Is it time to start paying for MN membership?

Or they can use a proxy which a lot of people know about nowadays.

It's virtually impossible to ban anyone from anything

For the none techies out there.

The two simple reasons why IP bans do not work:

1. Some IPs are shared.
   eg each mobile phone networks has a single IP. So you can't identify an individual and if you wanted to ban one person, you end up banning everyone else on that IP.

2. IP addresses can be easily changed.
   eg if you are a BT user, you can go "power off / power on". Its THAT easy.

Virtually all trolls, who go out to deliberately and intentional troll know this. It is not exactly a huge secret (and hence why I don't have a problem posting it here as its not going to suddenly reveal a massive secret).

If you have a bunch of determined trolls, there is usually very little you can do to tackle them apart from employing "Do not feed the troll" and hit the report button.

MN could suspend registration temporarily if there was a particularly bad evening. But then the suggestion is that this is some sort of organised and deliberate planned targetting of MN. So this wouldn't work very long, as very quickly the trolls would just end up with people creating multi accounts and leaving them dormant to get round the problem (the name change facility on MN is actually best for regular users for their anonymity as they would be less likely to recreate a new account that a troll would).

Given I know of incidents where trolls have created hundreds (and I mean hundreds) of facebook accounts to cheat at games and in turn harass and abuse other players via facebook, I am in very little doubt that someone who had a particular grudge against MN might well go to similar lengths.

The best way to stop a troll is to not engage with them, and wait for them to get bored and go away. The debate, pretty much begins and ends there, whether you like it or not and whether you want to believe it or not.

I think you are being rude to SDT. I dont know her on the board. tbh, the penny only dropped tonight that there are two different posters, SPs and SDT. Not being pa but being rude. She is only trying to think of ways round a problem.

Sorry, I haven't RTFT but didn't there used to be a £5 fee for having the ability to send PMs? Or did I imagine that?

If so, I'm assuming there's a reason it was scrapped.

I think that new joiners should have their nn in italics or similar so you can see they have recently joined. Other forums show the date someone joined and how many messages they've posted.

octo I only know because I use to use certain websites at school to get past the bans they had

I don't think its harsh. For someone who professes to have such an interest in the subject, it should be the first thing that comes into her head, if she really properly understands the problem, how women are being controlled and their needs and how they need to be engaged and have access to information without barriers.

If you simply want to drive a debate on 'how to tackle the MRAs', there are plenty of ways to start one, without coming up with a stupid and unworkable idea to prompt it. Treat other forum users with a degree of respect and as if they are intelligent enough to engage in debate without that.

Unless of course you are resorting to the lowest common denominator in order to deliberately fuel some sort of tabloid moral panic. Which if you are, you deserve to be called on that too.

Either way. It dumb.

Strumpet I never knew that, I guess it shows that I'm not a techie

ubik it is a lifeline for some though, look on the threads about abusive relationships, ill children, etc etc.

If you've been banned you can rejoin. It's easy to get past IP bans.

God no, I would not pay.

If they have been banned then surely they can't rejoin?
No, I don't agree that it is time to start paying. It's open to all at the moment and MNHQ seem to deal well with trolls and troublemakers.

Bit harsh there I think RedToothBrush. Sometimes, it is only with joint discussion that other things are seen to come into play.

As with any changes there are always winners and losers. And her idea, at first glance at least, could be seen to deter some trolls.

No because there's vulnerable women on here who don't have access to finances.

What an UTTERLY UTTERLY ridiculous suggestion from someone who has a particular interest in this subject.

I am staggered by the stupidity of it.

Surely the strength of the forum is to introduce new ideas to women who might not see them elsewhere. PARTICULARLY WOMEN WHO MIGHT BE IN A POSITION WHERE THEY ARE BEING CONTROLLED EMOTIONALLY AND FINANCIALLY BY A PARTNER.

So making the site a) elitest and only for those who can afford it and b) making it paid for when some of the women who might benefit most from it are women who do not have that financial independence is daft beyond belief.

Seriously. Think.It.Through.

At time I despair at the lack of common sense that goes on when it comes to the "fear of the MRAs".

You get one incident and suddenly the whole world is coming to an end and you get a bunch of people completely loosing site of what the site ACHIEVES and all the other good that it does because its free and because it has anonymity in a way that other sites don't necessary have.

Yes it DOES have its down sides, but for the love of god love at it objectively and with a cool head rather than having a kneejerk reaction to one incident.

The second you start to talk about censorship or limiting membership of anything, you need to seriously consider the unintended side effects and who else will loose out. It is NEVER EVER just the people you aim this type of action at. Sadly it tends to also affect the people who most need the service or support and are most vulnerable.

In fact it would play right into the hands of the people who are trying to upset you in the first place. Can you not see that?!

puts head in hands and shakes it in despair

I would, though.

£100 a year? for a website - christ molly, i think you might find chat a bit deserted!

I would gladly pay £100 a year to use MN - if it kept the troll-hunters away.

Sadly it would keep a lot of other low-income people off MN as well. But a tenner a year might deter the worst of the nasties.

I wouldn't mind paying, it would also end the situation where when anyone posts anything vaguely away from the MN orthodoxy they get called a troll or this new GF thing. I well remember a couple of years ago posting about some very traumatic personal circumstances and being acused of being a troll, despite having been on here for about 3 years at that time and posting nearly everyday, it is not nice! ( and by two of "MN Royalty") Everyone pays for their phone and TV etc and some other forums so it would be cheap at £10 a year for the mine of help and information there is on here.

Agree with HellMouth.
Sometimes it only becomes apparent over time.

But when it is used indescriminately, especailly when a thread has gone on a long time and gone one way instead of another, there then seems to be a cry sometimes of "the op has started this thread only to goad", which often seems a bit of an odd thing to say.

I think I was on, or at least saw, the thread that Sparling mentioned, and I was a bit

bisjo yes, that's a good point. I don't think that would be good either.

Actually that's a very good point,I hadn't thought of that.

I wouldn't like a 'member since' indicator as I think it will mean that the posts of those who have been here a long time are given more 'weight' than they may merit. I'd hate for it to become a time served approach. Imho it is pretty easy to spot all but the most determined trolls and these days even those get deleted pretty quickly.

Oh, apologies Hopasholic

The old 'MN royalty' argument may be wheeled out even more!!

I couldn't imagine paying for MN, it is used by many who don't have spare money. I spend lots of time reading all points of view and rarely contribute. As soon as it becomes limiting who might leave comments it loses its value. I am a bit gullible and not very good at spotting trolls. It is something I live with.