Flame Warriors ~ View topic

Clueless Newb Joined: 07 May 2011 Posts: 18

I love trolling atheist forums. I've been doing it for ages, but I need a new technique.

What I usually do is start off normal, then gradually become obnoxious, and keep going, trying to milk it as much as possible before I get banned, and then do it again and again and make everyone angry at having so many trolls (me).

But the hassle involved in doing that is too much. I need a way of trolling which is efficient and highly effective, but in such a way that either...

* There's no suspicion on me whatsoever
* There's suspicion on me but only enough to piss some people off but without ever having moderators seriously consider that I may be trolling

Basically I want a way of trolling where I can just go on and on forever without being banned.

I've done the obvious trolling, all the usual stuff and they're wise to it all. I want something unstoppable.

What I want the most is to create a situation where the regulars start arguing with each other rather than with me. Is there a way to set the scene for an internal flame war without anyone looking to me?

It depends on how much you know, and recognise the various types of atheists that exist on their journey.

I'm not sure what type you think you troll, but the insecure atheist or borderline agnostic bite easily from what I've seen. The easiest to mess with are those types who are an atheist, in the same manner most people become religious, they were brought up that way and have never really looked deeply into the subject. But messing with them would be short lived in such a forum as others quickly move to help educate such a member with all of the religious illogical statements, flaws and inconsistencies that no religious person can really explain satisfactorily.

Some people think that by being a Ferrous Cranus at an Atheist forum is a great way to troll, but this simply brings out those who love to prod stupid trolls and though they may think they're trolling they are really seen as the Clay Pigeon at the forum.

Basically you're wondering how to become more of a Picador there.

Depending on your depth of knowledge, look for the flawed documentaries that claim to expose religion. Find a link to it if you can. Keep on touting how wonderful they are and how informative they are. The bet is not everyone will have seen them or and some will plain dislike it for it's errors.

My memory is poor these days, so I can't really list all the key areas to probe and studies that make good background to work from.
_________________
The important thing is knowing who owns the fence

Clueless Newb Joined: 07 May 2011 Posts: 18

I was thinking more along the lines of causing deep divides between the regulars, rather than actually talking in any depth about the topics of the forum. That way, it will continue for a long time, because once people have a problem with each other, it will spill over into every thread where they find themselves interacting with each other.

I know it sounds weird but I'm not very keen on actually getting too involved in discussions about atheism or in fact anything that involves learning and researching a load of stuff. I've done it before and I find it too tedious, and a real waste of effort. I want to be more of a social troll.

I was thinking of picking say 10 people, and becoming friendly with all of them (ie sending a pm asking for a link to something "interesting" that they said, then thanking them, then sending them a link on something that they might find interesting, and from there befriending them, joking around and chatting for a bit on the forum itself and generally getting their trust)...

...and then somehow very discreetly orchestrating arguments between all my new "friends".

But it's hard. People tend to become very tight and it's hard to make people turn on each other. I don't want to do anything that could be seen as obvious trolling, like defending anyone or making sarcastic remarks. I don't want any attention on me. Maybe if I get their trust (all 10 of them) that will then give me license to gossip and shitstir a bit. But even then I'd be walking a very fine line.

An idea is to create a few threads which are very compelling and which get people to talk about things that mean a lot to them, like personal stuff, and somehow use that.

But the bottom line is that I need to not be seen as involved in any way, which is why using private messages could be the way to go.

That's the general idea, but I don't know how to actually go about it, and what I could say (either in private or in my threads) which could cause a divide.

By the way there's one forum which I have trolled for ages and which is my favourite, and I've been banned from there so many times. I've joined again, but instead of being controversial, this time I'm one of them, and I'm keeping my nose clean. I would very much prefer to not have to create sockpuppets because there have been times in the past where I've created one and then I get banned immediately even without having said anything, which means that they're on to me, so I have to be careful and not take such risks.

Oh? You can do that sort of thing on any forum really ... I don't know what is so special about Atheists that would make that sort of thing easy. In fact, their typical nature often makes it more difficult to do. Most would be used to saying and accepting "each to their own" and really aren't going to get too fussed over other members differing views on the social front. Those that aren't are the ones that are somewhat insecure and are usually pushing the message the hardest.

