OFFICIAL MNHQ THREAD on posts about suicide, troll-hunting and related matters

Deletion messages need to grow a pair, that's for sure.

The "bit of a bunfight and let's face it that's not what MN is about" wishywashynambypamby deletion message gives me the RAGE.

Just say "Some MNers were being absolute bullying arsehole fuckers" and be done with it. Name and shame if you have to. Then, finally, things might actually change.

And I think trolls should be named and shamed too.

But then I'm zero tolerance and frankly, a bit nasty. I don't do the whole "but she's a real person, in real trouble, she just lies to make trouble on MN, bless her" bollocks. You make trouble, pah, you reap what you sow.

I quite like the idea of a "test your plotline here" topic. I'm sure I'd get as much out of it as I do anywhere else

But I still think the "I'm going to kill myself NOW" and other similar very, very triggering posts should be sorted out first.

If the Samaritans say they should be deleted I very much hope mnhq will agree to do that.

Well, if we are talking about troll-hunting I'll post what I posted on Nob's thread before this one opened, in the interests of having it all together:

"The thing is, [the thread that became openly disbelieved] was obviously made up from the start (very like a lot of threads here a while ago, and not the only one by that poster atm, imo) - after 850 posts everyone seemed to suddenly realise it, though mnhq are still indicating they "have no reason to believe, yada, yada, yada" hmm

It was reported very early - it's been on my TIW for over a week.

But if it had gone nasty after 100 posts, with the op possibly being in "trouble" and "needing" rl help, anyone asking questions, giving a warning to lurkers and naive posters not to get involved etc, would have been accused of being a nasty troll-hunter who should be banned from the site and would have been roundly abused.

There are many, many made up threads on here - ones that are completely fictitious. And yet when we have a "let's talk about troll-hunting" thread the same people come along and insist that Every Single Poster be believed, always. Even if believing everyone means a lot of people getting hurt.

This is the problem - even mnhq don't know who (if anyone) is telling the truth. And these days in relationships it appears very few people are.

When I asked if the policies could be clear and visibly implemented just before the thread closed, the answer appears to be no, not really. So there is always going to be a grey area, accusations of Royalty, and confusion amongst posters who stick to the rules but see others joining in the 'fun' and troll hunting on threads deemed okay to do that.

Agreed Wannabe and I think MNHQ need to be more open about some of their deletion messages for example and more active in suspending threads which are concerning people.
I do get that it's really difficult but the MNHQ posts this weekend that seemed to say it's ok to troll hunt because the OP seems able to cope and the thread's funny don't help to clarify their position.

I'm really sorry I keep adding exclamation marks for commas

The whole New Year site shut down debacle was because "MN royalty" were posting trolly threads (is completely made up but intended to amuse), other folks didn't recognise the posters so responded seriously etc etc.

Tbf, I reckon 50% of my threads are made up bollocks! as are a lot of posters! some of the fun is trying to guess the literary / current news story/ film/tv programme it refers to then joining in the joke. Nearly all the time a few people wouldn't get it, then catch on and go "ooooh you fuckers had me" to this day I've no real idea what happened on NYE to cause the furore other than what MNHQ acknowledged afterward. Newbie mods on. Mumsnets drunken night of the year is not a good idea, and probably won't be repeated.

That is so why I think MNHQ should assess the post not the poster. It can always be reinstated, but if it goes to far than its goes tits up and is pulled to late than if it is a troll or lives are at risk, than the impact is too great.

I hope that makes sense.

" if troll-hunting is against talk guidelines there shouldn't be grey areas. MNHQ tells us to report, report, report both trolls and their hunters." But it really isn't that simple - it really isn't. As I said up thread the most prolific and hurtful trolls on mn have only been stopped after someone has dared to call them out on a thread, or suggest that they might not be all they seem. Even after weeks and weeks and weeks of reporting, for the sheer fact that it's just not always possible to be able to know for certain that someone isn't genuine.

And the one thing that absolutely has changed over the years of being on mn, is the fact that people are far less likely now to start collections/rescue missions for distressed posters posting in their hour of trauma as the drama unfolds.

When I first came on mn I lost count of the number of collections which were started for posters who then turned out to be trolls. most noteably was the one who was fleaing an abusive marriage in Japan and where posters even tried to find ways for her to break the law to get out of the country back into the UK. there were clothes collections, toy collections, arrangements to meet her at the airport... and it turned out she was a troll.

Imagine if all this were just discovered behind the scenes, mn hq quietly deleted and then the threads disappeared never to be spoken of again. People wouldn't remember that posters were trolls, they would talk of x and y poster who had been helped so spectacularly by mn'ers.

There absolutely does need to be some public acknowledgement of especially damaging trolls, however unpalatable that may seem to people.

It does make it rather confusing. I'm surprised that thread didn't end up in classics TBH or on the MN FB page.

and then there will be threads where the op is a (crap) novelist in the making but where mn hq allow it to stand because they think it's amusing, and posters who suggest that it's a troll novelist are told to shut up because otherwise the thread might get deleted and it's a fun thread.

