Carl Limbacher
Thursday, June 26, 2003
Sorry, Sarandon; Dr. Laura Has the Last Laugh

Susan Sarandon and the other left-wing thought police who tried to force Dr.
Laura Schlessinger from the airwaves can go have a good cry: Her ratings are
up, up, up.

Talkers magazine says Dr. Laura's "stunning accomplishment" is an increased
audience during Operation Iraqi Freedom, when programmers, radio execs and
other so-called experts figured the war coverage would leave her out in the
cold.

"These skeptics have been proven wrong," the magazine's June issue reports.
"Clearly the baseline of what is considered talk radio's core constituency
is longer and larger than was previously assessed ... . The big winner is
talk radio, in general."

Schlessinger has "stablized comfortably at a lofty perch just behind Rush
Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, as the third most listened-to talent in the
business," tied with Howard Stern.

Her no-nonsense advice has especially attracted adults from ages 25 to 54,
the category prized by advertisers. In Los Angeles, for example, her 4.0 has
outperformed KFI's overall 3.2 in this age group. In San Diego, her 4.5 beat
KOGO's 3.6.


--
Oh, be still my heart.

I'm falling in love with the guy all over again, while reading Hillary's
book.
Forget about her being the smartest woman in the world. She's the luckiest
woman!

- Bonnie BLUE EYES, boniblueyz@aol.com, who insists everyone knows she is
White

"Liberals.HATE.America!'," <LiberalHateMongers@yahoo.com.remvths99> wrote in message news:<502160ff75a2600d841f027b55834759@news.megane tnews.com>...
> Carl Limbacher
> Thursday, June 26, 2003
> Sorry, Sarandon; Dr. Laura Has the Last Laugh
>
> Susan Sarandon and the other left-wing thought police who tried to force Dr.
> Laura Schlessinger from the airwaves


The Troll FAQ
INTRODUCTION

This portion of The Troll FAQ addresses thread starters.
While thread starters can be used as the starting point
for an engagement troll, early trolling practice was to
use the thread starter as a *hit and run*, with the troll
posting no followups.

Currently, most trolls engage in existing threads. The
thread starter, especially the hit and run, has become
rare.

Rarity is no reason to consider it without merit. The
hit and run may be the purest form of trolling. And
the thread starter built on hit and run techniques
is often the best way to start an engagement.


THREAD STARTERS


Someone Must Start Threads

Someone must start threads, but many trolls rely upon
groupers to do it. Trolls claim to be more creative
than groupers. Its obvious threads are best started
by the most creative group participants. So trolls
who think they are more creative had best start some
threads. If they don't, their claim to the lofty title
of troll is questionable.

Even those who prefer to engage should start threads.
A thread with a subject selected by a troll is likely
to be a more interesting thread for the troll. And it
gives the troll a better opportunity to direct the
topics of discussion to areas where the troll has the
advantage.


Topic Selection

Better results are obtained with relevant topics. This
should be apparent, but many trolls start in a group by
attacking groupers on issues irrelevant to the group,
or by posting off topic for the irritation effect. Much
better is to post on a topic relevant to the group and
promote conflict on topical material.

It is true there are groups that essentially don't have
topics. Many trolls are attracted to such groups, which
can be characterized as group where people have just
chosen to hang out, more for *who is present* than for a
topic. Yes, its a lot easier to troll such a group with
personal attacks than it is to troll a group with a real
topic. Taking the easy way to thrills makes them, well,
cheap thrills.

In any case, posting at least arguably on topic is a
characteristic to strive for.


The Most Important Words

The most important words of any thread starter are those
in the subject line. It must appeal to groupers and
prompt them to download the post. Trolls' subject lines
must stand out in the group as being something special,
perhaps appearing as news or posing a puzzling question.

Traditional advice to groupers is to write subject lines
precisely descriptive of subject of the article. This is
fine for groupers, but definitely not necessary for trolls.
More important than an accurate subject line is an enticing
one. For a troll, its not bad form at all to have a
misleading subject line. A seemingly normal subject line
which is only later found by the reader to be misleading
is also effective.

