And you all thought I was a psychotic bad-tempered paranoid.

Hobbes

Another term I have heard for these people are WOMBATS.

Shabadu

Word of Mouth Bullshit Artists that suck?

Freelancer

DeVore wrote:

We can man the barricades.

Firstly we dont get a lot of this because I've made damned sure that the downside to getting caught is as bad as I can make it. Esat lost a Director I believe over their incident.

When someone like this is found we ban the company from ever being referred to again, denying them any future possibility of the "oxygen of publicity" to use Ms Thatchers words.

We make it very public, very angry and as malicious as feasible. Make sure everyone knows they used these underhand tactics where possible. Kill the customers of these sorts of scum companies and they will die as a result. Unfortunately we're still a small boat on a big pond. All the same, we can make it extremely risky for a company to use these types of tactics (why do you think they hire an intermediary, they don't want to be connected directly to such tactics themselves). The best thing we can do IS to connect them, publically with what they have had done on their behalf.

Hit them where it hurts, if they are trying to promote a product, we boycott it. We out them, publically. We humiliate them and/or in the worst cases instigate online activists tactics. Mail bomb the CEO, put a No-X image in your sig highlighting the events, make someone somewhere squirm and make sure everyone knows it.

I once used Usenet until Canter and Siegel (look them up) initiated the first spam. At the time complacancy reigned as we looked with awe upon what was being built and presumed nothing could stop it. That was 15 years ago and Usenet by and large is a wasteground of viagra spam with pockets of users but so few in number that it became cost-uneffective to spam them. Their own growth was what attracted these parasites just as the growth of online communities is attracting them now.

Back then spam was spam, you could tell it a mile off.
Now the tools we have (like my personal favourite, Reason[tm] )make it easy to spot and scrub spammers. Bots are foiled by pattern recognition images, scripts make cleaning it all up less then 12 clicks.
But just as we have improved our arsenal of weapons so Darwinnian theory has kicked in and they have evolved more and more cunning ways to counter us. Its a classic arms race.

If you think I'm being melodramatic about this, couching it in the language of war you are wrong. We're already at war. They are clearly organised, unrepentant, determined and aware that we are resistent and unwilling targets. Read their site and realise they are prepared to fight for your "eyeballs".

DeV.

Seriously is no one else getting a serious hairs on the back of a your neck, churchill vibe of all of this? You're a whisker away from "we will fight them on the beaches" talk.

To the poster who said this is a over-reaction, how exactly am I supposed to trust the opinion of another poster if this is tolerated? Advertising is insidious, it should if it is to be inflicted upon us be honest. I am bombared with pimp's hawking their wares on billboards on the radio, on tv, in the car, on clothes, I do not think it is honest or acceptable for advertisers try to dishonestly hawk their wares without admitting that they are paid to do it. Otherwise I will become suspicious of anyone trying to give an honest opinion about something.

DeVore, you're some chainmail and a broadsword short of the St Crispins day speech...

Hobart

Freelancer wrote:

Seriously is no one else getting a serious hairs on the back of a your neck, churchill vibe of all of this? You're a whisker away from "we will fight them on the beaches" talk.

To the poster who said this is a over-reaction, how exactly am I supposed to trust the opinion of another poster if this is tolerated? Advertising is insidious, it should if it is to be inflicted upon us be honest. I am bombared with pimp's hawking their wares on billboards on the radio, on tv, in the car, on clothes, I do not think it is honest or acceptable for advertisers try to dishonestly hawk their wares without admitting that they are paid to do it. Otherwise I will become suspicious of anyone trying to give an honest opinion about something.

DeVore, you're some chainmail and a broadsword short of the St Crispins day speech...

I'm not. Trust nobody where trust is needed on an internet forum, with email etc... I don't. I won't get all panicky when I see shills at work. I form my own opinion, and when I need somebody else's, I get it from somebody I trust tbh. It's bad form allright, but hardly the end of the world.

