Introduction:

So in the past two posts I did on PV I focused on what doxxing was and why we should maintain a critical and objective mind when a doxxing claim comes up in order to verify that it is valid or it isn't. I also showed generic tactics that trolls and shills use in order to control the dynamics of a public forum for social engineering. I would like now to focus on a more direct approach. What happens when you deal with trolls/shills directly? What behavior do they engage on and how can you easily detect them in order for you to avoid pursuing any further interaction with them.

After all, no one is safe from dealing with trolls and shills every now and then, specially on a public internet forum that is also anonymous.

Part I

Part II

I. What behaviors should you look for when dealing with an allege troll or shill?

Though many of these behaviors can be found in anyone, specially people that really don't know what they are talking about here is a list of some behaviors for you to keep them in mind as a way to see whether the interaction is going to be productive or not. Meaning that all parties within said interaction can take something out of it, as a learning experience for example.

Does the user start avoiding or changing the subject?

Basically they never engage the main argument you are giving. They imply a position of their own but never provide any substance to their claims as a way to avoid documentation of their position. They provide only generic claims as a way to "debunk" your argument's credibility or your own. Changing the subject also helps them to derail the discussion to a more confortable topic that they will be able to argue with more ease and attack the credibility of their counterpart in a way that is not really related to the initial subject.

Does the user constantly denies the validity of your claims?

Despite all the evidence that you can bring to the table, they continue to contest the validity of your arguments. Usually they take information out of context to use conveniently in order to argue against the validity of certain aspect of your statements. They use this approach in a general way. For example: I personally don't trust (((Psychologists))) because their field is full of (((jews in the letter))) and as a Christian I don't trust the tools of the synagogue of Satan. This is my personal position on it. However some of their material can be interesting to read and yet somewhat relevant to a particular discussion. However a user engaging in trolling/shilling will probably use a more generic approach that doesn't express their position: Psychology is not a real science. Psychology is social engineering. The field of Psychology is full of jews. These statements all present a somewhat valid perspective and hence without stating their position right away they use generality to deny your position on a certain aspect.

They can also label your claims as rumors, start demanding proofs that would be impossible for you to acquire. As you can't proof your claims further more then your position loses credibility. Or ask for you to propose a detail solution to the problem at hand. If you can't produce it then you don't know what you are talking about.

Manufacture of facts

These users tend not only to use generalities but also manufacture facts within those generalities. Now using a general statement as an introduction to your position is not an bad way to start but again, it would be an introduction that will give your argument a starting point, a thrust to your argument. But they need to have examples that are concrete in order for your argument to take foot in the discussion.

That being said, sometimes these people invent the facts in order to try to ridicule the one they are debating and hence their position in a whole. So a good habit to have when you face them is to double check their "fact" before proceeding with the discussion.

Statement of Authority

The user presents him/her self as someone that has knowledge about the subject being discussed implying his expertise on the matter without addressing specifically his/her credentials. In some occasions using the jargon proper to the field related to the discussion so they appear to have knowledge of the subject. This allows them to gain some relevance on the discussion and to build their credibility on the Forum. After establishing that So "authority" they then proceed by dismissing the claims of their counterpart without actually proving them wrong. "They are wrong because I say so and I know what I am talking about."

Quote Anti-Conspiracy Experts

This is the tactic used by the Mainstream media, so often the examples we will see on a Forum will be from the Mainstream media directly. Is similar to the statement of Authority, because it is directly linked to the authority and knowledge their expert have related to an specific subject as a way to dismiss the credibility of your position. You could also argue it as a Logical fallacy of Authority. In simple words, "since you don't know what you are talking about, you are not allowed to have an opinion on that" or "It is a conspiracy theory because I have written a lot of books on the subject and I know about it."

That may very well be true, however it is wrong to think that you can't have an opinion on the matter. And whether you have or not a diploma that states know your way on a certain field, you are entitled to have an opinion on the matter and you are free to research on your own about the subject. When someone uses an argument of authority, know that they are simply engaging in implied censorship attempt to hush your voice. Now this is not to say that there aren't really stupid claims and beliefs. Of course there are, but you are entitled to have them.

Conveniently uses facts to make alternate conclusions

This is very straight forward. But let's put in a different way: Police finds the gun the murderer used to kill the victim. Let's say this murderer is a black man and for the sake of the argument let's say the victim is also black. Fact 1: Police found the gun and links it to the murderer. Fact 2: Murderer is black. Fact 3: Victim is also black. The murderer's lawyer then proceeds by stating the following: "How do we know the gun wasn't planted by the police?" and/or "This seems to be another case of systemic racism". Basically the lawyer conveniently used the facts in order to address a different conclusion to create a reasonable doubt and helping himself of a social engineered false narrative to remove credibility on the process at hand, Fact 3 is irrelevant at this point.

***REMEMBER: this is just a list of some behaviors. You can find the rest of the list on this article: DISINFORMATION PART 2: DETAILED TIPS FOR TROLLS.

II. Advises for the future.

Obviously the most recurrent advise we use here is that you ignore and move on. Obviously as the interaction is not productive I would recommend a downvote and not engage furthermore with that user, even if he/she keeps on showing up on your threads and answering your comments.

However I also recommend archiving such interactions. As they can serve you in the future to expose the user's behavior with others that you trust on. This is not to call for a brigading either, keep the exchange of the information privately however if you find that this user endangers the community as a whole make a substantiated post on v/ProtectVoat with all the evidence of the matter. This is to inform the community of a suspicious behavior that could endanger it. The interactions others may have with said user can be found productive to others and they can balance the downvotes that user is getting as a result of being exposed as a troll or shill. This is why it is very important that users are very proactive on the community.

Disclosure: I would have completed the list but the I am reaching the limit of the characters. Sorry for that.

The best tool you have is to be informed and inform others.

God speed.