This doesn't mean every subject line should be misleading.
It means the option of a misleading subject line should
be considered, especially when there is difficulty in
creating an enticing and accurate one. Enticement must
take priority.


The Opening Paragraph

This paragraph follows the subject line in importance.
There must be minimal evidence in the opening paragraph
the post is a troll, yet it must be interesting to the
reader. Once a reader gets through the first paragraph,
it is likely he will read the entire post, drawn in and
trapped.

Although rare, sometimes only a single paragraph needed.
This works best when the paragraph is dead on a hot topic
in the group.


Development

The need for only a single paragraph is rare. Usually,
some development is needed.

Standard writing advice stressing the need for clarity
does not necessarily apply to trolls. Sometimes it does,
as when a story is so artfully constructed as to seem real
to almost everyone, and at the same time raises real and
unanswerable questions.

These may be the most difficult type of thread starters
to write, because such posts contain almost no hints they
are trolls. The difficulty of seeming *real* while being
provocative frustrates many trolls.

When clarity, reasonableness, and provocation as a
combination aren't possible, obfuscation becomes a troll's
friend. It is here that the *better* writer will by
intent write *less well* when evaluated on the criteria
of clarity.

Introducing totally unrelated thoughts isn't a good idea,
but its effective when each paragraph is only remotely
related to the previous one, or when it takes what is a
minor issue in the previous paragraph and unexpectedly
treats it as a major one.

Doing this gradually throughout a post can result in
a final paragraph with a topic quite different from the
first paragraph. Groupers will tend to concentrate on
different portions of such posts in their responses, and
this results in a delightfully confusing thread.

Other times, what would appear to be major point can be
carried all the way to the end with the minor ones used
as provocative insults or jokes. The best situation is
when, in an x posted article, something is seen as an
insult or false by readers in one group and as humorous
or truthful by readers in other groups.

Complicated sentence structure can be used to the troll's
advantage, for instance (and don't over do it by combining
this too heavily with other techniques) constructing
sentences that, although properly constructed, include
multiple phrases separated by commas (parenthetical
statements help too) and sentences that end up with a
different thought than what they started with (although
remember brevity might be the soul of wit but might not be
the best wit for trolls) especially in those circumstances
where the joke is on the reader.

When the same subject is kept throughout the post, each
paragraph can build tension by being more provocative than
the last. Its a matter of slowing *turning up the heat*,
and doing it so slowly the reader doesn't notice its
happening.


Closure

A time proven method of closure is a final paragraph that
is insulting to many of the readers. This is difficult to
achieve, but should be the first one considered.

Another method is to close by claiming the post proves
something most readers will think it doesn't. This can
be particularly fun when it can be conveyed to some of the
readers that the troll doesn't really believe his stated
conclusion. Essentially a *with a wink* closure, this will
leave some groupers flaming and others laughing with the
troll at the flamers.

A closure with a question, particularly when few groupers
will perceive the post is a troll, is something to be
considered. It is a natural for a situation where the
troll has identified several issues where groupers can
be expected to disagree. Sometimes, even a post with an
*authoritative* stance can be effectively closed with a
question.

Actual closure, a concluding statement that summarizes the
main point of the post is also effective. A summary that
people will perceive differently, that is, one that some
will perceive as a joke and others as an insult, or one
that some will see as true and others as false is a near
requirement for a summary closure.

Choice of the most effective closure depends on the nature
of the post. If a post is constructed to be plausible to
most readers, then a question or accurate summary often
works well. Otherwise, one of the other options is better.


Post Length

A post containing only two or three sentences usually
won't be effective. There are exceptions, mentioned
previously, and usually require that the topic be very
provocative to the group and the delivery unexpected.
Trolls must remain aware that writing either too much
or too little is charting a course to failure.

If there's a *story* to be told, a troll should strive
for a minimum of two paragraphs of four to six lines each.
Three paragraphs are usually better than two, as it breaks
down into introduction, development, and closure.

Maximum effective length is in the vicinity of sixty
total lines. The length of a thread starter must be
within the attention span of the majority of the groupers.

If a prototype troll turns out to be longer than that,
the subject is too large for one post. Methods other
than a single post must be considered.

One option is to break the material into multiple articles
and post it as a series. But usually, even if the first
post is successful, subsequent thread starters generate few
followups.

A better choice is to use the additional material in a
subsequent engagement in the original thread. This works
best when the original troll hasn't been tremendously
successful. There's little point in using addition
material if the groupers, by their responses, have created
a self-sustaining thread.

At the same time, there's no point in trying to prop up
a failed troll with multiple additional attempts. If the
thread starter failed, one, maybe two, attempts to get it
going are enough. If they don't work, accept failure. A
successful troll learns from failures, and will try again
in a different way.


Crossposts

Crossposts are essential for a hit and run, and helpful
for other thread starters. Relevancy is important. There
is no point in x posting to groups where groupers won't
participate. Complaints from groupers about off topic
x posting to a group isn't high quality participation.
A troll who counts such followups as evidence of success
is fooling himself.

Posts can be created with a few groups in mind, and then
the groups list expanded as the troll is being written.
If a prototype troll turns out to be a little shorter than
desired, additional material can be added that's relevant
to additional groups.

A common error is thinking *the more groups the better*.
Its not true. Posting to groups no one reads is a waste
of effort. Posting to groups that many servers don't have
presents a danger.

Some newsreaders give a user a warning message if a group
in the x post followup isn't on the user's server, which
will often be the case with rare groups. This is a *red
flag* to groupers and will reduce followups. Including
upa groups can also be a warning to groupers who take note
of the newsgroups field when deciding whether to respond.
Including upa groups will often reduce the number of
followups.

Also, many servers filter messages posted to more than a
few groups, so propagation will be poor on a message with
a huge number of x posts. The old standard of ten maximum
groups may not apply in all cases. Some servers are
filtering post with groups greater than five.

This means posting to six groups may not be a good idea.
It may be wise to give up the traffic that might be created
by that sixth group, posting only to five, because the
filtering effect by including the sixth group might result
in a greater reduction in traffic from all groups.

Basically, to go over five groups, its advisable to have
at least seven, and possibly eight, that can be expected
to contribute substantially to the thread. And its wise
to never exceed ten.


Review

Don't count on groupers to start threads. Start your own.

Post on topic.

The goal of the subject line is not to accurately describe
the article. Its goal is to prompt people to download the
article and read it.

Use the first paragraph to draw people in.

Develop the thoughts, but don't neglect obfuscation.

Make posts *long enough* but not *too long*.

Increase tension and/or provocation gradually as the post
proceeds. Don't blatantly provoke early.

Select a closure appropriate for the post.

Don't bother with irrelevant x posts.

Don't x post excessively or to rare groups.


The Troll FAQ

Part 2


ENGAGEMENTS

The Tradition

Traditional trolling is *hit and run*, that is, the troll
doesn't post followups. Tradition has become something
that's seldom practiced. Most trolls engage groupers.

Engagements often take the form of a few posts featuring
personal attacks, with the idea being the grosser the
better. Others involve the engagement of a group or a
grouper over a longer period of time. These types of
engagement trolls often have a goal and plan.

The key to the short term personal attack troll is to be
as grossly insulting as possible. In fact, that's the
only requirement or technique. Since its obvious how to
do this, the balance of this portion of the FAQ will
address engagements that are longer term.


Arguments

An important thing to remember when engaging is that
while you may win some points, you don't win an argument
directly by what you post. You win because of what you
opponent posts.

Specifically, calling your opponent an idiot or something
similar doesn't let you win. You win when you provoke
your opponent into idiotic behavior. At that point, if
that is recognized by his fellow groupers, then you can
observe he's an idiot. But that must be the last point,
not the first, something missed by most engagement trolls.

Regardless of what you post, or what your opponent does,
the final judgment of victory is what the groupers think.
Patience, and emphasizing reasonable conclusions that may
be drawn from a target's own words are the keys. Humor
can work as a wonderful slam.


Hijacking Threads

Hijacking threads is a recommended practice for engagement
trolls. One effective technique is to take a minor point
of the previous post, usually one that is mostly off topic,
and expand on it. Another technique is to followup with an
attack on the previous poster in a way marginally related
to the topic of the thread.