DeVore

FReelancer, yep. I pretty much cover that in my last paragraph. You either fight for your space on the web or if you tolerate this then your website will be next....


DeV.

Stabshauptmann

Freelancer wrote:

Seriously is no one else getting a serious hairs on the back of a your neck, churchill vibe of all of this? You're a whisker away from "we will fight them on the beaches" talk.

To the poster who said this is a over-reaction, how exactly am I supposed to trust the opinion of another poster if this is tolerated? Advertising is insidious, it should if it is to be inflicted upon us be honest. I am bombared with pimp's hawking their wares on billboards on the radio, on tv, in the car, on clothes, I do not think it is honest or acceptable for advertisers try to dishonestly hawk their wares without admitting that they are paid to do it. Otherwise I will become suspicious of anyone trying to give an honest opinion about something.

DeVore, you're some chainmail and a broadsword short of the St Crispins day speech...

That would be me.

I tried to throw in the other side of the arguement.
A)Companies need to advertise. You actually benifit from this whether you realise or acknowledge it is irrelevant.

B)If the company has a wothwhile product people will use it, if not the shill has wasted maybe 5 mins of their time. But if it is worthwhile, even though you've been duped, you get somethiing you need/want. Hence A.

C)Yes, its a betrayal of confidence, but its not new really, marketers use many techniques to build unjustified confidence and take advatage of it. Lots of subtle tricks that if explained wont work. While this is a bad thing, I believe ppl are over reacting to this specific revalation and am scared of what would happen if they knew more.

That was just trying to add some bit of balance to the thread. It is dishonest, but alls fair in love and war

rsynnott

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

That would be me.

I tried to throw in the other side of the arguement.
A)Companies need to advertise. You actually benifit from this whether you realise or acknowledge it is irrelevant.

B)If the company has a wothwhile product people will use it, if not the shill has wasted maybe 5 mins of their time. But if it is worthwhile, even though you've been duped, you get somethiing you need/want. Hence A.

C)Yes, its a betrayal of confidence, but its not new really, marketers use many techniques to build unjustified confidence and take advatage of it. Lots of subtle tricks that if explained wont work. While this is a bad thing, I believe ppl are over reacting to this specific revalation and am scared of what would happen if they knew more.

That was just trying to add some bit of balance to the thread. It is dishonest, but alls fair in love and war

No. It's not okay. It's deceitful. Are you aware that the ASAI forbids false testimonies?

damien

rsynnott wrote:

No. It's not okay. It's deceitful. Are you aware that the ASAI forbids false testimonies?

In theory yes, in reality they are funded by the advertisers and the biggest advertisers dictate how they rule on complaints.

rsynnott

One thing we do badly here; in some places, it's illegal.

stevenmu

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

B)If the company has a wothwhile product people will use it, if not the shill has wasted maybe 5 mins of their time. But if it is worthwhile, even though you've been duped, you get somethiing you need/want. Hence A.

If it's worthwhile, why do we need to be duped ?

Zaph0d

DeVore wrote:

They destroyed Usenet. They have wrecked email. Complacency will allow them to insinuate themselves into our communities unless there is a strong negative, monetary-damaging response from the very communities they are seeking to weasel their way into.

Everyone with opinions can be accused of pursuing an agenda whether philosophical, religious, political or in this case commercial. It's quite a leap to conclude that commercially biased posters pose a destructive threat to forums.

PR shills didn't destroy Usenet. It was unmoderated spam and generally Stupid People™. The mods are pretty efficient at eliminating spam but I can't think of anything you can do about the dummies. The talk of the stupid is like a burden on a long journey as someone once said.

I'd prefer to be taken in any day by a slick tongued PR shyster than have to read the thoughts of a txt spking cretin with ideas parotted from the Daily Star. I get that for free every time I take a taxi.

