Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Troll hunters and HQ.

65 replies

MiddletonPink · 15/10/2014 09:19

If a poster is accused of being a troll on a thread numerous times and by more than one person then HQ pull the thread because of troll hunting shouldn't the accused be vindicated by HQ first?

OP posts:
OfficerVanHelsing · 15/10/2014 14:31

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
MiddletonPink · 15/10/2014 14:31

Hamster!?

OP posts:
SomeoneAteMyHam · 15/10/2014 14:20

Also slightly OT but thought I'd ask anyway - how do you search for a members posts?

SomeoneAteMyHam · 15/10/2014 14:18

Regardless of what hq said, my opinion of it the poster is the same. Especially seeing that her hamster died yesterday too.

Confused. I don't see the connection. Have I missed something?

BeyondPreparedForHell · 15/10/2014 14:16

(Btw are you k8? I keep automatically going to type k8 when i reply to you!!)

BeyondPreparedForHell · 15/10/2014 14:15

As i said in my first post here, i dont understand why they have shared an opinion with me, yet not in public (or even with middleton when she asked specifically). And as they have not shared it in public, i will not share it here.

Regardless of what hq said, my opinion of it the poster is the same. Especially seeing that her hamster died yesterday too.

wantacatplease · 15/10/2014 14:08

Beyond, have they clarified to you via
email whether they thought the poster is genuine?

Original poster
MiddletonPink · 15/10/2014 14:07

It's good that you have had a reply I suppose.

OP posts:
BeyondPreparedForHell · 15/10/2014 14:04

Yup

Original poster
MiddletonPink · 15/10/2014 13:59

Today?

OP posts:
BeyondPreparedForHell · 15/10/2014 13:51

My first email from hq was at 10.51, second at 12.07

Original poster
MiddletonPink · 15/10/2014 13:46

The poster that you accused of trolling is still posting today Beyond, which puzzles me a bit tbh.

OP posts:
BeyondPreparedForHell · 15/10/2014 13:45

Nope, just shows their threads or "no matches found"

Wow, the poster was a new poster when i suspected them last night, yet since then has posted on 42 threads!!

ChippingInLatteLover · 15/10/2014 13:45

Beyond :(

wantacatplease · 15/10/2014 13:43

Maybe their posts would still show up, even if banned. I dunno.

wantacatplease · 15/10/2014 13:39

I s'pose the poster would be banned if suspected a troll or sockpuppet. If you advance search a user, will it say
there is no known user by that name if they were banned?

BeyondPreparedForHell · 15/10/2014 13:38

Me too, chipping. :(

As I said to hq when i reported, I was upset from related stuff elsewhere and the PM at that time was the straw that broke the camels back. That 'ping' moment where things clicked into place and i just saw red.

Troll hunting is bad, im very aware of that and i know why, 5 minutes before receiving my PM on that thread, i was defending the original OP and saying that even people 'known' to hq can have bad things happen.

But, well...argh!

ChippingInLatteLover · 15/10/2014 13:32

I wish all the trolls would just bog off back under their bridges.

BOFster · 15/10/2014 13:25

I suppose they could say either, quite reasonably. I imagine that once a thread gets too peppered with people squawking TROLL, though, and they haven't had time to complete their investigations, it is more logical for them to delete it on the basis of the troll-hunting on the thread, which is just as much against guidelines as fantasists spinning a line. It's a lot more obvious and easy to prove, so that's the deletion message they choose.

MNHQ have never (and could never) swear blind that an OP is telling the complete truth, or speaking with accuracy, which is why they add disclaimers at the top of many topics about not taking people's professed qualifications etc as gospel. They might be able to surmise that something is very unlikely, by using their behind-the-scenes superpowers, but I have never seen them say anything stronger than that they have no evidence to prove trolling and that in the absence of that, their policy is to give the benefit of the doubt.

That is as near to 'exonerating' an OP as you are going to see. What else can they do?

BeyondPreparedForHell · 15/10/2014 13:25

I would have gone with "thread deleted as it started as a taat and spiralled into one giant trollhunt against a poster that hq feel to be genuine/not genuine"

Answers all questions then, you agree?

Original poster
MiddletonPink · 15/10/2014 13:12

In that case why not say the thread is being deleted because reported poster isn't genuine instead of because there were troll hunters on it and it wasn't in the spirit of the site?

OP posts:
BeyondPreparedForHell · 15/10/2014 13:12

I've replied to my email, asking if they could pop in to this thread.

If they werent sure, taat would have been an adequate deletion message, its what it started as!

DontDrinkAndFacebook · 15/10/2014 13:08

delete

DontDrinkAndFacebook · 15/10/2014 13:08

Surely if MNHQ pull the thread it should mean it is a troll? There is no need to pull a perfectly above board thread because of troll hunters - just deleted their posts and say why.

Original poster
MiddletonPink · 15/10/2014 13:06

Strange indeed. Hmm

I did email them after they deleted the thread asking whether said poster was genuine but they haven't replied, hence my thread on here.

Just seems to me they didn't know so just came up with the one size fits all delete message.

OP posts: