Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   "I was a paid internet shill: For a little over six months, I was paid to spread disinformation and argue political points on the Internet"   (consciouslifenews.com) divider line 1071
    More: Interesting, third floor, A/T/S  
•       •       •

26301 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jan 2013 at 2:34 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1071 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-10 04:03:14 PM  

James!: sprawl15: James!: You don't want us becoming thought police.

I don't. But there is a middle ground between people just hitting F5 looking for personal attacks or pickle incidents and a cadre of psychic post Nazis. What is the role of a moderator at a debate? They don't control the opinions being put out, but they control the way they're being put out, to ensure a civil and productive discussion. They wouldn't tolerate Romney calling Obama a knob gobbler, nor would they tolerate Obama's pickle trick, but that's not the entirety of their job while the candidates are arguing.

What I want is for mods to be a moderating influence. You don't have to tell me that my opinion on X is stupid, just that if I'm going to argue X that I probably should do it through something other than an all caps rant about how all dims are stupid and furthermore comma.

The way the rules are set up, they're very, very easy to get around if you wanted to just be an asshole to people. And as long as you dodge the bans, it doesn't matter what people think.

Jesus christ, now we're responsible for maintaining a particular style of posting?  That is really what you want?


Do you really not have any idea what I'm talking about? I'm being perfectly civil, and you're just acting befuddled. Your whole thought police nonsense is pretty much textbook troll - ignore the argument, express great concern about a strawman.

I'm in deep Poe's law at this point.
 
2013-01-10 04:03:37 PM  

James!: The All-Powerful Atheismo: James!: sprawl15: James!: You don't want us becoming thought police.

I don't. But there is a middle ground between people just hitting F5 looking for personal attacks or pickle incidents and a cadre of psychic post Nazis. What is the role of a moderator at a debate? They don't control the opinions being put out, but they control the way they're being put out, to ensure a civil and productive discussion. They wouldn't tolerate Romney calling Obama a knob gobbler, nor would they tolerate Obama's pickle trick, but that's not the entirety of their job while the candidates are arguing.

What I want is for mods to be a moderating influence. You don't have to tell me that my opinion on X is stupid, just that if I'm going to argue X that I probably should do it through something other than an all caps rant about how all dims are stupid and furthermore comma.

The way the rules are set up, they're very, very easy to get around if you wanted to just be an asshole to people. And as long as you dodge the bans, it doesn't matter what people think.

Jesus christ, now we're responsible for maintaining a particular style of posting?  That is really what you want?

you know, I got banned once for mentioning a certain poster's name who likes to post some quotes about god and tinfoil hats and brainwaves and whatnot.

And all I said was he was trolling.

How is that farking fair?

Did you talk about someone who wasn't in a thread and call them a name?


No. He was in the thread. He was trolling.
 
2013-01-10 04:03:47 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: you know, I got banned once for mentioning a certain poster's name who likes to post some quotes about god and tinfoil hats and brainwaves and whatnot.

And all I said was he was trolling.


If we're talking about the same person, that guy isn't trolling. If you pay attention to him, he actually believes that stuff. He actually puts time, thought and effort into his posts.

But my understanding is you're not supposed to talk smack about someone if they're not in their thread. Probably somethin about not makin fun of people behind their backs.
 
2013-01-10 04:03:52 PM  

The Singing Bush: [www.ffxionline.com image 400x541]


i.imgur.com
/thx Tony_Pepperoni
 
2013-01-10 04:04:03 PM  

I_C_Weener: some people don't like Carlos Mencia


LOLZ!

You like Carlos Mencia! Har har.

"white people dance like THIS.... Mexicans dance like THAT...."
 
2013-01-10 04:04:04 PM  

phaseolus: Mikey1969: I kind of wonder if the deniers here are the Fark shills... We should start a list. Everyone who claims that this is all made up sounds to me like they are trying to defend their own jobs.