When hijacking a thread by expanding on a tangential topic,
adding x posts to topical groups is usually effective and
recommended. Serious consideration should be given to
changing the subject line.


Engaging Where It Counts

Chasing minor points that are likely to be losers is a
waste of effort. Concentrate on those points where you
have established an advantage. Superior results can be
obtained where that advantage is unrecognized by your
opponent.

More stunning than what any troll posts is when a grouper
admonishes a fellow grouper. That need to be the goal.


Post Around The Target

If you're picking a fight with someone, an effective
technique is to not always answer his posts directly.
If someone slightly disagrees with the target, respond
to that post instead, and support that poster rather
flame the target.

This leaves the target with the feeling he's looking in
on a discussion about him, almost like he wandered into
it unwelcomed. It can be very disconcerting to him.


You Must Have Support

The best support is that of the groupers. Getting
support from some of the groupers is a priority with
engagement trolls. Overwhelming a group with a gang
troll is a lot less efficient than inducing some of
the groupers to do some of the troll's work for him.

Crossposts can often be used to gain support with
trolls involving issues. It is more difficult to
do this with crossposts when the issue is a grouper.

Getting support may take time. If a grouper is flushed
out, its effective, as he becomes more irritated and
less rational, for the troll to post more and more
*reasonably*. For example, if the grouper is posting
profanity seasoned insults to the troll, its a
tremendous contrast if the troll politely explains why
the grouper is wrong.

Being reasonable, in the judgement of the groupers,
is a way a troll can build support for himself. The
reverse of this is its also a form of criticism of
the targeted grouper.


Starting Threads For Engagements

This can be highly effective when one personna starts
a thread, and another personna does the engagement. It
is important that the two personnas not have exactly the
same viewpoint. However, there is tremendous ability
to direct discussion with this technique.

The personna that starts the thread can set up topics
for discussion by the engagement personna. It doesn't
matter if the engagement personna agrees or disagrees
with the points made, as long as there is opposition to
both viewpoints.

With careful planning, the engagement personna can delay
entry into the thread until it can be determined which
side has the advantage, then intervene on behalf of the
other side. Remember, the goal is not to win an argument.
Its to create an unwinnable one runs almost forever.


Have a Goal and Plan

This is mainly what separates a troll from a flamer. A
flamer is likely to heap on the most blatantly insulting
material he can in each post. A troll will hold back,
understanding the value of a set up for a bigger spank.

Being spontaneous is important, but it must be controlled
and directed by the needs of the goal and plan. But its
also important to remain aware of opportunity and adjust
goals and plans and create additional ones.


Create Illusions

There's little illusionary about a straight up *in the
face* flame. Goals and plans often benefit from illusions.
Post things that can be misconstrued, but at the same time
can be later explained with devastating effect to those
who missed the real meaning.


Personna Creation

One thing often missed is the enhancement of personna
creation. If a group is to be trolled over a period of
time, its best to create personnas to do the posts.

A personna must remain consistent in viewpoint. More
importantly, be certain the viewpoint isn't completely
your own viewpoint. Remember, you're not posting as
*yourself*. You posting as a created personna.

A personna may be part of you (appropriate only for
those who have personality and interests to spare) or
may be modeled after someone you know well. Have a
clear idea of *who* that personna is. Better personnas
are possible when they are defined in advance. That
helps prevent the error of inconsistency.

Important factors are the age, gender, marital status,
profession, and education of the personna. Remember,
you're not posting what *you* would, you're posting
what the personna would.


Gang Trolls

If involved in a gang troll, you must communicate with
the other trolls. Unless you've known the others for
a long time and trolled with them often, you're not
going to be able to be effective without coordination.

The old alt.syntax.tactical newsgroup invasion FAQ is
good reading on the subject of gang trolls, but the
degree of coordindation envisioned by the FAQ is often
an impossibility in actual engagement trolls. Its great
theory that often doesn't work well in the field.

Everyone needs to be aware of the essence of each
personna that is posting. Be sure to discuss major
posts in advance. Usenet doesn't happen in real time.
There's little that can't wait a day while trolls
communicate privately on the next move.


