Santilli
Hairy Aussie
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2002
- Messages
- 5,078
Something I put together after hanging around ARS for awhile:
"First lesson in trolling:
You didn't provide a link.
2nd:
Prove it
3rd
personal insult
4th
attack spelling and grammar,
5th
use above so you don't have to deal with any valid issues raised.
6th
obscenity
7th
Complain about the width of the posters comments,
of which he has recently been harassed for being to short, which evokes a jolly go f....ys on
this one. Wrap is not the posters problem."
8th Your threads suck.
9th You aren't funny.
Credit to RQE:
10th make fun of stupid idiotic names, like RQE
11th attack sexuality or
12th attack organ size
13th
attack and belittle youth, and stupidity.
14th
attack the "I fucking know everything, and you don't know anything" simplistic idiotic
responses from snot nosed little brats that haven't lived as much in their 26 years as you
did in 6 months.
15th
You forgot the classic Baldrickian maneuver,
Argue with an industry expert on something you know nothing about and keep the
argument alive as long as possible. Stick to your guns on any point no matter how badly the
facts stack against you and see how riled up you can get the expert.
That is classic LB
Perhaps The Chris Cox award?
16th
I thought the one rule, above all else, was to let one little suggestion (whether correct or
incorrect) totally ruin your online life, driving you to chase after the person who made the
suggestion and hound them with advice on the subject in question, never giving up, until
death.
17th
If anyone says anything contrary to "Windows is God, or Mac is God" depending on your
sexual persuasion,
then you follow them into all forums, making degrading, snide remarks, about their posts,
regardless if the content is any good.
18 The Paul Hill False Dilemma. You obscure the issue by going from a generality, to a
specific case, that is inapplicable to the real topic at hand, but it's close enough, that if you
go after it, he's got you.
19 the philma it's being unoriginal, following the above guidelines, and not very well, with
an emphasis on personal attacks. The one bright spot is quotes taken out of context from
brilliant men, that appear to make him look like he knows something.
Thanks to AYB:
1) Making undefendable claims
2) when confronted by such claims does the following
a) dodge the question repeatedly
b) make up implications against yourself using a perversion of other people's words, red-
herring style
"defend yourself against those points you've practically made up yourself, tell those people they
are fucktards for "saying" such.
d) accuse others of advocacy when no such thing is happening.
e) start the swearing and personal attacks, accuse others of doing so first.
f) repeat until no one else responds.
3) Now, you can rest assured that you *Won* and no one dare oppose your *intellect*
20 "leave it to us experts, you don't know anything.", Common from Nerd-software computer
geeks
21 thanks to Magus
"You forgot creative memory, where you make a point, get smacked down, then agree with them, pretending you originally did so. Attack them for "needlessly" attacking an agreeing poster."
22: The socratic-sicilian legal troll
combined with the turkey troll.
You take pieces of the different cases, that cross reference each other, and post them.
Most MSFT trolls don't have the patience to really read the doj fact finding in the cases, and, if they did, they wouldn't be able to understand most of it anyway, or admit it, either. So, you use little bits, with little tags at the end, that are designed to bring in comments, so that you can crucify the comments, with the following quote, from either of the two cases, that firmly stuffs it up msfts' ass...
23 Turkey troll
"I'm tired. Going to bed. Wait until tomorrow, and then I'll go over the information, and post it."
"We are still waiting."
How do you keep a turkey in suspense? Tell you tomorrow;-)
24 legal, or professional troll
You take a thread, started by an asshole you don't like, who's crapped on one of your better threads, and turn his thread into a discussion of legal principals he's completely clueless about. For fun, you use, improperly, some concept in law, in latin preferably, and see if they catch it.
If he does, you turn it around, and point out
he might actually listen to his alleged uncles', who are supposed to be judges.
25 'The treatment' compliments of Remedy
I have also noticed another master of trolldem, treatment:
When grasping for straws to attack another person, always argue semantics. Misreading a sentence or statement is always acceptable for ammo in an attack. Even when you have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be incorrect, keep arguing as if somehow the original statement in which questioned, will magically change to support your weak viewpoint.