Although shill theory explains many of the weird things we see around here on a daily basis, I still have my doubts. I really don't think this place is all that influential in the grand scheme of things ... unless there exists some kind of internet opinion extraction service that pulls comments from random forums and presents them to important people who act on that information, but that's really a stretch.

If there's any shenanigans going on, I'm having trouble believing any of it's meant to affect the world *outside* of Fark.com ... if you catch my drift.


I've seen Fark referenced in the news more often than any other site I've been on. I actually see Fark boards referenced more often than even Yahoo...
 
2013-01-10 04:04:09 PM  
I'm not a paid internet shill. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.
 
2013-01-10 04:04:26 PM  
Well I do know for a fact that there are companies that do this work because various organizations have been caught using them. As to if there are any here on Fark? Safe bet, given the popularity and nature of Fark.
Who might they be? Well, although there is no way of telling unless someone outs themselves and even then it could just be internet talk, I would wager real money that anyone doing such work would be right here in this thread feverishly insisting that such a job does not exists or dogging on this dude personally for talking about it.
Hell if I get bored I might scan though the thread for peoples responses to this story and prior posting habits but I don't get paid to be on the internet so it would take more of an incentive than outing a scumbag to burn my time like that.

Hypnozombie
 
2013-01-10 04:04:34 PM  

James!: How do I know they're disrupting on purpose or just expressing their opinion in a shiatty way. Thought police.


It shouldn't matter. If they're disrupting on purpose or not on purpose, they're disrupting. They're a negative influence on the site at large and you should interject (notice I didn't say "ban").

NOBODY is asking you to police thoughts. We are asking you to police actions. How many times must we repeat this before you understand?
 
2013-01-10 04:04:59 PM  

sprawl15: James!: You don't want us becoming thought police.

I don't. But there is a middle ground between people just hitting F5 looking for personal attacks or pickle incidents and a cadre of psychic post Nazis. What is the role of a moderator at a debate? They don't control the opinions being put out, but they control the way they're being put out, to ensure a civil and productive discussion. They wouldn't tolerate Romney calling Obama a knob gobbler, nor would they tolerate Obama's pickle trick, but that's not the entirety of their job while the candidates are arguing.

What I want is for mods to be a moderating influence. You don't have to tell me that my opinion on X is stupid, just that if I'm going to argue X that I probably should do it through something other than an all caps rant about how all dims are stupid and furthermore comma.

The way the rules are set up, they're very, very easy to get around if you wanted to just be an asshole to people. And as long as you dodge the bans, it doesn't matter what people think.


I used to be a mod at another site.  In my experience, less was usually more.  Even the appearance of heavy-handed moderation has a chilling effect on posting.  It's generally better to let the rambling sh*tposters slide than to have everyone thinking they need to constantly mind everything they say or second-guess themselves before they make a joke, because they're worried that a mod won't get it.  That goes double for a site like Fark, where everybody has an individual ignore feature.
 
2013-01-10 04:05:02 PM  

busy chillin': This guy's story may be bullsh*t...but there have been ad agencies that will admit to using internet posters to talk up movies and products to mold public perception...so I don't see why politics and politicians would be any different.


The McCain campaign had a points system to earn prizes for posting talking points on forums.
 
2013-01-10 04:05:26 PM  

sprawl15: James!: sprawl15: James!: You don't want us becoming thought police.

I don't. But there is a middle ground between people just hitting F5 looking for personal attacks or pickle incidents and a cadre of psychic post Nazis. What is the role of a moderator at a debate? They don't control the opinions being put out, but they control the way they're being put out, to ensure a civil and productive discussion. They wouldn't tolerate Romney calling Obama a knob gobbler, nor would they tolerate Obama's pickle trick, but that's not the entirety of their job while the candidates are arguing.

What I want is for mods to be a moderating influence. You don't have to tell me that my opinion on X is stupid, just that if I'm going to argue X that I probably should do it through something other than an all caps rant about how all dims are stupid and furthermore comma.

The way the rules are set up, they're very, very easy to get around if you wanted to just be an asshole to people. And as long as you dodge the bans, it doesn't matter what people think.

