A revelation on Shills

Hi all,

I know there have been many claims of users on ATS being called shills which got me to thinking. Is it possible to remove them from the internet at all? Can the shill be prevented?

I thought perhaps there could be a more strenuous registration process? I'm not saying I advocate this by any means but it's an interesting thought. What if we required drivers licenses or state id's or some other documentation? Scanned copies of birth certificates etc.

I realize how this sounds though. We would have to become a shadow of the very frightful forces most of us come on this site to discuss. But think about that! Is that not the very same attitude that creates the 'police' state?

We obviously can't police the members in that fashion. If we attempted who would even go through all that trouble to join?

So then what can we do to combat the shill while still keeping our integrity as propagators of this experience? We must recognize them ourselves. We must take care of how we apply the label. We should really not apply the label at all.

Like the Bigfoot we should all know enough about them to spot them but we should never see evidence of them in the form of others claims.

The reason I'm suggesting this is because the shill claim really has gotten out of hand. We need to know the difference between someone who purposely detracts from a thread and tries to misguide and mislead from someone who has an opinion polar to another's and attempts to justify it.

-HH

reply to post by HumbleHelper

Shills are easy to detect. Too bad we can´t name them since it´s against the site rules... Therefore each one must have the intelligence to detect them for themselves. This is their greatest advantage, since not everyone have the ability to detect them, and therefore fall prey to their shill tactics.

The best way to combat them is to simply to ignore them. If you see me ignoring someone that frequently responds to my threads, you can be pretty sure it´s a shill. Thats all i can say.

there are plenty of other sites that are moderated much more strictly, throwing out the trouble makers promptly, but they end up being much smaller.
ATS is the 'big kahuna' of the conspiracy sites largely because they accept everybody without checking their IP addresses and such, anybody can get on it.
smaller sites being much more strict, many people trying to register find they are considered spammers or something based on ip or email info and are not allowed.
the 'shills' are just part of the attraction around here, somebody that you can screw with.

reply to post by HumbleHelper


Shill is in the eye of the beholder.

If your side of the debate is true and just, then you'll have nothing to worry about. People will be "anti" anything based on the anonymous nature of the intraweb.

Perception can be beaten into any shape. The truth, on the other hand, is a solid foundation that cannot change.

reply to post by NeoVain


Yea, there are some people that are so ravenous about one are two particular topics, its hard to miss them.
Then you have some people that refuse to bend in their opinions, regardless of verified evidence against that opinion, they will always have a canned response to every situation.
I also ignore them.

There is one major source of shills on this site. I will say no more other than the fact that they are sometimes so easy to spot it is quite laughable.

well according to many on ATS I am a “paid shill”

I think the people who make such accusations should be banned from ATS.

Their argument usually goes along these kind of lines, I (or any sane member) debate with them then about 3 or 4 posts in they realise that I know more about the subject than they do, my position is correct as my argument is stronger with a good logical basis and they have no counter argument. This leads to me being called a “ shill”, sometimes unpaid, sometimes paid either by the CIA or the NWO, take your pick.

I am not a shill, there are no shills on ATS.

“Shill” is just a word that the less than intellectual members on ATS like to through around when they have lost an argument. Usually the word shill is used with other insults like “coward”, “troll” or my personal favourite “disinfo agent”. I think that members who use such terms without any proof of these accusations should be treated the same anyone else would be if they were to call someone a “S***head” for example or any other derogatory term.

So yes OP I agree with you we should stop using the term “shill” but not only that I think we should be tougher on those who do use the term.

While your intent is noble, and your idea is interesting, OP, I'm not sure that idea would work well.

I don't think some people would be comfortable giving their IRL documentation to sign up for a conspiracy site, be it this one, or another one.

And what if said conspiracy site was compromised? Like if the feds got a subpoena? What if the site itself was actually an Op run by the government?

And even if this were not the case..... it would not necessarily stop government shills. You don't think people working for the FBI or CIA or NSA or whatever other alphabet agency could forge a few documents to create some puppet accounts?

It's shilling, disinfo, influence, and provocation via account puppetry by agents of the government, that I think gives us the most to fear-- and they are the ones who could probably do it most easily, in any given situation.

if the facts are with you, just show the shill what's up

if they are not, maybe you need to spend your time on something else

To be fair-- I should point out that while "our" government may be one of the most likely to do this, and certainly may have the most to gain, I don't think they're the only ones we would have to worry about.

A foreign govt... say a Russia, or a China, or an Israel, or even a North Korea might try to do something similar. They could have puppets here right now.... or even set up their own english-based conspiracy website, to influence the thought and public opinion of the opposition.

reply to post by HumbleHelper


OP = Please tell us "what is a shill"? I would like a definition that is clear and precise. Thanks - Shill out.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
well according to many on ATS I am a “paid shill”

I think the people who make such accusations should be banned from ATS.

Their argument usually goes along these kind of lines, I (or any sane member) debate with them then about 3 or 4 posts in they realise that I know more about the subject than they do, my position is correct as my argument is stronger with a good logical basis and they have no counter argument. This leads to me being called a “ shill”, sometimes unpaid, sometimes paid either by the CIA or the NWO, take your pick.

I am not a shill, there are no shills on ATS.

