Creating a list of shill accounts that aren't here in good faith.

submitted by [deleted] from self.debatealtright

I was thinking we should make a definitive list of users who are here to concern troll, shill, spread disinfo, or otherwise aren't posting in good faith. Lately the usual suspects have been very active, it might even be fair to say that they're among the most active posters in the sub, which is why it's important to know who they are.

What are your thoughts on this idea? Alternatively IMO they should just be banned. Even if this is "debatealtright", there's no point entertaining paid shills who repeat the same copy/pasted talking points over and over and fill the subsaidit with their nonsense. This sub is a lot smaller than the old DAR on reddit and for that reason a handful of trolls can make the place unlivable.

all 16 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Radical centrist, lugger, angrybannedredditor, republican58, Salos....

They come to mind. Don't know what they get out of this though. This sub only has a few hundred posters. I don't know the point of harrassing here. No new guy seems to come here as well

[–]Nasser 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Why lugger?

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

He's a neocon who shills for the US military

[–]Airbus320 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

What a bootlicker

[–]aukofthecovenantWhite man with eyes 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

No. We do not want new arrivals to see a wall of shame populated by usernames who asked the same questions they want to ask. We are a "public" face to our movement and should hold ourselves to a higher standard of discourse, i.e. put up with the shills.

[–]antireddit 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Well the problem is that the new arrivals(assuming there even are any) dont know who the shills are. So when someone posts something misleading solely to make people who debate here look extreme, crazed or like assholes, people dont know it.

I dont know about banning them, but I certainly call them out, and to be honest I think nearly all of them are the work of one or two people.

[–]aukofthecovenantWhite man with eyes 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Well the problem is that the new arrivals(assuming there even are any) dont know who the shills are. So when someone posts something misleading solely to make people who debate here look extreme, crazed or like assholes, people dont know it.

We do a pretty good job of staying level-headed with these people as is. I don't see anything that needs to change. It's easy enough to call out the shilling (politely) in the individual threads so that newcomers can learn how to spot them.

[–]SoylentCapitalist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I don't see anything that needs to change.

Newcomers are constantly accused of being alts of shills. People that are here in good faith for genuine debate find a hostile environment as a result. It would be beneficial for the community in my opinion if u/send_nasty_stuff would consider implementing the approved user setting or perhaps requiring a certain account age.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Newcomers are constantly accused of being alts of shills.

I agree this is a bit of a problem and genuine new users might get turned off and not understand that the question they asked is a common shill tactic. However, I don't think an approved user setting would be good for the sub. I will run the idea of an account age option by the other mods though. We had one on reddit and it did help weed out some bad apples.

Might sound strange but lots of new trolls is a good sign. It means the sub is pissing the right people off and getting on the radar. We are all pretty use to trolls and we do ban the obvious ones (I just banned another salos clone account a few minutes ago). I think we just need to continue to be tactful with new accounts and try to help train genuine new users on troll and shill tactics people used in real time.

[–]Chipit 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Node Socks

[–]Talmudstein2 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Salos and Republican58 are definitely bad-faith. The problem isn't necessarily what they say, but rather it's their obvious intent. The fact they also act so similar indicates it is one person behind both.

[–]SamiAlHayyidGrand Mufti Imam Sheikh Professor Al Hadji Dr. Sami al-Hayyid 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

There's at least three that everyone's missing:

AfricanAnger and DoubleReverse (both accounts are inactive).

We even have a literal AHS'er, though I don't think he has commented in this sub:

fruitjack (0fruitjack0 on Reddit), see, for example: https://www.reddit.com/r/AgainstHateSubreddits/comments/mwcr8b/saiditnet_farright_reddit_clone_for_fascists_was/gvhrfc6?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

[–]somewherenear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Soylent (rather unlikely though), radicalcentrist (probable, and if not, just strange), Blork, Salos, RepublicanGuy, fschmidt, NegroSex, Lugger, AngryBannedRedditor, AltAlt and many more

[–]SoylentCapitalist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Soylent (rather unlikely though)

I've been here for over 9 months now, if you have doubts that I'm here in good faith look through my submissions and find a single one that you believe to be in bad faith. Blork3D was my reddit account and my actions which got me banned was over 4 years ago.

[–]TheJamesRocket 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Lugger should be added to the list, and so should the people who upvote him.

[–]Republican58America First! 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why do you think I'm not here in good faith?