Jesus christ, now we're responsible for maintaining a particular style of posting?  That is really what you want?

Do you really not have any idea what I'm talking about? I'm being perfectly civil, and you're just acting befuddled. Your whole thought police nonsense is pretty much textbook troll - ignore the argument, express great concern about a strawman.

I'm in deep Poe's law at this point.


And now I'm a troll.  Awesome.
 
2013-01-10 04:05:40 PM  

Mikey1969: I actually see Fark boards referenced more often than even Yahoo...


Talk about damning with faint praise.
 
2013-01-10 04:06:15 PM  

neongoats: El Pachuco: In addition to the above, we used to have a certain poster expected to appear in any and all Israel threads to push the rah-rah-Israel line...

That, and a screw up or two revealed his alt/sockpuppet for all to see.



Nice to know that next time there's civil unrest in Iran, we won't get yelled at for posting before the official opening statement ...

j/k, It was actually kind of helpful.
 
2013-01-10 04:06:18 PM  

R.A.Danny: James!: R.A.Danny: James!: Are they trolls or do they just not agree with the majority of farkers?

Exactly. Coming to Fark not knowing the demographics and getting upset that you're being lambasted then you're in the wrong place.

You have to have a thick skin to be a conservative farker.  You know it, you're pretty conservative on a number of issues yourself.  I'm sure someone has you on their list of paid shills.

I'm just a gun nut and I don't like pedophile sympathizers. Other than that I lean a bit to the left on a lot of issues.

Yeah, I'm way to the right of Chicago though, but Chicago politics are on a different plane. A lot of people don't get that.


I've got you favorited with the tag "Gun. Nut."
 
2013-01-10 04:06:27 PM  

James!: How do I know they're disrupting on purpose or just expressing their opinion in a shiatty way. Thought police.


Engage them in conversation? Also, I don't want you to start banning people left and right, but people are nicer when the sherrif is in town. Maybe a more visible presence would help?
 
2013-01-10 04:06:40 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: Their infromed dick-waving and derp-herping makes the entire conservative side of the spectrum look insane


If you (the royal you, not you) can't figure out that there are complete whackjobs at the extreme ends of either side of the scale then there's no hope. it's easy enough to sift through the yappy dogs to pick actual thoughts.
 
2013-01-10 04:06:50 PM  

CokeBear: Has anyone ever changed their mind based on something they read in a comment thread? Seems like a big waste of time to me


Well, reading comment threads has changed my mind on whether mankind deserves to survive or not.
 
2013-01-10 04:07:17 PM  
Paid shills on message boards? Next you'll be telling me that a good chunk of the negative opinions posted on yelp and Angie's List are just competitors trying to sabotage the other guy.
 
2013-01-10 04:07:52 PM  

Nobodyn0se: James!: How do I know they're disrupting on purpose or just expressing their opinion in a shiatty way. Thought police.

It shouldn't matter. If they're disrupting on purpose or not on purpose, they're disrupting. They're a negative influence on the site at large and you should interject (notice I didn't say "ban").

NOBODY is asking you to police thoughts. We are asking you to police actions. How many times must we repeat this before you understand?


Oh... you want us to guide discussion.  We aren't tour guides.
 
2013-01-10 04:08:04 PM  
I've only had my posts deleted in threads where I was using a particularly annyoying troll as a piñata.

His comebacks were just plain silly.
 
2013-01-10 04:08:14 PM  

I_C_Weener: James!: Nobodyn0se: James!: Nobodyn0se: James!: You are though. Either you're asking that we assume someone isn't sincere or you're asking us to remove someone who is sincere but is posting in a way you don't like.

No, I'm asking you to police people's ACTIONS when those actions make it clear that they are intentionally disrupting the conversation to the detriment of the entire community. Sprawl wrote a wonderfully detailed description about the actions we are asking you to more closely examine. Please read it again, knowing that we're not asking you to "ban anyone who disagrees with us" or "ban anyone and everyone who says anything negative."