What you're aiming to do isn't trolling, it is campaign of creating mistrust and division between regular members. Typically this takes a LOT of work, and I wouldn't have the patience.

Basically IMO the best way is to register and keep you nose clean for a long time - six or more months. You need to then slowly create other socks who also keep their nose clean and say very little so as not to let regular members twig. (In fact you want a folder which profiles different characteristics of your socks (Imposters)- and don't use odd spelling or poor grammar and silly things like that to define the difference between socks, it usually sticks out to long time Netizens.)

Use one sock - to do as you outlined, befriend a number of regulars via PMs and offsite - irc etc interesting threads etc.

Slowly over the first couple of months send realistic messages via PM between new socks as you create them. This will require imagination after the fist hello PM, bitch about mortgages or something else emotive and important. Start to use the group PM system, to further add realism as one socks PMs just a couple of other socks of yours, including your socially active one. When the moment arises, the socially active sock will "group send" a crafted PM back to the other socks, including the easiest most vulnerable regular that is interested in whatever the topic happens to be. . They will see a long protracted topic between you and "yourself" and may respond. If not it allows other quiet socks, one of them to contact the regular and befriend them as well.

Basically you create a crowd that slowly sucks in a few regulars as well as using the information carefully from the socially active account.

To do this though, which really is complex and time consuming, you need to know about proxies, common proxies that phrase properly, and how to get around java and services that will reflect a different IP using captcha services.
_________________
The important thing is knowing who owns the fence

Clueless Newb Joined: 07 May 2011 Posts: 18

You mean create the illusion that because my socks are sending each other pms, that they're all genuine, in the eyes of a regular? Ok, that sounds interesting, but how do I use that to create a divide between regulars on the public forum?

Well they'll be looking at the time stamps so it's nothing that will happen quickly.

During this time you search for particular peeves that any one of the members has to use when the time comes but using it to cause trouble by plan is difficult. Usually in most forums during the course of a couple of months, a hot topic will surface on it's own. Even the archives might hold some insight here if the threads aren't deleted.

You can also pick some newbie (a couple of months into this charade,) who's a douche and set them up for a fall, like going Mimic at some other forum generically poking fun at "some members" at "some" other forum, which suspiciously sounds like the regulars who you've befriended. Allege for good measure that other long term members can't stand them so "they've" been told. Be inventive and stay generic so that TRANSFERENCE does its work when the story "surfaces." STOP submitting at that forum as soon as the first hint someone has contacted the Newbie. The best way is too PM the douche with one of your socks right on the outside of this group you've created, and then let the rest know they've been asked if they are the same person.

The trick is finding the right compassionate forum where the mimic can gossip and get the right effect, again this can be help along with a few established socks at that forum as well.

Once the Mimic suddenly goes quiet, it will add weight, along with the fake claims.

Sit back and wait.
_________________
The important thing is knowing who owns the fence

Clueless Newb Joined: 07 May 2011 Posts: 18

A twist on that :

I could find the most opinionated regular (even if they're well liked), and create a fake account of them on another forum, in which they bitch about the main forum.

Then, I use my status with the regulars which I've been befriending to direct them, in a pm, to a thread of mine on the other forum, and then right underneath my first post in that thread is the fake regular bitching away.

There will hopefully be no suspicion on me because all I will have done is direct them to something I said, not to the "other" person. But they will almost certainly scroll down and notice the bitchy thread.

Then they'll start to wonder about that person. And if I do this with lots of regulars (direct them to the thread on the other forum) then it will only be a matter of time before something starts. If it does, it will be : opinionated regular V lots of other regulars, with everyone else wondering what the hell's going on. The opinionated regular will swear up and down that that's not them (even though it will have their signature and avatar and writing style). In the meantime, I'm still the forum's blue eyed boy, pissing myself with laughter.

That's the idea anyway.

This thread is potentially useful to me.

Pulling a Mimic on a regular member requires a lot of study, especially in regards to phraseology.

Their rep is already long established and things that are out of character are typically not as easily believed, especially when there may be more history than a regular member might know about. (ie hidden history etc.)

Using a long term member is risky.

NEVER drop yourself (or sock) at the same forum as the Mimic. Being the one to find it is sus, but if you've also PMed "nicely" the douche, it looks real, especially when they send back a PM where they a) deny it, b) tell you other unpleasantries which makes good material to PM to your targets ... er friends.