This is known as the treatment treatment:
http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?q=Y&a=tpc&s=50009562&f=48409524&m=3380934925&p=3
"First lesson in trolling:
You didn't provide a link.
2nd:
Prove it
3rd
personal insult
4th
attack spelling and grammar,
5th
use above so you don't have to deal with any valid issues raised.
6th
obscenity
7th
Complain about the width of the posters comments,
of which he has recently been harassed for being to short, which evokes a jolly go f....ys on
this one. Wrap is not the posters problem."
8th Your threads suck.
9th You aren't funny.
Credit to RQE:
10th make fun of stupid idiotic names, like RQE
11th attack sexuality or
12th attack organ size
13th
attack and belittle youth, and stupidity.
14th
attack the "I fucking know everything, and you don't know anything" simplistic idiotic
responses from snot nosed little brats that haven't lived as much in their 26 years as you
did in 6 months.
15th
You forgot the classic Baldrickian maneuver,
Argue with an industry expert on something you know nothing about and keep the
argument alive as long as possible. Stick to your guns on any point no matter how badly the
facts stack against you and see how riled up you can get the expert.
That is classic LB
Perhaps The Chris Cox award?
16th
I thought the one rule, above all else, was to let one little suggestion (whether correct or
incorrect) totally ruin your online life, driving you to chase after the person who made the
suggestion and hound them with advice on the subject in question, never giving up, until
death.
17th
If anyone says anything contrary to "Windows is God, or Mac is God" depending on your
sexual persuasion,
then you follow them into all forums, making degrading, snide remarks, about their posts,
regardless if the content is any good.
18 The Paul Hill False Dilemma. You obscure the issue by going from a generality, to a
specific case, that is inapplicable to the real topic at hand, but it's close enough, that if you
go after it, he's got you.
19 the philma it's being unoriginal, following the above guidelines, and not very well, with
an emphasis on personal attacks. The one bright spot is quotes taken out of context from
brilliant men, that appear to make him look like he knows something.
Thanks to AYB:
1) Making undefendable claims
2) when confronted by such claims does the following
a) dodge the question repeatedly
b) make up implications against yourself using a perversion of other people's words, red-
herring style
"defend yourself against those points you've practically made up yourself, tell those people they
are fucktards for "saying" such.
d) accuse others of advocacy when no such thing is happening.
e) start the swearing and personal attacks, accuse others of doing so first.
f) repeat until no one else responds.
3) Now, you can rest assured that you *Won* and no one dare oppose your *intellect*
20 "leave it to us experts, you don't know anything.", Common from Nerd-software computer
geeks
21 thanks to Magus
"You forgot creative memory, where you make a point, get smacked down, then agree with them, pretending you originally did so. Attack them for "needlessly" attacking an agreeing poster."
22: The socratic-sicilian legal troll
combined with the turkey troll.
You take pieces of the different cases, that cross reference each other, and post them.
Most MSFT trolls don't have the patience to really read the doj fact finding in the cases, and, if they did, they wouldn't be able to understand most of it anyway, or admit it, either. So, you use little bits, with little tags at the end, that are designed to bring in comments, so that you can crucify the comments, with the following quote, from either of the two cases, that firmly stuffs it up msfts' ass...
23 Turkey troll
"I'm tired. Going to bed. Wait until tomorrow, and then I'll go over the information, and post it."
"We are still waiting."
How do you keep a turkey in suspense? Tell you tomorrow;-)
24 legal, or professional troll
You take a thread, started by an asshole you don't like, who's crapped on one of your better threads, and turn his thread into a discussion of legal principals he's completely clueless about. For fun, you use, improperly, some concept in law, in latin preferably, and see if they catch it.
If he does, you turn it around, and point out
he might actually listen to his alleged uncles', who are supposed to be judges.
25 'The treatment' compliments of Remedy
I have also noticed another master of trolldem, treatment:
When grasping for straws to attack another person, always argue semantics. Misreading a sentence or statement is always acceptable for ammo in an attack. Even when you have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be incorrect, keep arguing as if somehow the original statement in which questioned, will magically change to support your weak viewpoint.
This is known as the treatment treatment:
http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?q=Y&a=tpc&s=50009562&f=48409524&m=3380934925&p=3