DeVore

How will the mods be able to distinguish this form of spam from genuine comment? What happens when every second post is a WOMBAT (love that term)? Its not the one or two that I mind, its the flood gates opening and this becoming standard marketing practise on the internet. Its like being befriended by someone and getting to know them only to find out that they have been paid to suggest you buy carlsberg or heineken when you are out for a night out together. You might like Carlsberg or Heineken, it wont stop you feeling betrayed and hurt that you've been duped. Perhaps you wont trust people quite so much the next time.

Thats the real insidious damage they do, they destroy any sort of trust or ability to rely on opinions of people you have come to respect. Then ALL respected people become questionable in your eyes.

Either way, if I find them here, they're dead. And I will go after the company that hired them too and do what I can to hurt them financially.

DeV.

DeVore

ps: I really can't believe you are defending this practise as ok Kaptain Redeye. I can't believe that you find it morally or ethically ok to lie for a living given the forum you moderate.

DeV.

Talliesin

Zaph0d wrote:

Everyone with opinions can be accused of pursuing an agenda whether philosophical, religious, political or in this case commercial. It's quite a leap to conclude that commercially biased posters pose a destructive threat to forums.

If you are familiar enough with my posts that you would consider trying a product on my recommendation, then that is because you have an idea of my biases and are in agreement with them.

You could just as easily say something like "well, I'm not reading that book given the crap he seems to like".

Fair enough either way. Shills attempt to deliberately mislead in this way.

Hobart

Talliesin wrote:

If you are familiar enough with my posts that you would consider trying a product on my recommendation, then that is because you have an idea of my biases and are in agreement with them.

You could just as easily say something like "well, I'm not reading that book given the crap he seems to like".

Fair enough either way. Shills attempt to deliberately mislead in this way.

But is that not exactly the point. Is the net reliable for anything that is opinion based? I would think not.

Ok I can see the argumenmt against shills etc... and their methods. And yes they are deplorable. But why would you trust the net for an actual opinion that mattered? Does it not go against everything we have been thought about the web?

Stabshauptmann

DeVore wrote:

ps: I really can't believe you are defending this practise as ok Kaptain Redeye. I can't believe that you find it morally or ethically ok to lie for a living given the forum you moderate.

DeV.

TBH I dont. But the core tennet of my belief system is balance and this is a one sided thread. I reject all absoluted and so I suppose Im playing devils advocate.

Not that its in any way relevant to this thread, but over on the UCD forum theres a thread in which everyone in the SU must post and be branded. Im not in or involved with the SU, and nobody in the SU so far has had a problem with posting in the thread, but Im objecting to it.

I used to post in politics defending SF/IRA

It might seem I just a cranky asshole who finds fault with everything, or only happy when Im arguing but if a thread or debate is balanced I give my own opinion if interested or avoid it. Its only if the thread is completely one sided Ill pick the unprepresented side. I guess I just like being the lone voice of dissent :rolleyes:

If it's worthwhile, why do we need to be duped ?:p

Marketers are finding it harder and harder to grab ppls attentions nowadays

boardy

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

TBH I dont. But the core tennet of my belief system is balance and this is a one sided thread. I reject all absoluted and so I suppose Im playing devils advocate.

I think that some of us knew that you were just playing the devil's advocate, which is a good thing because one-sided threads get warped.

There is the notion that as long as someone benefits from spam or shills, then it should be allowed e.g. the 6 people out of a million who clicks on the link to buy Viagra in an unsolicited e-mail.

rsynnott

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Marketers are finding it harder and harder to grab ppls attentions nowadays

Do you actually think that's a valid excuse? "Ooh, it's hard to grap people's attention; forget about that whole truth in advertising thing"

Freelancer

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Marketers are finding it harder and harder to grab ppls attentions nowadays

Yeah and I hear brand loyality is harder to build, catch em kids early and you have 'em for life, which is why wombs are now coming with branded, and jingles are being pumped in through tiny sub woofers.