Review

You don't win an argument because of what you post.
You win an argument because of what your opponent
posts.

Engaging in existing threads is less effective than
a combination of thread starters and engagement.

Be humorous. It promotes grouper support against the
target, or at minimum, if they laugh, silences their
support of the target.

Enage where it counts. A troll's own position is
degraded when he looks silly. Chasing probable
losing situations is a good way to look silly.

Be patient. Turn up the heat a little at a time,
and make sure the hook from the last step is firmly
set before trying to continue.

Get grouper support.

Create personnas and keep their posts in character.

The Troll FAQ v 1.1

Part 3


ETHICS

Are there ethics? Some may think not. But all humans
place some limits on their activities. A good troll
determines in advance what he will not do. There cannot
be enough emphasis on consistency. A troll who decides to
do something *this time* because of a thought the normally
inappropriate act is justified by the current situation is
on the way to problems.

Ethics aren't something that can be turned on an off based
on the situation. A troll who follows situation sensitive
ethics in reality doesn't have ethics. Its best to decide
in advance, not during the heat of battle, what's fair and
what's not, make a record of ethics, and refer to it often.


Net Abuse

Trolling may be abuse on the net, but abuse of the net
cannot be considered trolling. Things considered abuse
of the net are the sorts of things against the rules of
most service providers. Abuse of the net includes:

Cancels of posts made by others
Use of another poster's e mail address
Use of an invalid address at a valid domain
Flooding
Forging approvals in moderated groups
Excessive crossposting and/or multiposting
Posting or mailing viruses
Mail bombing
Alteration or deletion of web information
Hacking into computers or systems

Concerning use of another poster's e mail, generally
referred to as forgery, note that parody impersonations
aren't forgery. What matters is actually owning the
address.

Domain forgery usually occurs by accident when someone
makes up an address assuming the domain isn't valid. For
example, avoidliketheplague.com would be assumed by many
not to be a valid domain, but it is. Never assume a
domain name is invalid without checking. The best choice
is to always post with a real e mail address you own.

There is no generally accepted numerical definition of a
flood, but *I know one when I see one* applies. Generally,
if a person is posting so much as to make a group unusable,
particularly if morphing is involved, it may be considered
a flood. Often, those who flood post articles that are
substantially identical. Doing that enough results in the
articles qualifying as spam, which may be canceled.

What constitutes excessive crossposting will vary. Having
more than ten groups in the newsgroups field is a violation
at some service providers. Some prevent posts to more than
ten groups. A few set the limit at five.

But even without a limit from a troll's service provider,
there are other considerations. Usenet is not an entity with
one universally applicable set of rules/procedures, as some
presume.

Crossposting to seven or eight groups in alt.* probably
won't attract any attention. But include seven alt.* groups
and one in some local hierarchies, and a troll might find
cancels or NoCeMs being issued against him, along with
complaints to his service provider. Its not the most liberal
rule set that applies; its the most restrictive.

Even if complaints to the service provider aren't an issue,
breaking rules for the simple reason it can be done isn't
much of a reason. Instead, trolls should consider rules
restrictions that will help them become better.

There are ample indications when a troll needs to adopt
better ethics. Complaints acted on by his service provider,
by warnings or termination of service, are a strong signal.
Attracting attention from those who issue cancels or NoCeMs
for spam or excessive crossposting/multiposting are another.


Topicality

It may seem strange to include this in the ethics section,
but the willingness of a troll to post on topic is a
decision based on his ethics. Ethical trolls post on topic.
But the first problem is to determine what is on topic.

Assuming thread starters in a non-disrupted group, *on
topic* means the topics the group was created for and
topics made acceptable by current group usage. Ethics
require a troll to post on topic.

Most groups don't stay strictly with the topic listed in
their Charter (if any) or the topic that could be presumed
from the group name. It is appropriate for a troll to
encourage topic drift. It is not appropriate for him to
initiate it.

Sometimes, a grouper becomes an issue in a group. If the
groupers initiate it, even though encouraged by a troll,
its acceptable to treat a grouper as the topic.

