Re: [atlarge-discuss] Stop Further "Work..."

["J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@club-internet.fr>]

On 13:19 20/06/03, Walter Schmidt said:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin wrote:
> I would hope you can take steps that would stop or even prevent anyone 
> from doing "work" on our group, on a going forward basis, WITHOUT FIRST 
> having received authorization to do so, or having prior-received or 
> perceived authorization reaffirmed by you.
> I would hope...
Dear Walter,
a few groups are at works to negatively affect what one may try to develop 
through GA, WG-Review, NCC, ALAC, icannatlarge. We know some of amateurish 
ones for a long, such as the Crispy Crockets. We know some individual 
trolls. These ones can be addressed in suspending them. Or in turning them 
to trash.

Professionals are at work on these same groups for information purposes. 
Newsmen and freelance reporters (like seemingly Claude Thielet) or 
sociologists (like the people from the Berkman Institute). Others are 
people developing community tools, trying to understand from our own 
endeavors which products we would need and they could develop and sell for 
debating, voting, deciding, etc..

Others are organized lobbyists. Some publish it in the open, such like 
Jamie Love or Hans Klein, some are openly organized in associations, 
democratic centers, etc. but their members do not necessarily disclose the 
party they belong to. All these people are at work on your group, and on 
many other groups. They are considered as democratic because they do not do 
it in a voluntary hiding.

To stop them is to stop the debate or close the list. To control them has a 
name: censorship.

These two solutions have never prevented and even increased what another 
class of people do. In our cyberworld where we do not meet f2f or hear 
others, their intox vector or saturation solution is brainspamming. To 
influence you through the repetition of their propositions in quantity or 
in force and to lead you until you adopt their position or you stop 
"braining". This is a new brainwashing technic of our time. Working at 
brainware level (on the noosphere of the group).

As any other group of influence, their target is to impeach groups to go 
anywhere or another way than the one they want. There are several technics 
we all know but we miss the analyzing tools to realize we are subject to 
them. An alarm indicator. The USG is currently implementing GEWIZ as an 
alarm against DoS by bandwidth saturation, we need the same type of 
indicator against DoT (Denial of Thinking by brain saturation).

There are probably many technics we have to uncover, list, document. We can 
think of those we know well. For example to trigger someone on a particular 
issue, in starting thread totally out of a then  important current context 
- and then to fuel it by appropriate discreet or private mails; or in 
maintaining totally out of context threads, overwhelming the readers with 
often childish artificial issues; or in documenting erroneous 
positions/matters again and again (ex. alt-roots), bickering, ad hominem 
cases. etc

With time and experience some of these technics are computer assisted, like 
managing a sales force for example. This permits one person or a few 
persons to better disrupt or manipulate the action of a large group. To 
impeach election, to delay what is organized, to cast doubt on the results, 
to identify and fight the opponents to disruption. etc. One of the tools 
are clones. Because they give the feeling that the "crowd" is with them. 
Also because in this cyberworld (meaning that we know by feedback) if we 
have two strong feedbacks (relations with two clones) we will have a real 
feeling of relating with two persons, even if we perfectly know there is 
only one person. We are in a role game.

Technically we are in an onion "me/we" model: 
mine/me/we/friends/others/foreigners/intruders/invaders. The target of a 
manipulator is to enter the "mine" that netiquette makes the most respected 
thing. To know private things on "e-mails" to be able to hurt or destroy 
them (we known some examples in here recently). If possible to store that 
info and to use it out of context at an appropriate time. Computers do not 
forgive because they have hardware memories. People change, people believe 
different things as time and life flows. Computers stay the same and oppose 
people their worst enemy: themselves. So easy to play with that. If 
possible, out of context. With totally incompetent scores of prosecutors 
fighting on words rather than on underlying facts.

We have different type of people we know well. The "we" layer is friendly. 
"friends" we have many: the lurkers (they are those to saturate first and 
make to leave); "others" are ALAC, foreigners are non-ICANN people (few 
chances they come in), "intruders" are members/non members poping in at 
times, not to build but to agress. Usually individuals. What we really are 
concerned about are the "invaders". By nature they are organized, use/ally 
with intruders and trigger many in various ways (pride, personal feuds, 
misunderstandings, etc. and probably now I think: money) . They are groups 
with doctrine, procedures, bases and tools.

Their system has a flaw. As any brain force (party, sales force, etc.) 
which uses auto evaluation tools and methods: the exposure of the method 
and the publication of evaluation scores. Because people become protected 
in knowing the details of the threat. If you go to Car Show uninformed 
about sales methods you would buy 10 cars a day. This is the same thing we 
need in groups. To have a tool (or tools) permitting a "weather forecast" 
of a list, the same as a leading manipulator has the score of hs troups and 
allies.

Which contributions have brought something, probably not, disrupted, what 
is the monthly total of each, what are the evolutions, etc ? This is 
complex because disrupters only watch their own troops for only one 
objective: to disrupt or to force the thinking into one direction. If we do 
not want to start unlimited and stupid witch hunts, one has to be over 
cautious and to leave control of their indicators to everyone.

Today we have warning on spamm, on bad wording, on priorities etc. on our 
mail systems. We should also have brainspamming factors and anti 
brainspamming tools. Sending to trash is too simplistic because it does not 
tell you the pressure others are submitted to.

@large is a real partner of the Internance. icannatlarge is to control. 
ICANNers and many others start understanding it. The stakes are rising. So 
are the efforts/money(?) spent on us. ICANNers and others have secured an 
alternative solution to a bottom-up community, now they want to kill the 
bottom-up action. We have wasted one year with that, having our supposed 
Chair, bluntly becoming the Chair of the "enemy" and trying his best to 
impeach his replacement. Dont tell me we are in a peacefull environement 
:-). We may forget it, but this is where we come from: I was the only one 
saying "no" and building against an incredible noise. Why? We all know the 
budget to contain us 2 years ago: $ 250.000.

Our Panel is probably technically secure in term of illegal influence (for 
the reasons I gave earlier) but realistically it is not, we all know it, in 
term of practical influence. The contradiction between the responses to 
questions and the positions of some of the elected people are real: the 
bullet vote thread was probably one of the reason why. It is brain vs brain 
fight :-). Netocracy is just in its infancy.

I happen to think it is worth fighting for it.
jfc


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de