I can't believe you've this pretense of playing devils adovcate and coming out with this sort of nonsense its like saying;

"Those pesky insurgents are getting much harder to kill, which is why it's okay to use cluster bombs."

If the product is so good, I don't, and the company doesn't, need some shill to hawk it's wares dishonestly. Spare me the pretense that this is just some new form of viral marketing, it's dishonest, invasive, reprehensible, and cheapens forums such as this.

Stabshauptmann

Heres the vicious cycle as I see it between the consumer and producer

1.People need and want goods and services
2.These goods and services need to be advertised and marketed
3.People dont want to be advertised or marketed to.
4.People still want goods and services though
5.Organisations market goods without the consumers knowledge.
6.Consumer and company are happy.
7.Consumer finds out he was manipulated and is hurt.
8.Consumer still wants goods and services.
9.Consumer still doesnt want to be the subject of marketing
10.Company finds new way of marketing

Why cant companys simply market in a responsible, honest and ethical way?
Because its increasingly less effective.
But if the consumer doesnt want to be marketed to shouldnt we accept that?
We could, if the consumer didnt have the paradixical desire for the results of marketing - increasing numbers and variety of goods and services with continuous improvement.

Marketing is like vegetables or medicine to a child, good for them but they dont want it.

If I could only make 3 points
a)Marketing is an economic necccessity which benifits society
b)The current "shill" business is no more manipulative than what went before
c)The consumer is a big hypocrite and the need for this form of marketing is a direct and natural progression from the childish and short sighted nature of the post-modern consumer

If you think you would be ok with marketing if it wasnt so in your face, you're in a minority and the intensity or marketing is directly related to the variety and diversity of the market offerings available.
If the consumer wants less advertising and less intrusive techniques then the cost is fewer goods in total, fewer types of goods and higher prices

If you think a good product sells iteslf then I think you are unaware of the level of market saturation and the difficulty of reaching a stubbern and insulated consumer

Chinafoot

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Not that its in any way relevant to this thread, but over on the UCD forum theres a thread in which everyone in the SU must post and be branded. Im not in or involved with the SU, and nobody in the SU so far has had a problem with posting in the thread, but Im objecting to it.

I used to post in politics defending SF/IRA

It might seem I just a cranky asshole who finds fault with everything, or only happy when Im arguing but if a thread or debate is balanced I give my own opinion if interested or avoid it. Its only if the thread is completely one sided Ill pick the unprepresented side. I guess I just like being the lone voice of dissent :rolleyes:

So basically you are arguing for the sake of argument?

In relation to your UCD reference....like the issue at hand in this thread, its about honesty. Its about coming clean about your motivations and affiliations in order to allow for that balanced argument that you care so much about.

rsynnott

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Marketing is like vegetables or medicine to a child, good for them but they dont want it.

Please explain, giving evidence, exactly how the practice we see here, deceiving people, is in any way good for them. It is good for the company that makes the product, but at the expense of another company who would otherwise have captured that disposable income, thus total effect on the economy is presumably negligible.

Tell me, do you have any vested interest here? Are you a marketer?

And the SU thing in the UCD board is a good idea. I can't help feeling something similar on the TCD board would be helpful.

Freelancer

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

If you think you would be ok with marketing if it wasnt so in your face, you're in a minority and the intensity or marketing is directly related to the variety and diversity of the market offerings available.
If the consumer wants less advertising and less intrusive techniques then the cost is fewer goods in total, fewer types of goods and higher prices

If you think a good product sells iteslf then I think you are unaware of the level of market saturation and the difficulty of reaching a stubbern and insulated consumer

Bollocks pure and simple.

I am also a student of marketing (hey we all have our dirty little secrets), to suggest we are ignorant of the trials n tribilations of a project life cycle is arrogant.

You, sir are essentially trying to dress up the dishonest snake oil salesman routine as genuine honest salesmanship (mind you an oxymoron if there ever was on).

