Path: not-for-mail
From: Evil Fantasies <badgirl_inblack@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.sex.stories.d
Subject: Re: {ASSD} For your edification I present The Invasion FAQ of A.S.T.
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 17:11:45 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 158
Message-ID: <1127607105.303742.133470@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
References: <dh4m9p$rvk$0@pita.alt.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 152.163.101.6
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1127607110 3446 127.0.0.1 (25 Sep 2005 00:11:50 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 00:11:50 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <dh4m9p$rvk$0@pita.alt.net>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; AOL 8.0; Windows 98; ESB{B02C3C80-E344-11D8-BB5B-0000F8021E5D}; .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via: HTTP/1.1 Turboweb [rtc-tf054 8.3.3], HTTP/1.0 rtc-ae02[98A36506] (Traffic-Server/5.3.8 [uScM])
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=152.163.101.6; posting-account=7i3xvA0AAABWezjXlYyFkQxR3rN2Dgf0
===================
Evil Fantasies wrote:
> Gentle posters of ASSD:
>
> I'm sure by now you've got a pretty good handle on who here constitutes
> 'Wave One'.
>
> But what you really need to do is ferret out who amongst you was really
> part of our 'RECON' team before 'Wave Two' arrives.
>
> And all hale 'Wave Three', for it hace graetniss!!!!1!
>
>
> The Invasion FAQ of A.S.T.
>
>
> Although not exactly a FAQ, this file is more of an explanation of why
> alt.syntax.tactical and the tactical-list were created. It also lays
> down the foundation for the structure, strategy, and protocol of USENET
> invasions.
>
>
> * Invasion *
>
> Each of us brings our own reasons, backgrounds and motivations into this
> scheme. What is important is that each individual brings into this their
> own brand of inspired mischief. In some ways it is completely innocent.
> In some ways it is completely destructive.
>
> Anyone can walk into alt.sex and post that pornography should be banned.
> Anyone can walk into rec.sport.baseball and say "baseball sucks". It
> takes unbelievable skill and discipline to cause a PROLONGED flame war.
> That is what we do. But it can only be done with talent, and numbers to
> match that talent. We only bring into the fold people who have the knack
> to use smarts to incite chaos, not stupidity to incite being ignored
> when people see a post and know what you're up to.
>
> To keep things running smoothly, Antebi is our 'moderator'. jpdavid was
> responsible for creating the mailing-list and setting up the initial
> newsgroup. Everyone is equal in suggesting and voting on invasion sites
> and other basic day-to-day workings of the group. Everyone here gains or
> loses merit only in the invasion arena.
>
>
> * Waves of Invasion *
>
>
> Flames and wars between groups are as old as Usenet. What we try to do
> is in many ways fundamentally different from what is or has been done in
> this area.
>
> After picking a site, we call for an invasion on that site. There are a
> number of phases to an invasion. Each person can volunteer for which
> wave they want to be in, but more times than not, it is a first
> come-first served policy. It is always important that no one jump the
> gun and go in before we have time to prepare and bounce ideas off each
> other. It's also important that people don't switch waves without
> letting everyone know. Flexibility is the key, as is communication.
>
> Typically, we use between two and five Waves of attack. Waves will
> generally break down into this kind of structure:
>
> a: Reconnaissance (RECON): These people will go in early and usually
> set up camp as "friends of the newsgroup". They will become trusted and
> participate by joining previous discussions or starting
> non-controversial ones themselves. They will also act as "double-agents"
> to counter-flame the other waves as the invasion progresses. They key is
> building a bit of credibility.
>
> b: Wave One: Wave one will usually be what starts the flame war.
> Those involved in this wave can go on and each have a different flame,
> or go on and flame in unison. They can bring in a subject of their own
> or flame a previous discussion. What matters is that this initial wave
> will be the one that the invaded newsgroup will have their attention on.
> This wave calls for extreme subtlety. The quality of the flame MUST be
> at its highest point here.
>
> c: Wave Two: Wave Two will consist of tactics to attack the people who
> were sent in as recon and attempt to start totally new flame threads.
> The key here is that even if we attack a group of people restrained
> enough to resist our flame-bait, wave two will stir things up and get
> others to join in.
>
> d: Wave Three: Wave three will generally change depending on the
> campaign, but will generally be added to push the confusion and chaos
> over the top. Flame the recon, flame the first wave, flame the second
> wave. These guys are our balls out, rude SOB's. Mop up and clean out.
>
> Sometimes (usually with bigger groups) Wave three will simply be along
> the lines of a wave two. We will call for a wave four (or five) to be
> the balls out routine. We will sometimes add a wave or two because
> depending on the size and intelligence of a newsgroup.
>
> Miscellaneous Tactics:
>
> There are three other things that we typically use, depending on
> the sophistication of the invasion.
>
> LOOSE CANNONS are people who come in and act so strange and obtuse that
> it makes the rest of the flames look genuine.
>
> THE ANON SERVICE can be used to send posts anonymously. This is a good
> way to post and pretend to be scared of retribution. Only problem is
> that this is usually the first sign that a post is a flame, so it should
> only be used with a TREMENDOUS amount of DISCRETION.
>
> CROSS POSTING is also a popular method of choice by other flame groups,
> so it is important to Cross Post with discretion. If we can cross post
> to bring in other newsgroups to unwittingly assist us, perfect. If we
> cross post to suspicious newsgroups, our intentions will be obvious.
>
> * Victory *
>
> Ideally, signs of victory are the following:
>
> o Our names appear in killfiles
> o Majority or ALL threads in invaded newsgroup were started by us
> o Regulars/legit people abandon invaded newsgroup
> o Receive much hate mail - as does our SysAdmin
> o To be reprimanded by the glorious SysAdmin
>
> * Notes *
>
> Most important is the need to be SUBTLE when it is required. One
> misplaced post can ruin it for the rest of us. Those of you who have
> participated in widespread flame wars know the feeling of having a
> newsgroup going for a long time, then someone posts an obvious flame or
> something so far out of context, that everyone says to just ignore the
> flames, which eventually includes all of us. Blowing a flame war will
> occasionally happen, but if it could have been avoided with a little
> thinking, then it's not as excusable.
>
> We've got to share duties. Everyone should get practice playing
> different roles and different waves.
>
> It has been assumed that if you don't want to participate, fine. No one
> will hold it against you. What is expected is that if you don't want to
> participate you don't have to, but that also means that you wont go
> warning that newsgroup when an invasion happens. You will close your
> eyes and turn a blind eye. NO NEWSGROUP IS OFF LIMITS!!!!!!
>
> Another thing many people seem to be talking about are SIGS AND NAMES.
> Try to take on appropriate names. If you are on alt.rap, D.J. Trouble is
> not going to stir things up...if you show up on soc.culture.physics with
> that name, you're caught before your first word of text. If a Sig is
> going to blow your cover, lose it.
>
> --
>
> I am the Black Sheep Fucker of ASSD
And what a clever Troll you are by putting a "1" in the e-mail addy.
*eyeroll*
You win. "Uncle" There ... satisfied? Now get the fuck out of here.
I'm growing tired of this moronic crap.