a crowd or an army, is vile.

The saddest thing I feel ambosen, is that the original Troll or Troller was there solely to bare out how the elitists in various newsgroups (especially those who were opposed to access from the everyday public) weren't all that clever like they claimed, by baiting them with implausible (often obviously ridiculous) comments. Their focus wasn't on getting any sort of attention, it was about letting the dolts buy the story.

What followed was poor imitation, few having any real idea what the objectives were by the "first generation." Imbeciles also tried to do the same. Finally attention junkies found with web based software, they could effectively graffiti the web's forums. My guess is what opened the door there was the reluctance of mods pruning threads in which members had already replied.

@ Jim - the idea that "some" people are going to suddenly change and not crave to be in an area where someone of their liking is "in control," would be naive to say the least.

Some (I know of a few) people don't participate online unless it's within an area, forum or whatever, where they are admin, high mod or equivalent.

Lastly in the absence of rules, people generally observe polite etiquette.
_________________
The important thing is knowing who owns the fence

That's what some of them claimed, but you look at some of the very early trolls like Derek Smart (known for among other things, attacking half of USENET for one person observing that Battlecruiser 3000 AD, a game he wrote and managed to spend almost 7 years on and used Usenet to hype constantly, only to be released as bug ridden mess with a poor control interface, frequent crashes, a host of confusing or non responsive controls, and other issues which Derek Smart flat out denied existed while implying a very deliberate campaign against him by a fictious global conspiracy of ant misegnationists) it becomes very obvious that like many trolls now, they survived off of the attention gained, good or bad.

Whilwe it's true early newsgroups did have their elitists, some of them were fairly qualified to discuss various subject matter, and in many cases the trolls were attempting to do little more then center the group dynamic around themselves.

What Jim doesn't get is that it's in our human nature to eventually ignore completely what irritates us simply to starve it of attention. And for that reason, most trolls are eventually forced to adapt or essentially "die off". I mean think about it; you seldom see trolls who can post consistently in a forum for a year or more, even if a moderator shows no interest in stopping them from doing so; in fact, generally the less restrictive the venue, the more the troll will claim censorship in a desperate bid for any attention, positive or negative.

That's why I asked Jim what he would make of himself. I'm curious to see whether he'll eventually give up on an essentially un-winnable quest for attention, or keep going at it until he finds all possible places to seek it closed to him.
_________________

The longest I ever saw a troll keep in character/in gimmick was a fella by the name of MoralMan over at 411mania. Dude played the "Everything is immoral, and I can prove it by using the following points..." character for 7 years.

Seriously, guy never once broke character, never once said "LOL, I TROLLED YOU NEWBS!", never even made a "Why I chose this char" post. For 7 years, he essentially did the same stuff day after day.

Unfortunately for him, by about year 2, 99.9 percent of the forum was pretty much in on the joke, so people basically responded to his posts to have a laugh.

Wordy Bore Joined: 08 Mar 2009 Posts: 314

How fucking retarded are you people when you think someone who says something for seven years is a troll?

You people are sick. Mentally deranged sick. I'd shoot you just to give you a mercy killing. You're just fucking out of your minds and are some kind of autistic son of a bitches who think everyone in the world who doesn't submit to collective or authoritarian cocercion is a troll. Even if they specifically state the same case day after day. If seven years won't convince you, nothing will. You are clincally schizophrenic.

If he was saying it for seven years, it's not a troll, and it's not a joke. Get some fucking help, you're living in a dream world.
_________________
The mass, whether it be a crowd or an army, is vile.

Jim, you really shouldn't use words that you have no idea of the meaning of. It just serves to make your ignorance fairly apparent to anyone who might otherwise be swayed your arguments without necessarily being aware of the flaws present.
_________________

Wordy Bore Joined: 08 Mar 2009 Posts: 314

I'm sure there have always been those with narcissistic personalities prior to Derik Smart hovering around newsgroups.

I also meant to say elitists and thus what I really meant was those who considered themselves to worthy of such an expression.

What I remember not so much actual elitists but an outcry by many seemingly self important individuals with regard of newsgroups becoming accessible to the general public "riffraff."

Yes, pretty much a talented Troller prided themselves in hooking an otherwise well educated person and showing their knowledge was nothing more than a good memory with poor ability to actually understand the obvious.

You are spot on with the observation of how trolls are regarded versus the length of time they keep playing a stale game. Actually the longer one keeps up the charade, the more people begin to accept the individual is either nuts or has some personality disorder. (ie like narcissism.)

I have know trollesr to keep up the show for a long while, but then again, they also don't wear it out in the same forum.

I can think of one long time troller who was the chap who frequented linux forums trolling with how windows was better etc.
_________________
The important thing is knowing who owns the fence