See, intention. I don't know a posters intention.  We've stated multiple times that we have to assume that everyone is sincere.

See, action. You do know a poster's actions. We've stated multiple times that we are only asking you to interject when there is demonstrable actions that show the person is disrupting the conversation on purpose (notice, this has NOTHING to do with their opinion).

How do I know they're disrupting on purpose or just expressing their opinion in a shiatty way.  Thought police.

I think if the post doesn't contain a modicum of humor, we should delete.  You know...just fodder for the Mods to think about.  Then again...some people don't like Carlos Mencia and I'm told he's a comedian...so humor might be a tough way to tell too.


Humor is very subjective. Some people genuinely crack up when they write "hurp obummer zero Hussein!!", or talk about eating truckloads of aborted white Christian fetuses for New Years dinner.

Who gets to decide what's funny enough? Or not funny enough.
 
2013-01-10 04:08:19 PM  

James!: And now I'm a troll. Awesome.


If you'd actually argue against what we're actually arguing for, it wouldn't be an issue.
 
2013-01-10 04:08:23 PM  

lennavan: The All-Powerful Atheismo: you know, I got banned once for mentioning a certain poster's name who likes to post some quotes about god and tinfoil hats and brainwaves and whatnot.

And all I said was he was trolling.

If we're talking about the same person, that guy isn't trolling. If you pay attention to him, he actually believes that stuff. He actually puts time, thought and effort into his posts.

But my understanding is you're not supposed to talk smack about someone if they're not in their thread. Probably somethin about not makin fun of people behind their backs.


A sincere belief v. a made up position....on the internet where half of all posts are performance art and the other half are people angry about it and the other half is people laughing at both sides...it is impossible to tell.  And again, regardless of whether or not they are trolling or sincere, its still a violation of the FarQ to personally attack them.  Or threadjack.  Or any number of other things.

This isn't brain science people.

In any event, discussing a specific user like you do above, even without a login, is something best left to Farkback.  Thanks.
 
2013-01-10 04:08:52 PM  

TelemonianAjax: R.A.Danny: James!: R.A.Danny: James!: Are they trolls or do they just not agree with the majority of farkers?

Exactly. Coming to Fark not knowing the demographics and getting upset that you're being lambasted then you're in the wrong place.

You have to have a thick skin to be a conservative farker.  You know it, you're pretty conservative on a number of issues yourself.  I'm sure someone has you on their list of paid shills.

I'm just a gun nut and I don't like pedophile sympathizers. Other than that I lean a bit to the left on a lot of issues.

Yeah, I'm way to the right of Chicago though, but Chicago politics are on a different plane. A lot of people don't get that.

I've got you favorited with the tag "Gun. Nut."


I have assigned a color for that label.
 
2013-01-10 04:08:56 PM  

I_C_Weener: See, intention. I don't know a posters intention.  We've stated multiple times that we have to assume that everyone is sincere.

And in the case of the politics tab...broken.


The issue I see with ignoring people, full disclosure I have 3 total posters on ignore, is that you may well be as much of the problem as those who post inane or absurd things. There's a possibility, however remote, that they're being sincere, in which case you have an opportunity to either teach them or learn from them, or even just improve/refine your own arguments. I've certainly dismissed my fair share of people as hopeless, but I try not to ignore them unless they're simply blatantly irrational or offer nothing more than personal attacks.

CSB: (High school edition)

I went to HS with a guy who had some extraordinarily backward and absurd beliefs about the world in general. I wasn't always able to take him seriously, but at one point we had a conversation related to a story he told about going hunting with his dad. He made mention of having helped perform a field dressing on a deer and described cutting down to the 'meat part'.

The way he described it struck me as odd so I rejoined with, 'you mean the muscle tissue right?'. He firmly held to the notion that there was an actual 'meat part' to a given animal. In his words, 'the part that God put there for us to eat'.

Now, if I had heard this from a 5 y/o I could have taken it in stride. We were 15. I had to actually direct him to a teacher (authority figure) to debunk his belief because no matter how I explained it he wouldn't believe that there was no such thing as the 'meat part'.

