AUSTRALIAN VETERAN MATTERS
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Thursday06August2020

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Wiltshire CEO of Conspiracy Theory Central
2,371 Posts in 149 Topics by 217 Members
Latest Member: Sweesiultew
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  AUSTRALIAN VETERAN MATTERS
|-+  AUSTRALIAN VETERAN MATTERS FORUM
| |-+  THE MAD GALAHS FORUM--This forum does not necessarily reflect AVMs opinion. CLICK HERE FOR AVMS OPINION
| | |-+  Forum Tactics
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Forum Tactics  (Read 5756 times)
cicero
Active Member


Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Posts: 44


« Reply #1 on: Wednesday22April2009 »

You only have to read some of the comments on other Blogs and Sites to see the level of attack individuals like to write about......seems that if one disagrees with anothers opinion, then it is okay to attack.

This forum for passing comment on posts is limited to membership, although outsiders can read what we written.  Other forums are closed and content only is available to be read by members.

If we, as members of this forum can make a comment to a post in good faith, without resorting to attacking a previous comment, then this forum will be for the better.

I enjoy a healthy debate, and will not resort to belittling others...I will state my case and leave it as that.

Again I reiterate, let the mud slinging, shit stirring and abuse be the words of the Galahs and Tate and company....not us.......



Logged
80s
Guest
« on: Sunday19April2009 »

Here is an interesting analysis of the many tactics that are used to stop expression of contrey opinions on forums. I have noticed on many military forums that individuals (or groups) will have an issue to push, usually involving them getting upgrades to warlike service/medals/entitlements under the DVA. As seen in some of the recent comments by the Mad Galahs on thos forum, those who bring a alter-arguement to their cause are basically guilted into shutting up.

On most forums if you do not support any or every claim made by a fellow "veteran" (many without operational service still try to claim veteran status just because they served) then you are labelled as a "Jack Man" or un-Australian or worse. Same as we see the Galahs trying to guilt other veterans for daring to question the claims or service of some of their members. The removal of open examination of claims by stigmatising anyone who questions them is the perfect tool of the wannabee. They may also threaten defermation and legal action, any reactive response like this generally shows that they have something to hide. IMHO.

Forum Tactics:

I have noticed various tactics employed by forum users, and thought u may be interested in my observations and analysis, so here are some.

THOUGHT POLICE:

Many try to come to terms with policing others thoughts, as it is impossible it creates only frustration for them, and usually results in anger or drawn out arguments with the thought police trying to have the last say in order to seem more correct. As the thought police find it an impossible task to forcibly change another’s opinion, they then move on to one of the next options.

GAGGING AND CENSURE:

If they realise they cannot change another thoughts, the thought police usually switch to another tactic, that is gagging or censure. If you cannot stop someone thinking a certain way the next best thing is to stop said person from expressing it. The use of censorship thru moderators is usually the easiest way. Unpopular or controversial opinions are what makes a forum, what would the government be without an opposition to keep them honest?

CHARACTER DENIGRATION:

This tactic is also another option; it can be done either subtly or openly maliciously. The subtle method requires that you build your opinion up as being for informed or factual than the “nay sayer” and to undermine the “nay sayer” own information, experience or expertise to give a qualified opinion. The open tactic tends to be more alone the lines of verbal denigration or character judgements or assassinations. The uses of insulting or hurtful personal comments are freely used in this tactic.

PEER PRESSURE AND GROUP MENTALITY:

Yet another tactic is the application of peer pressure. If a number of people can be organised via PMing, then a co-ordinated campaign using multiple character denigration tactics can pressure the “nay sayer” into conforming to the group mentality or at least being pressured into gagging his/her own opinions and thoughts. The group mentality can also be used to imply that the “nay sayer’s” opinion and thoughts are wrong, buy virtue of weight of dissenting opinions. This may include also the use of votes and polls to garner support for their opinion and even censure to the point of deletion. Those pressuring will also support any other who is seen to disagree with the “nay sayer’ on any topic in order to garner maximum support.

HARRASSMENT AND LOST PUPPY SYNDROME:

Another tactic is to continually harass the “nay sayer” either in the open forum or via PM. The intent is the same, to pressure the “nay sayer” into either changing his/her opinions, encourage self gagging or censure, or even departure from the forum altogether. The tactic usually involves continual comments and insinuation on the open forum following any post the “nay sayer” makes, irregardless of if it pertains to the topic opinion that is in dispute. It can include comments up to and including personal denigration. It is also referred to as the lost puppy syndrome due to the way the comments will seem to follow the “nay sayer” around the forum without any topic based validity.

THE LAST SAY:

Another simple tactic used to emphasis the case against the “nay sayer” thoughts and opinions. It is based on the premise that any unchallenged comment especially if the last post must some how be correct due to a lack of response from the “nay sayer”. A simple and sometimes effective tactic.

THE GUILT TRIP:

This tactics is generally used in the later phases of the battle, after other tactics have failed to either censure, kow-tow or ban the miscreant and his/her opinions. This tactic usually requires a melodramatic speech about how they cannot handle the opinions of the “nay sayer” any longer while at the same time aligning themselves with the other members of the Forum, by saying how much they appreciated the comments and opinions of the others. This is also a variation of the peer pressure tactic that allows the indignation of the group to be focused on the “nay sayer” and turns the guilt tripper into a “victim”. Naturally the truth can be clouded by human nature that normally identifies with the “victim”. The guilt tripper will then usually return under another log on name to observe the effect of his/her tactics. In extreme cases, the guilt tripper may claim aggrieved status to the point of hospitalisation or self harm as a result of a “nay sayer” thoughts and opinions.

CONCLUSION:

This is only a brief insight into many of the tactics used on a Forum but does cover most of the common tactics employed. There are more as well as variations, but by observing some forum exchanges you should be able to identify some of the ones I have outlined.

80's
Logged
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!