To wonder how MNHQ know someone is a troll?

[SomeoneStoleMySausageRoll]

I have name changed for this but I was thinking about this earlier...how do they know that someone isn't genuine and is a troll?

Obviously they're not going to tell us (hence why I didn't post this in site stuff) but that doesn't mean I can't ponder, right?

Are they wizards? Do they use magic to find out?

Seriously though, I assume that they check IP addresses and e-mail addresses and names registered with. And compare them against posters who have been banned before. They might also look for a theme in the posts.

But what if it's someone brand new who has never posted before...would they just assume troll in that case?

Dare I ask it, is it possible they might get it wrong sometimes ? And would they admit to this if they realised their mistakes afterwards?

[LineRunner]

They don't divulge the detail as it would allow trolls to refine their techniques.

[NorwaySpruce]

It doesn't really matter, does it.

What it comes down to is that if the owners don't want/like something on their site, they'll just remove it.

Troll, or just unwanted.

[flapjackattack]

It's got to be a bit of detective work, checking back for inconsistencies, noticing a tendency to post towards the inflammatory/ to get a reaction. But presumably a bit like weeding. (they are all plants, so a bit of a tough decision is required).

[Gobbolinothewitchscat]

Why have you name changed to post! Genuinely

[DoughnutSelfie]

They won't tell, quite right too.

I like to imagine that MNHQ have Magic Powers, whoooOoooo

[Stealthpolarbear]

They consult the idiot's guide to trolls

[DoughnutSelfie]

Yes WHY the namechange to ask an innocuous q?

Or are you being DISINGENUOUS?

[SomeoneStoleMySausageRoll]

Why have you name changed to post! Genuinely

Tbh no real reason why. I just like to name change. I get bored of the same NN very quickly. And I like change

FWIW I like tto think it's done by magic too.

[BeyondTheLimits]

TSSDNCOP...

[SomeoneStoleMySausageRoll]

Well that explains everything .

[Sarkymare]

They do get it wrong sometimes. I remember a few months ago a lady was banned because 'MNHQ had some concerns' I can't remember exactly what she posted but it was something to do with a child she had recently lost.

She came back on a new account and had to prove to HQ that she was genuinely telling the truth Before her old account was reinstated. It must have been awful for her.

[ILovePud]

The big warty nose, hairy toes and email accounts @underthebridge . I guess it's just an educated guess, I'm often suspicious of 'controversial' first posts. I'm intrigued too, why did you name change for this?

[ILovePud]

What does that mean BeyondTheLimits? I can never work out the acronyms people use

[SomeoneStoleMySausageRoll]

I'm intrigued too, why did you name change for this?

I've already answered. It wasn't really specifically for this iyswim even though I said it was. It just seemed like a good time to do it. I wanted a new NN now after all.

[SomeoneStoleMySausageRoll]

Sarkymare I think I remember that thread.

[HighwayDragon]

The Secret Service Do Not Comment On Procedure.

fyi, they don't always get it right.

[Sarkymare]

someone it was horrible. I felt so bad for her. Having to actually prove that her child had died just so she could receive some advice. The whole situation was dealt with appallingly.

[SomeoneStoleMySausageRoll]

Sarkymare that's why I asked whether they would ever admit to making a mistake if they realised afterwards.

I'm a member of another forum and there is a regular member there who claims she was banned from here for being a troll when she asked for some advice and support. She insists she wasn't trolling and was genuine. She brought this up in a thread where they were making fun of mumsnet. Of course she could still be a liar and a troll, but still, it did get me thinking.

[CherriesAndOtherStuff]

I too remember the poor lady who had to send proof that her child had died before she could post again because she was banned for making it up .

Also on the subject of them admitting afterwards if they realised they'd made a mistake, this isn't really the same thing but thought it was relevant anyway. About a month ago there was a thread on a very sensitive issue that was later deleted and the OP banned because they didn't think it was genuine. A couple of weeks later HQ admitted in another thread (I think it was on Site Stuff, I'll have to try and find it) that they didn't know for sure whether that OP was a troll and admitted that she may well have been genuine. At the time however they had to weigh up the risks of upsetting that one user if genuine or causing more distress to the countless other posters reading and replying to that thread.

I understand their reasoning for that but (and this is going to sound silly) I remember the thread in question and I was a little upset about what HQ said later in that thread. I think because I have been through what the OP of that thread posted about (a few years ago but it's still raw for me_ and I did also post on a forum (not here, another one) at the time for some support. If I'd been banned and accused of being a troll it would of crushed me because I had no one to turn to. The thought that that might have happened to someone else was upsetting.

I am in the "they don't always get it right" camp.

[CherriesAndOtherStuff]

And I've just realised the last post on this was five days ago .

Sorry, ignore me if you want to.

[bodhranbae]

the poor lady who had to send proof that her child had died before she could post again because she was banned

No fucking internet forum is worth that. I would have told them to stick it up their arse.

I think some MN posters use accusations of trolling as a way to silence debate - it seems to happen more on here than on other forums I frequent.