I suggested last week on a separate thread that we could have a plot lines for novels topic where people could post as if it were a real thread but people would know that it wasn't and would therefore either not be upset by it and it wouldn't be full of accusations of troll And people could reply as if it was genuine..

The thread in relationships has as good as been acknowledged as a troll, mn hq have even posted on it congratulating the op on her rubbish ending. if we had a novellists topic it could have been moved there. instead we have yet another troll thread in relationships and a double standard of some troll threads are ok, others aren't. I accept that it is not possible to do something about all trolls on account of the fact some will slip through, however if a troll is known to be a troll in this instance (and the op didn't start out as amusing) then allowing that thread to stand is a blatant double standard.

But if troll-hunting is against talk guidelines there shouldn't be grey areas. MNHQ tells us to report, report, report both trolls and their hunters.

I am intrigued as to why it is deemed acceptable for some troll hunting on threads and even possible troll threads to remain because the thread has been funny to those at MNHQ? Is that not completely undermining MNHQs own talk guidelines?

This^

The whole New Year site shut down debacle was because "MN royalty" were posting trolly threads (is completely made up but intended to amuse), other folks didn't recognise the posters so responded seriously etc etc.

MNHQ should probably delete all fictitious OPs, regardless of the intent of the poster and regardless of how much traffic it could drive to the site.

There will always be grey areas though, posters are quite happy to 'troll hunt' on the FB Blocking annoying troll threads.

So who decides that it's fair game Usual. Does MNHQ have to come on, post something cryptic which means it's fair game to post disbelieving posts? Because having grey areas is what causes the problem in the first place

I think if posters are troll hunting on a thread where even HQ think the thread is a load of bollocks then the thread is fair game.

JustScreamNobHurts Fri 24-Oct-14 16:39:51
No, I won't give over. How utterly condescending .... Read Daisy's post, she's now worried that troll hunter, name and shamers may put her on some sort of shit list

JustScream, thanks for acknowledging my upset. It has hurt. I hadn't posted any more about it because I know my minor 'moment of shame' was nothing compared to the tragic circumstances in people's lives that may lead to suicidal intentions. All the same, as I was reading that TAAT I couldn't help thinking shit, I think I may have to either not post on MN any more or change my username, which I haven't done since I first registered. other posters may also be affected, it isn't just about me.

Reading this thread makes me realise what a massive job MNHQ have on their hands in trying to keep this Forum on track so it provides a place of solace and companionship to people who need it, and a very tiny minority don't spoil it for genuine people who give great advice.

I just don't think people in general, and that may be new as well as seasoned posters, take time to be familiar with the policies that seem to make good sense.

It's really bad form IMHO to allow a proliferation of TAATs that instantaneously spring up as soon as a thread has been zapped. There should be adequate info posted by HQ into the "zap message" that means a TAAT is unjustifiable. Sadly people invest so much, some may feel they must resolve the disappearance of a thread that have been >500 posts long. I can see their point of view, however it leads to the sort of tittle-tattle and name calling, that led to me feeling the cloud of suspicion was on me

Maybe HQ could clamp down on TAATs a bit more rebeccaMNHQ?

Oh and thanks Rebecca. I know I'm an insufferable grump, but this weekend hasn't been brilliant on here and I needed to waffle in the appropriate place.

But I do think we need to look harder at the content of the op it's self not who is posting it.

**oats is meant to be off board

I don't think its so much about duty of care, it is at the end of the day a parenting site.

But

Care needs to be taken to really address some opening posts. I'm sure it's awful for MNHQ to have to try and second guess motivations, buuuuuut, if some one genuinely wants advice than I don't see why a deletion combined with a kindly worded message and a suggestion of rewording and reposting, wouldn't be a could thing. Trolly McTroll would surely get bored of reposting eventually and the thread would run better.

I've been deleted before with a perfectly nice message stating I hadn't broken guidelines, but a few people had reported it and it was deleted as needless harsh. Also it would have looked odd standing alone amongst all to he other posters deletions that were personal attacks against my self and others it was a balanced deletion for the benefit of the thread,nothing personal. So I do think we can make this work.

Crisis threads I still think need to be locked if it's a suicide threat or posters are getting over invested in an unwarranted manner. Anyone then determined to continue can do so off oats rather than reeling others in, and more importantly if it's a real life crisi but paid to any drama vultures who say lots but usually are only, in all honestly, detrimental to any aid that may genuinely be needed.

I feel that where we are at the moment is a shambles. MNHQs stance of troll hunting is widely misinterpreted and often woefully abused. If the site is to be kept as free and anonymous as it alway has been but continue to increase in users than to some extent I think. MNHQ might need to adopt a delete/lock first, question later policy. Rather than trying to race against a thread that's ever increasing and gain momentum in hysterics, to decide whether it may or may not be a bona fide op.

I am intrigued as to why it is deemed acceptable for some troll hunting on threads and even possible troll threads to remain because the thread has been funny to those at MNHQ? Is that not completely undermining MNHQs own talk guidelines?

I'm glad you are talking about it.

I think there are two different issues - one the "active suicide" issue which could be dealt with relatively simply, based on advice from The Samaritans and other professionals.

The trolling issue is less urgent, and tbh probably less solvable [sigh]