What follows is a quote from a known troll site.
Don't get played like a two dollar banjo.
The following is the old alt.syntax.tactical (master trollers who make
> it their life's work to destroy as many groups as they can. They
> consider a group destroyed when more than three quarters of the threads
> on a group have been started by them and the group is unusable for
> normal traffic) foundation for the structure, strategy, and protocol of
> simple USENET invasions. I have decided to publish it here because it
> gives good insight on the complexity of a good troll attack. Many of the
> tactics descrived here can be applied, mutatis mutandis to any sort of
> "lone wolf" action you may want to stage on your own. Seekers should
> know all sort of techniques, least they may suddendly need them (or need
> to recognize them) in some obscure corners of the web. * 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 messageboard, we call for an invasion on that msgbrd.
> 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:
>
> * Our names appear in killfiles
> * Majority or ALL threads in invaded newsgroup were started by us
> * Regulars/legit people abandon invaded newsgroup
> * Receive much hate mail - as does our SysAdmin
> * 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 AND NO MESSAGEBOARD 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.
>
Regards, Tom Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
formatting link