However a typical Mimic move also is to:

Use a totally unique username, for a dopey sock, and wait a week before Mimic refers to the dope, though just keeping the reference being the interest for that day and moving on, maybe at other days using by name other idiot newbies, and Imposter accounts. (really well constructed sock puppets) Eventually someone will search on their own and presto, trouble begins.
_________________
The important thing is knowing who owns the fence

Check the thread in Purg fence.

The first thing you need to know about atheism is that it's a religious stance: Despite thousands of years of people on both sides trying, noone's ever come to a clear criteria of what constitutes proof of the existence or non existence of god. There's no critical particle, no observable phenomona to fundamentally prove either side right.

The most insecure atheists are the ones that can't reconcile the fact that what they believe is not science, but faith. Likewise, the most insecure religious people have difficulty reconciling their beliefs as anything but the way things are instead of basedoff of faith.

No religion on earth, no philosophy mankind has devised has given all possible answers. Very likely, it won't.

You must put yourself into the mindset of one who believes all the answers are already there. You must research their beliefs. You must be able to defend and attack both sides by laying bare both argument's most fundamental weaknesses.

Pointing out the conspiracy theories many of both believe is a pretty good start.
_________________

Wow, Ambo. I think my EQ* just jumped up two or three points.

*EQ stands for Evilness Quotient, and it's a reference to Disgaea 3, in which it was used as a replacement for IQ because they're in the netherworld, where evil is like intellect. Or something stupid.
_________________
Everything that has transpired in this thread has done so according to my design.
forwarding.station.trottam@gmail.com

Blowhard Joined: 07 Nov 2010 Posts: 227

Well, first thing's first:

1. Do you believe that religion has caused more conflicts throughout human history then any other cause?

2. Do you believe that Charles Darwin's book was a revolutionary text for which the man was ostracized and ridiculed for the entirity of his life for daring to disprove religion?

3. Do you believe that abiogenesis is more plausible then exogenesis?
_________________

Blowhard Joined: 07 Nov 2010 Posts: 227

Then congratulations, you're a lot more rational then most atheists I've met.

That said, I have to take issue with the stance that atheism isn't a religion for some fairly simple reasons.

1. It has "prophets", for example, Richard Dawkins. (By the way, the word prophet doesn't mean someone who predicts the future. It originally means one who speaks on another's behalf, especially in relation to teachings of a movement. This part of why some listed prophets in the Old testamennt weren't even Israelites, and a distinction is repeatedly made between prophets and high priests.)

2. It has scripture, for example, many atheists will own a copy of the Origin of the species, and just like many christians, will quote from it without ever having actually read the thing. And much liek the bible, a great many different versions with new content added in, content mising, significant editorial changes have been published.

3. It has dogma, or beliefs that are not part of any actual teachings of the organizations in question, such as as the long standing conspiracy theory about the founder of American Atheists allegedly being murdered by "christian terrorists" despite the founder in question dying of old age after stealing millions from the group's funding.

4. It has doctrinal disputes. For example, some atheists are actually vehemently opposed to the mere teaching of exogenesis, despite it being the simpler less cumbersome explanation for life on earth, largely out of a mistaken assumption that it's a variant of intelligent design.

5. It must have members who see itself as persecuted, even if they are not. Most people don't know this, but self identifying atheists actually far outnumber self identifying christians worldwide. In fact, the only religion with numbers similar to atheists is Hinduism. Many nations just during the 20th century have mandated hard policies favoring or sometimes outright banning association with more conventional religious organizations. Very famously, one of the first things the Bolsheviks did upon taking control of Russia was started demolishing churches, although Stalin did later partially rebuild a few (mostly so he could spy on claimed dissidents who might come into confession with hidden microphones.)

6. It must have a few idiots who give other perfectly decent people a bad reputation by extension. In Atheism's case, it's got some pretty unpleasant examples in that regard Mao Tse Tsung, and Joef Stalin for starters.