However, sometimes, the troll becomes the issue.
There's a difference between what a troll posts being the
issue, and the troll himself being the issue. If a troll
himself becomes the issue, its time for him to move on.
Although a grouper is an appropriate topic for a group,
a troll isn't, since he's an outsider.


Morphing

If a troll has to morph to be read, he's worn out his
welcome. Morphing for the purpose of beating killfiles
isn't ethical. A troll must respect the choice of
groupers not to read his posts. *Morph* refers to a
situation where a troll posts basically the same things
under more than one name. This is different than the
creation of personnas who post differently and which are
non-transparent creations of one poster.


Grouper Complaints

Grouper complaints in a group about non-net abuse troll
activities have one best response from a troll: killfile
me. What is important about this is the troll can't state
this if he has morphed to beat killfiles. Creation of
multiple non-transparent personnas that truly act
differently isn't morphing to beat killfiles. If a troll
has kept his act clean, he can suggest killfiles and
groupers who are irritated with their fellow groupers for
feeding the troll often turn on their own and support the
troll's position.

In the event substantial x posts are involved, the troll
may also suggest n-filter to the groupers. Such statements
place the choice to read and respond on the groupers. When
a group is disrupted, groupers who oppose it must perceive
that fellow groupers have a reasonable ability not to
respond, and that those groupers, by their own choices,
are responsible for disruption.

Also important is the troll's posting volume. If the
groupers are posting more than the troll, he can blame
them for disruption. It may be that the troll provoked
these posts, but clearly a grouper always has the option
not to respond, especially if the troll hasn't morphed so
that killfiles can be effectively used by groupers.

Complaints by groupers to a troll's service provider
aren't cause for concern if a troll has behaved ethically.
Obviously, if a troll has engaged in net abuse (rogue
cancels, excessive x posting, forgeries, or floods, as
examples) he may be in trouble with his service provider.

Complaints about the content of posts might receive some
consideration by a service provider. If a troll has
posted clearly off topic, x posted to irrelevant groups,
initiated unprovoked flames of groupers, or used *naughty
words* in excess of what is typical for the group, he
may be in trouble. If he has not done these things, then
such complaints will probably be viewed as being complaints
based on personal dislike for the troll, and will not be
considered actionable by the service provider.

Trolls who find themselves in a position of searching for
a service provider with a more liberal Terms of Service
agreement (TOS) or Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) should
instead consider their own actions. A revision of the
troll's ethics is often more appropriate.


Fragile Groupers

Trolling groups where groupers are excessively fragile
in an emotional sense is a bad idea. Such groupers may
be present in numbers almost anywhere, but are more likely
to be found in alt.support.* groups. Lurking carefully
and evaluating early reactions to trolls is important in
determining fragility. An easier method is to decide in
advance that support groups are off limits.

Sometimes, its not a group but an individual grouper who
should be left alone. A poster who has established himself
as a bona fide and unreformable kook is best left alone.


Withdrawals

As stated by Cappy Hamper in the alt.troll FAQ, trolling
isn't intended to bring about the end of Usenet. And
destroying a newsgroup may be considered a step in that
direction.

Trolls should withdraw when asked politely to do so by
some of the groupers. A troll should withdraw even if
not asked if a group becomes substantially disrupted by
troll activity.

More difficult is to decide whether to leave when the
groupers haven't asked politely. As an example, groupers
in alt.pizza.delivery-drivers fought Meow until their
group was destroyed. alt.religion.asatru groupers fought
Meow until their group was a smoking crater. Neither
group politely asked the trolls to leave.

There is also the issue of internal disrupters. A good
example is us.military.army, which on several occasions
remained disrupted due to grouper activity even when
the trolls left. rec.skiing.alpine wound itself up with
internal disrupters for years, even before trolls arrived.

In these examples, grouper behavior was such that it
was difficult to justify a withdrawal. There was no
*voice of reason* among the groupers, and every
indication the groupers wanted to continue with the
disruption.

It is, however, sometimes best for trolls to make a
decision that the groupers have *had enough*. To a
degree, trolls must be *their brother's keeper*, since
groupers