I've had similar conversations in the politics tab. People for which no amount of logic or reason will sway them until they're presented with an authority or source that they themselves personally recognize. This doesn't make them trolls necessarily, although they do often sound very much like someone trying to derail a conversation with outrageously stupid positions.
 
2013-01-10 04:09:00 PM  
I thought people were paid to troll Fark so their comments could get lifted as "original humor" for morning radio shows.

/I'm looking at you, Bob and Tom a few years ago
 
2013-01-10 04:09:40 PM  
Not new.
This has been happening for a while now. Political organisations use the power of the internet to their advantage. From Democrats to local gouv, the whole name of the game is not only to control the local TV but to control internet opninion. You see, most people now fact check the TV reports, as they know they are payed by someone to say these things. Well the intelligent people do anyways. Ok thats some people.

But this is going further. Remember back in days where Fark had a couple of supertrolls? Tatsuma was one, and Gat00 or Bevets? Sorry to name names but these guys would love for me to call them Supertrolls. Well, we dont have any facts and probably these guys wanted to promote their country, political agenda or religious views, but perhaps it was something more. After seeing some of these Supertrolls have a change of standard operating procedures, it seems some of them changed hands. And that means they either sold their account, or they were working for an organisation who told them what to do.

FBI, Mossad, CIA, Scotland Yard
This is nothing new. Without sounding paranoid, the Mossad, CIA and other organisations do have agents surfing the internet. As well as political commitees, religious organisations and terrorists organisations. They are regular surfers. Are they payed? Perhaps. Are they being told what to defend/attack/discuss? Certainly, if its not an order it may be implied that you need to have this or that opinion. Heck, if I was to crap of my compagny on the internet, I would get fired! Its implied, not ordered.

Why am I not being payed?
Well for starters, do you have an opinion that is shared by a lot of people on the internet? For example, if you are a left leaning democrat, they dont need you to defend their point of view. Perhaps this will change in the future when they see the power of doing so, especially in gun threads. If you are a religious, right leaning and you are good at arguing on the internet, apply now to your political action commitee for your chosen political view, they might not pay a lot but they can pay you in goodies, caps or meetings with representatives. Basically you wont be paied, but you will feel rewarded somemuch.

What? Not being paied like the guy in the article?
No thats bullocks. If this is true, he wasnt paied much.

Proof of what im talking about.

bluecollarphilosophy.com
 
2013-01-10 04:09:55 PM  

James!: Oh... you want us to guide discussion. We aren't tour guides.


"Interjecting when someone is farking up the entire conversation and ruining another thread" is NOT THE SAME THING as "guiding discussion."

How can you not see that?
 
2013-01-10 04:10:23 PM  

halfof33: I_C_Weener: some people don't like Carlos Mencia

LOLZ!

You like Carlos Mencia! Har har.

"white people dance like THIS.... Mexicans dance like THAT...."


If you continue to hold this position, I shall have to report you.  If reporting you doesn't get  you removed, I shall call you a name.  Never in my own mind will I consider this a violation of the FarQ even if it becomes the subject of the remainder of the thread and some might consider it a threadjack.  And by gosh darnit, I won't put you on ignore for having such an opinion that you refuse to change or refuse to talk to all 20 people accusing you of having a bad opinion.
 
2013-01-10 04:10:27 PM  
On the one hand, we have to acknowledge that sock puppeting and astro turfing is real. Chik Fil A got caught doing it on facebook and so has Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert. Usually when I see someone make repeated assertions unrelated to the discussion topic while refusing to cite sources and saying "I'm not gonna do your homework for you, go find it yourself" I just mark them down as a paid troll and ignore them.

However, I'm pretty libtastic and a big Obama supporter, and I've been accused of being a right wing paid shill on this site. I'll disagree with a liberal on religion or I'll criticize a famous lefty pundit and I'll start getting attacked by someone saying "Is this an alt? Why don't you look for dah birf certifict and teh secrit muzlimz? DERP DERP DERP. Get lost troll. You lose the discussion! I win!"
 