You know you've seen the westerns;

---

Snake oil sales man

"Why I swear this product will cure gout, blindness, reutism, inflamation of the groin, and other ailements......why you there sir"

Shill

"Me sir?"

Salesman

"Yes you, I ever seen you before in my life?"

Shill
"No sir"

Salesman
"Well son try this!'

Shill
*Swallow*

"Why I declare, I'm as fertile as a spring goat"

---

To hide these companies behaviour behind lingo and marketing slang, is to hide the truth, and you sir are no better than the snake oil salesmen doing it, to try and and hide your defense as some poor man's "devil's adovcate" is a weak defense. I suggest you hang up your belt as sheriff of spirituality, you seem ill equiped for such a position.

DeVore

There are shades of grey in many arguments and discussions. But recently its become increasingly popular to live in moral quandry with no up down left or right. There are shades of grey but there is still Black and there is still White.

What you are saying is that in a thread about a brutal violent rape you'd feel the need to jump in and say "well the guy was dyin' for a shag, and tbh he's attempting to increase the population". Now thats a ridiculously extreme analgog but its just a more extreme version of what you are saying, that you are never going to say "yep, their right, the guys a bastard" because you need to play Devils Advocate to the bitter end? Seriously??
Personally I prefer to nail some colours to the mast where I feel they are warranted rather then simply argue counter points I don't even believe in all day long.

DeV.

stevenmu

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

If the consumer wants less advertising and less intrusive techniques then the cost is fewer goods in total, fewer types of goods and higher prices

In my experience marketing often leads to worse products. Marketers set arbitrary release dates and product specifications based on how they want to sell a product, forcing the people who actually produce the product to focus their time on ticking off boxes on the buzzword checklist instead of creating the solid product consumers want. This is evidenced throughout the entire software industry, with half finished products being released with features no one cares about but advertising convinces people they need them anyway. I'm sure the same applies to many other industries.

Marketers also don't give 2 f*cks about what consumers actually want and instead focus there energies on convincing people to buy whatever it is that they want to sell, the fashion industry being a perfect example of this.

Nevyn

Look people this is the internet anything is possible.
Really who would pay real money for virtual pretend money for an online game ?
Really who would pay reall money for someones online game account to play a high end char rather then create and spend time on thier own ?
Really who would pay real money for a virtual item in a online game or kill some one over such a thing ?

People have already been offered money for thier boards.ie account,
what next how much money would you take if you had an established account and were walking away from boards to hand it over to a shiller ?
Or how much money if you were in a tight spot and were disillusioned with boards,ie to be come a shiller ?

Boards has become so big we are no long in a posistion to have meet most of the people or have meet a person who knows the people who post in the the same general boards as we do.

That is the reason the general sub communites and private communites have thier own forums.

It is the internet and anything can happen,
boards.ie has a policy against blantant pimping but a tolerance about what people but in thier sig to a degree but the same way we see the danish flag
in a lot of sigs what if it was xbox 360 or clearasil ?

This post is brought to you also with the recemendation of product X it is wonderfull for thrush and it's sister product Y for vaginal dryness not that I suffer from either of them but I hear they are very good. My sister who I don't get on with uses them

DeVore

Just nailed another one on the Poker forum. I'm going to collect a few of these links and put them in our welcome message along with the authentication link so that they have been given fair warning. Kinda like a head on a spike. "Boards Bites Back!"

DeV.

Stark

monument

Anyone hear about the free bottle of wine being offered to Irish blogers a while back (not any more btw)?

http://www.gapingvoid.com/Moveable_Type/archives/001646.html

DeVore wrote:

How will the mods be able to distinguish this form of spam from genuine comment? What happens when every second post is a WOMBAT (love that term)?

I've found my self asking the same question on the games boards more and more in the past year, but usually put it down to fanboys for the sake of my sanity.

Hagar

Thaedydal wrote:

People have already been offered money for thier boards.ie account,

Have I mentioned my wife makes a tasty selection of Viking goats cheeses?