“Shill” is just a word that the less than intellectual members on ATS like to through around when they have lost an argument. Usually the word shill is used with other insults like “coward”, “troll” or my personal favourite “disinfo agent”. I think that members who use such terms without any proof of these accusations should be treated the same anyone else would be if they were to call someone a “S***head” for example or any other derogatory term.

So yes OP I agree with you we should stop using the term “shill” but not only that I think we should be tougher on those who do use the term.

Your argument here is about as poor as the ones I've seen you make elsewhere.

There certainly are such things as "shills." Commonly these are used in a commercial sense-- to give positive reviews of products, to seem like that product has great word-of-mouth, and/or to generate traffic to websites, etc etc. I can show you websites where people advertise these services, and where people go to hire such services. There are quite a few of them out there, if you look. Google "paid forum posting" and see what you come up with. Then come back and tell me how shills don't exist.

Further, I think your arguing against shills is a little... well... odd. That either makes you very uninformed and ignorant of the issue, or pushing an agenda-- the idea that shills do not exist. Why would you do that?

I agree with you that many toss this term around lightly, and shouldn't... and that many will throw this out toward anyone who disagrees with them. However, in some cases it is appropriate. And I think most of us here who have studied the issue, and are also familiar with how intelligence Ops work, would not discount the idea that there are "shills" or "disinformation agents" among us. Of course... not everyone is that informed, or clued in on how intelligence works (in any sense of the word ) but you have to wonder, how some people seem so painfully in the dark. Or are they?

reply to post by nerbot


Agreed.

They post misleading articles for example, and when the errors of the article are pointed out, they ignore it and continue to knowingly spread lies.

Worst of all, they get away with it despite being against the T&C's to post material that is false, misleading, or inaccurate.

Originally posted by EequalsMC3
reply to post by HumbleHelper

 

OP = Please tell us "what is a shill"? I would like a definition that is clear and precise. Thanks - Shill out.

edit on 2-2-2013 by EequalsMC3 because: (no reason given)

To be honest with you I have never looked up the term to see how it was defined. But from my own perceptions I would define a shill as someone who, without respect to logic or arguments made, purposefully detracts from, derails, or suppresses posts made in a thread. If you disagree with that or wish to expand though I'm sure my definition isn't perfect.

I would say more to the rest of you posting but I'm just at a loss for words. You all make very valid points and I don't believe there's anything constructive I can add. Perhaps other than a thank you for posting :p

-HH

reply to post by iwilliam


The definition of “shill” usually used on ATS is that the person being accused of being a “shill” is somehow “in on it”, the person being accused of being a “shill” has some invested interest in posting the comments the alleged “shill” is posting this interest is usually financial who seeks to derail the thread, post misinformation or lie for a third party. This term is usually used in a derogatory manor

For example if I post a anti-gun comment I am a shill because I am being paid to post such comments by a anti-gun group. Likewise if I post a comment suggesting 9/11 was not a inside job I am a shill because I have been coherence (usually be financial means) to post such information.

Usually all such accusations are entirely unfounded, the intelligence services have no need to pay anyone to do such a job like this for them as we do it ourselves. As such I think anyone who accuses another member of being a “shill” should be treated like any other member who resorts to posting derogatory terms against other members.

Also I really do not care for what you think of the quality of my posts, I have not seen many of yours so I cannot comment, this is either because you don’t post or because I read your posts and they are so unspectacular I don’t bother to remember them. At least I am making some kind of impression on you that you can at the very least recall my previous posts.

reply to post by HumbleHelper


Thanks - when I hear the term 'shill' I think of carnival barker or front man for the main event going on inside. A shill will do anything necessary to get the people to come inside of the tent. A shill is also an associate (acting the role of front man) of a person selling something, or fronting a political group, who pretends no association to the seller/group and who takes on the air of an enthusiastic customer. The intention of the shill is, using crowd psychology, to encourage others unaware of the set-up to purchase said goods or services or support the political group's ideological claims as an example. Shills are often employed by confidence artists - aka 'con men.'
Also think Three Card Monte

So an internet shill must be in a catergory all his own...........I suppose, hence my reason for asking the question.

As I stated yesterday in another thread, there are no shills/disinfo agents on this site. They aren't needed. If someone on this site uncovered an earthshaking, real world conspiracy it would be ignored by the public at large because it appears alongside theories from People like Icke and Wilcock. Conspiracy theorists are their own worst enemy and as a result the government doesn't need to do anything.

In the end those you assume are shills are simply people with a different opinion. During the lead up to December 21, 2012 I was called a shill numerous times due to my negative views regarding some major event happening. In the end we didn't ascend and the world didn't end. I wasn't a shill I was simply someone who disagreed with those who thought I was a shill. So the next time you think someone is a shill simply because they think differently from you maybe you should actually see if they present a rational and logical counter argument.

i thought , that we were not to use or discuss the word "shill" on ATS , i recall a MOD making a thread on it ? anyone else recall this ?

reply to post by LightningStrikesHere


You're not supposed to call people shills directly. The mods see it as an ad hominem and name calling and I have to agree with them. No one has ever used the term shill on this site in Aristide manner and no one has ever proved another person is a shill. As a result it just comes across as "going after the player and not the ball."

Originally posted by NeoVain
Shills are easy to detect.

I beg to differ. I'm pretty sure the people you think are shills, are just people with different viewpoints than yours.
No, I would bet that the real shills are extremely difficult to pinpoint.