2013-01-10 04:10:33 PM  

TelemonianAjax: I've got you favorited with the tag "Gun. Nut."


Can't argue with that one. One of the few things that gets under my skin along with hurting kids. I've stepped back for the most part though, I don't see most of the people in those threads right now as having real opinions of their own, they're just harping what they read on bumper stickers (both sides guilty of that).
 
2013-01-10 04:10:55 PM  

James!: And now I'm a troll.  Awesome.


Way to prove his point there. *rolls eyes*

No, he wasn't calling you a troll; he was saying that you're refusing point-blank to listen to anybody other than yourself.
 
2013-01-10 04:10:58 PM  

neongoats: Humor is very subjective. Some people genuinely crack up when they write "hurp obummer zero Hussein!!", or talk about eating truckloads of aborted white Christian fetuses for New Years dinner.

Who gets to decide what's funny enough? Or not funny enough.


Oddly enough...so are opinions.
 
2013-01-10 04:11:02 PM  

Nobodyn0se: James!: And now I'm a troll. Awesome.

If you'd actually argue against what we're actually arguing for, it wouldn't be an issue.


We need Jeff back. You know, return to the days where you could get banned for three days for saying you didn't like Reagan. Now THAT was some moderating.
 
2013-01-10 04:11:05 PM  

I_C_Weener: Giltric: CokeBear: Has anyone ever changed their mind based on something they read in a comment thread? Seems like a big waste of time to me

I got the president to change his mind on gay marriage.

I'm not sure, but I think if he still uses a Blackberry it is very unlikely Mr. Obama has a Fark login.


Nah he lurks via ipad when he should be reading his PDB.

Why do you think Benghazi happened? Fark...thats why. He was trying to figure out if he ever met Olivido Hormigos.
 
2013-01-10 04:11:25 PM  

PanicMan: James!: How do I know they're disrupting on purpose or just expressing their opinion in a shiatty way. Thought police.

Engage them in conversation? Also, I don't want you to start banning people left and right, but people are nicer when the sherrif is in town. Maybe a more visible presence would help?


If I post as Moderator it tends to stifle discussion, or worse threadjack into a discussion about moderation.  I post as myself all the damn time and discussions go on like normal.  If I attempt to guide the discussion as myself it often turns into a discussion about moderation and threadjacks.

Also, if I'm in a thread talking I have to use the notify moderator button like everyone else if there is a disruption because we don't moderate threads we post in.
 
2013-01-10 04:11:35 PM  
I'm so late to this thread, but WOW, that was enlightening. And explains soooo much about what goes on here.
 
2013-01-10 04:12:27 PM  

James!: Also, if I'm in a thread talking I have to use the notify moderator button like everyone else if there is a disruption because we don't moderate threads we post in.


How do you get any work done?!?!?!


KIDDING!
 
2013-01-10 04:13:06 PM  
Are you saying I can get PAID for this? All this time I was doing it for free!
 
2013-01-10 04:13:13 PM  

Giltric: Why do you think Benghazi happened?


BENGHAZI!

/drinks
 
2013-01-10 04:13:18 PM  

PanicMan: James!: How do I know they're disrupting on purpose or just expressing their opinion in a shiatty way. Thought police.

Engage them in conversation? Also, I don't want you to start banning people left and right, but people are nicer when the sherrif is in town. Maybe a more visible presence would help?


It would be a bad idea for a mod to post an opinion, and then moderate that thread absent an emergency like a NSFW pic.
 
2013-01-10 04:13:48 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: you know, I got banned once for mentioning a certain poster's name who likes to post some quotes about god and tinfoil hats and brainwaves and whatnot.
And all I said was he was trolling.
How is that farking fair?


It isn't and is one of those things that could easily be overturned with a message to Farkback.

That said, I would bet almost any amount of money that you are forgetting some minor detail in how you are reporting what actually happened in this story.
 