7. It must ask it's followers to uphold an ideal. Atheists like to portray themselves as a whole as being well educated. At least on the surface, most atheists express an admiration for science and scientists More then a few profess an interest in paleontology, athropology, biochemistry, ect and people of like mind studying in those fields can generally find a pretty warm reception. The truth of the overall population though is that many atheists simply don't believe in a god, don't have any really detailed reasons for doing so. A lot of them come from blue collar backgrounds where a high school level education might be the maximum an individual achieves. If this strikes you as familiar, I'll give you a hint: It's identical with christians.

8. It venerates individuals it feels have done a service to their belief structure. And just like christianity more then a few of these venerated people there's good reason to assume they weren't atheists. Albert Einstein for example, wronte a great many letters about his religious beliefs, the conflicts he had with them and his vocation, and how those beliefs changed. Dr. Jonas Salk on the other hand was an atheist. He's just not as well known as Einstein, hence largely ignored by atheists looking for lack of a better term, a patron saint.

9. It uses it's clout to achieve ends it deems preferable that effect the public as a whole. Most people don't know this, but in virtually every state in the US, teachers are legally prohibited from giving their belief on evolution or intelligent design. Most states outright ban the mere discussion of intelligent design in the class room. Some won't even allow exogenesis for the reasons that I mentioned earlier. More recently, American atheists has been heavily involved in getting municipalities to pass laws banning display of religious iconography on one's own property, as well as in governmental buildings.

10. At least some of those people must belive they're beliefs offer the sole path to human advancement or redemption. And don't tell me you haven't met at least a few atheists professing just that. They're just bad as baptists.

All of these traits are shared with christianity, hinduisim, ect. Except for the fact that christians are far outnumbered by atheists. That might change though. Historically, religious beliefs, and the composition of populations with specific beliefs can change quite significantly, for no small manner of reasons. The Eastern Orthodox church for example, is growing rather significantly in the nations of the former soviet Union. China's recently eased up on it's persecution of competing religions, and immigration is drastically changing the demographics of both the US and Europe.

But yeah. Like I said earlier. If you can't admit some of your beliefs are based on faith, are you really all that secure in them?
_________________

*Last edited by beerijuana on Sun May 22, 2011 4:37 pm; edited 2 times in total*

Holy shit this is idiotic. Do you normally try to "win" arguments by intentionally missing the point and attacking the words over the message? I am sorry to see our site still draws shitty, halfwit trolls like you to it. You give trolls who try a bad name.

Irritus summed it up, but I'll give it a crack to keep from getting rusty.

Blowhard Joined: 07 Nov 2010 Posts: 227

Hello, Irritus. Nice to see you rise from your slumber. Very Happy

I believe the correct term is phtagn.
_________________
Everything that has transpired in this thread has done so according to my design.
forwarding.station.trottam@gmail.com

Blowhard Joined: 07 Nov 2010 Posts: 227

I would just like to say, in response to Ambosen, that I like him.

But an atheist position is an anti-theist position. One can be an atheist and religious re: Buddhism or some sects of Hinduism. That in itself nullifies the position that it is a religious stance, since the premise of Ambosen's posts are that atheism is "anti-religious".

But I am sure that he will find some way to wriggle around this. Very Happy

Sun Tzu said: All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.

I'll admit it: I'm a deceiver. I mean for fuck's sake, I come onto a forum for the express purpose of trolling other trolls. And I love every minute of it.

But sometimes, I like to try something different.

Isaac Asimov once said: It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety.

I'll let you figure out the rest.
_________________

Sun Tzu is over-rated, I think he was pretty much an ancient Chinese version of Steven Wright, ...at best. People in corporate management like to quote him, ...'nuff said.

Issac Asimov was great at pithy sayings, yes, ...a shitty fiction writer though, all said and done, but that quote is spot on.

As far as trolls and trolling is concerned, I'm always reminded of the immortal words of 'Spaff'.

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."

~ Gene Spafford, 1992; The Cabal (TINC)

Peace brother...
_________________
"Irrationality is the square root of all evil"
~ Douglas Hofstadter

Wow, you really are a dense one, aren't you?

Think about it kid. Why would I give you a week without a response unless I expected you to figure out the blindingly obvious sometime during that time period ?
_________________

"...a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."

Wink

_________________
"Irrationality is the square root of all evil"
~ Douglas Hofstadter

Had me fooled, I thought he was only "playing at" being stupid.
_________________
"Irrationality is the square root of all evil"
~ Douglas Hofstadter