>>1766222

>"stupid, petitions don't work anyway"

Rebuttal to this is it costs nothing to sign, takes only a few seconds to do. Best case scenario, something happens, worst case scenario, the status quo is maintained. Everything to gain, nothing to lose.

Even as someone myself who has signed clearly rigged petitions, it goes on to demonstrate the extent of the rigging in such a way it's exposed (and lets the riggers know just how many disgruntled people there really are). You can only fudge numbers for so long. There's absolutely zero loss to signing.

If you really think a petition is rigged, send emails, send letters, call representatives directly, because those are substantially harder to ignore.

But regardless: still goddamn sign.

>>1774764

"99% of 'esoteric' shit on this board is psyop 101. They know the kind of demographic this type of board draws."

The illogical leaps to random conclusions, like 'Q is a quantum vaccuum space machine AI' are either schizophrenics with poor ability to filter information, or much more likely, shills flooding clearly batshit insane information as a side-channel attack to discredit a movement.

Media outlets will double-down and piggyback on a side-channel attack by using it as the 'example' or the 'worst' a place has to offer, as a way of making it seem so batshit crazy the common man won't be interested in it.

If the last part sounds familiar, it's what Alex Jones & Co have been doing. Standard 'dump and discredit' tactics.

YouTube experienced the exact same thing 'look at all these weirdo videos on the internet!' screamed the media 'won't someone please think of the children?'.

The only way to solve that is to aggressively purge or bury such garbage, unfortunately they then try 'thresholding' by moving the batshit insane ramblings closer and closer to a 'legitimate theory' (they'll then revert the thread back to form once they find the 'acceptable threshold').

Legitimate, well-reasoned and researched threads are a hard thing for shills to fake because they don't truly understand the subject and doing so wastes their precious shill time.

Threads that fail the 'sniff test' (sniff test: Rule 1: is the thread relevant? Rule 2: Does it serve any useful purpose/offer any useful/useable information? If no to either, it fails the 'sniff test'):

Random off-topic schizophrenic spirituality garbage (fails R1 & R2):

https://8ch.net/qresearch/res/1736459.html

Endless variations of chess moves (fails R2):

https://8ch.net/qresearch/res/32223.html

Why doesn't Q talk about only my concerns (fails R2):

https://8ch.net/qresearch/res/1784088.html

Schizophrenic ramblings (fails R2 hard):

https://8ch.net/qresearch/res/1721838.html

Schizophrenic ramblings again (fails R1 and R2 very hard):

https://8ch.net/qresearch/res/1630338.html

More schizophrenic ramblings (fails R1 and R2, distracts):

https://8ch.net/qresearch/res/1546485.html

Brony shit (instant failure):

https://8ch.net/qresearch/res/1760749.html

Troll logic (R1, R2 failure):

https://8ch.net/qresearch/res/1745861.html

Strongly advise you direct garbage thread pots that aren't relevant to "TTDDTOT - Things That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread" as a sort of 'recycle bin of the internet'.

It strikes me the BO does not know how to deal with "thresholding" attacks, which might not be surprising as it's usually only reserved for forums that hit very close to the truth.

As per my previous statement, a "threshold" attack tries to find the threshold (hence the name) of when a shill post is largely indistinguishable from a normal post.

Naturally, spotting thresholding attacks is hard. But you must also be extremely careful not to allow the other side of it's edge, which is to make legitimate posts seem shill-ish.

If you delete an innocent's post, or you fail to spot the threshold attack, it has succeeded - because deleting innocent's posts will alienate them from the board which will succeed in driving them away from the forum.

It's actually better to err on the side of caution, and instead, either watch to see how a threshold attack develops (remember, it cannot remain legitimate for long), and if anything, apply pressure in the form of questions.

Short-term shills will lack sufficient local knowledge to validate themselves (but can be easily confused with newfags). The difference between shills and newfags is shills will always try to exploit hostility and DARVO, where-as newfags tend to concede or admit errors.

Long-term shills will be able to pass typical background queries, but their threads or writings will still contain fundamental flaws: the tip-off is when they REFUSE TO CORRECT THE FLAWS.

Accidental errors often bring concession and admission of error followed by a correction and no further continuance. Intentional errors are either very recluctantly 'corrected', if at all, and the behaviour remains the same in future (like a repeat offender).

Thresholding attacks only counter is observation, questioning and due diligence with expected psychological profiling of typical reactions.

Do not 'kneejerk react' because you might cause collateral, and resistant innocents (who are offended at bad adminship) are nearly indistinguishable from resistant shills (who are opposed to adminship period).

Threshold test: If someone was to enter the room and ask me to prove this was likely a thresholding attack, would I be able to prove it to them?

If yes: it's a threshold attack.

If doubtful: more time observing required.

If no: it's legitimate.

>>1870554

I don't bother covering the subject of trolls as there's nothing of note to say (shills can behave like trolls if they feel it achieves their objectives). Treat trolls and shill-trolls like you'd do a troll: ignore them. On a conventional forum, it's the 'admin's job' to do clean-up, and if there's a report button, your job is to report.

Other than that, ignore and carry on.

>>1870783

Provocation is the shill's 'discredit' tactic. The goal is to make you angry, so then you seem like some aggressor. Shills will always omit or cherry pick key details (including blatant hypocrisy), so it's always good to document in any replies previous douchebag behaviours they themselves have expressed.

The media aspect is they play on whichever side is favourable and recast in whichever light. So for example, if they were aggressive, they would be 'asserting their rights', but if you were aggressive, you'd be 'abusive'.

Instead, always shuffle to a very plain matter-of-fact tone and continually document and remind of their abuse. The dry facade makes it impossible for them to cherry pick any aspect (I've often encountered shills who simply refuse to quote entire posts it's that impossible to distort), and the reminder of their abuse serves to highlight to any newbies to the conversation what kind of monster they are.

Keep a running tally of their abusive and provocative comments (maybe in an external document complete with references). Eventually the abuse becomes so historical they have to ditch the sock account and create a new one, which undermines any attempt for them to 'establish reputation'.

A lot of you have had back and forths on 'flat earth'. Rather than dealing with the topic, I propose this:

The Sherlock Holmes principle:

In the book series written by Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes is oblivious to which way the solar system works, much to the surprise of Watson. Sherlock goes on to explain his mind is an 'attic' of which he must be careful to only preserve that information which is useful, to which Sherlock asks 'what does it matter if the earth rotates around the sun, or the sun the earth?'.

Sherlock Holmes principle is thus: don't bother wasting time learning about or arguing on topics that ultimately don't impact you or that you can do nothing about. It does not matter, in your present scope of things, if the earth is round or flat.

Determining if a topic falls under the Sherlock Holmes principle:

1) Is the information I'm presently learning going to be useful, now or in the foreseeable future?

2) Is the information something I can act on? (EG use, work with)

If the answer to both questions is no, then the topic definitely falls under the Sherlock Holmes principle, and should be disregarded (for example, knowing if the earth is flat or round is only useful if you have rockets, satellites, ships etc to launch or navigate).

If the information is something you can act on but isn't useful, it again, is a good candidate for being disregarded. For example, you can act on the knowledge methos sweets cause soda bottles to erupt, but is it useful? Not really.

If something is useful but can't be acted on (EG theoretical concepts) then it likely should be retained. Can you 'act' on imaginary sums? No, but their results can give you new insights.

Likewise, don't be misled by shills trying to get you to debate over topics that aren't relevant. For all I know there could be cheese people high in orbit who enjoy telepathic TV shows on a really cheap intergalatic airwave: does knowing it actually help me or is it something I can change or act on? Not at all. Waste of time.

Stay focused anons.