2013-01-10 04:13:58 PM  

Nobodyn0se: CokeBear: Has anyone ever changed their mind based on something they read in a comment thread? Seems like a big waste of time to me

I have. Numerous times.

James!: What I'm saying is that 90% of daily troll accusations are really just political disagreements.

So in other words, you're saying that "trolls are just people who disagree with you" isn't always the case, as many people (including me) have been saying for the entire thread?

Does this mean you'd actually like to discuss the actual problem of trolling on Fark instead of dismissing it out of hand as you've been doing?


Nah, it's pretty clear that James just thinks you're a troll and not worth talking to.

/No brakes on the whateverthefarkthisis train!
 
2013-01-10 04:14:10 PM  

theflinx: Are you saying I can get PAID for this? All this time I was doing it for free!


You promised me after we broke up you wouldn't talk about our sex life anymore.
 
2013-01-10 04:14:12 PM  

ringersol: Smells like bullshiat.

There's way too much flattering of the paranoia of ATS and stroking of the egos of those who'd probably *like* to think that shills would bother to keep notes on them and their habits.
The return on shilling is just the propagation of FUD and message control. You don't need to give a shiat what happened yesterday to do that. You don't need to 'turn' prominent posters. You just need volume and repetition.

Sounds to me more like ATS has some on-going spat that involves someone feeling wronged by what they feel is a "shill" and they want to inject some favorable uncertainty into the proceedings.

Also: why would a pro-Israel lobby need to hire unknowns to do this work? Wouldn't they just use their own True Believers in their own intelligence apparatus? It's not like the FBI outsources their stirring shiat up on Jihadist boards or kiddie-diddler chat rooms. Why would they ever risk hiring unknowns and handing them printed-out binders of evidence?


Oh that's easy. Israel is just a red herring. If they can get you on hands and knee-pads about a foreign country, they know they can get you to believe anything. That's when they graduate you up to lobbying, press relations, or for the truly soulless, human resources.

This guy punked out at level 0.
 
2013-01-10 04:14:45 PM  
Spot the threadshiatting troll....

If he's not on your ignore list.

Link
 
2013-01-10 04:15:57 PM  

Nobodyn0se: James!: And now I'm a troll. Awesome.

If you'd actually argue against what we're actually arguing for, it wouldn't be an issue.


I honestly don't know what you guys want.  There are posters you think are trolls and you want them dealt with (you didn't say ban) you want discussion to not be disrupted.  You want an established scoreboard for arguments won and no one can bring those arguments back up?

You're all asking for a all kinds of things.
 
2013-01-10 04:15:57 PM  

Genevieve Marie: sprawl15: What I want is for mods to be a moderating influence. You don't have to tell me that my opinion on X is stupid, just that if I'm going to argue X that I probably should do it through something other than an all caps rant about how all dims are stupid and furthermore comma.

Honestly, that works on some forums. I participate in some that are heavily moderated and where moderators are a very active influence on how the thread goes. That's really never been Fark's style though- most people here seem to prefer the mods stay out of the way as much as possible and only really be active when things start to go off the rails.

There are pros and cons to either approach.


One of the best moderated sites I go to is www.capitolfax.com. It's strictly focused on Illinois politics and moderated by the owner/operator. He bans someone just about every day and stays on top of all the threads, looking for drive by bumper sticker arguments and overly heated rhetoric. As a result, he has sitting and former elected officials commenting under their own name, as well as high level and experienced government workers who know the details and background of what's being discussed in the news. It's a great environment that is strictly curated for accuracy and usability, not ideology.

I don't mess around with forums except for there and here anymore. I tried looking at my local paper's section and I wept. Just wept.
 
2013-01-10 04:16:00 PM  

Nobodyn0se: James!: Oh... you want us to guide discussion. We aren't tour guides.

"Interjecting when someone is farking up the entire conversation and ruining another thread" is NOT THE SAME THING as "guiding discussion."

How can you not see that?


It's very meta.
 
Displayed 50 of 1071 comments

First | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report