Please or to access all these features

Site stuff

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

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

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

833 replies

RowanMumsnet · 23/10/2014 10:10

Hello

There have been so many threads about this over the past few days, and so many divergent points of view - and so much upset - that we'd really like to have the discussion in one place rather than in many different threads all over the boards.

For those who haven't heard yet: we are actively reviewing our policy about threads regarding suicidal feelings and suicidal intent. We are seeking expert input from outside organisations including the Samaritans. Once we have that we will come back and have a further discussion with MNers about the way forward.

We'll be here to talk on the thread throughout the day, but do please note that we WILL delete troll-hunting posts for all the obvious reasons. So PLEASE do not use this thread to make insinuations about identifiable posters - keep it general please.

Re: Wombat: we understand that some reporters had concerns, but at the same time this poster had been around for years with a very consistent posting history. We absolutely do not have any concrete reason to disbelieve her. However, her thread had been immensely upsetting and triggering for many users, and has prompted a site-wide discussion about how we handle these threads. Once her husband had posted that she was at home with him and under the care of RL professionals it really seemed best all round to delete the thread.

We contacted Wombat at the time to explain our deletion and we still feel that for many very good reasons this is best sorted out off-board between us and her; we've asked her again to reply to our email and we will happily take it from there.

We also think that this whole case is a very good illustration of why we have no-trollhunting rules. We understand that some of you find them frustrating, but for every correct troll-call, there's an incorrect one. Being called a troll in public when you're giving an honest account of deeply upsetting real-life circumstances can be devastating for people.

Equally, we do 'get' that there are a lot posters and threads at the moment that seem deeply suspicious. We are on the front foot with this and have been being pretty pro-active at closing things down when they are reported to us and when we can see that things aren't adding up, particularly if they are new users.

So we need you to keep reporting and NOT break troll-hunting rules on the boards unless MNHQ itself has said publicly that we are confident that someone was a deliberate trouble-maker.

The namechange/sock-puppeting thing is extremely easy for us to spot when it's reported. It's not a judgement call - it's black and white and it's the work of a moment for us to spot it and deal with it.

OP posts:
WannaBe · 29/10/2014 17:08

"pressure on op's to do what they are told in difficult situations can I suspect be very great. Especially if they best way to get support is to agree to do what other posters demand." and I think it's fair to say that there's a lot of that that goes on on e.g. relationships. In fact there have been threads about it. I've seen posters pretty much be flamed if they don't e.g. confront/leave a cheating partner and support turn to flames if they don't do what is being suggested, even using such language as "listen to x, she knows what she is talking about/you are not listening to all the wonderful women on this thread/carry on deluding yourself." etc etc.

It's perhaps a discussion for another thread (and one which has been had in the past) but might easily explain why troll threads are so much more prevalent in those topics where there is an abundance of posters with too high a sense of their own self importance/expertees

2shoeprintsintheblood · 29/10/2014 17:04

surely accusing someone of being a TH(I don't like the hunter in it and am bored with typing it) it is a PA and should be deleted as such.

WannaBe · 29/10/2014 17:04

"pressure on op's to do what they are told in difficult situations can I suspect be very great. Especially if they best way to get support is to agree to do what other posters demand." and I think it's fair to say that there's a lot of that that goes on on e.g. relationships. In fact there have been threads about it. I've seen posters pretty much be flamed if they don't e.g. confront/leave a cheating partner and support turn to flames if they don't do what is being suggested, even using such language as "listen to x, she knows what she is talking about/you are not listening to all the wonderful women on this thread/carry on deluding yourself." etc etc.

It's perhaps a discussion for another thread (and one which has been had in the past) but might easily explain why troll threads are so much more prevalent in those topics where there is an abundance of posters with too high a sense of their own self importance/expertise.

ScaryZ · 29/10/2014 16:52

That would definitely be the ideal (no troll hunting, no troll-hunter-hunting, no derailing the thread for an argy bargy).

There would be no need forsceptical faces or "are you new" messages if it's allowed to actually discuss things reasonably, to chat, to ask questions (no, I'm not saying that people are allowed to demand mother's maiden name and pin no) and ask the op to engage.

Though I also think YeGods has a very good point upthread.

asking for personal information which the OP doesn't want to share online can result in the OP feeling unsupported and rejected or making stuff up as a way round the obstacles being thrown at them

I've seen this mentioned on a couple of other threads recently and it never occurred to me before but I think it's a very valid point. An op starts a genuine thread, but then feels pressurised by all the "you go girl" and "have you done it/told them/left him yet?" and "why are you just sitting there doing nothing" - posts that are meant to be encouraging but may well be just too much for someone going through a shitty patch who can't just make the decision to say no/leave/whatever.

They feel backed into a corner and so make something up to just shut everyone up, and the story explodes. And then because it isn't true, it's inconsistent, and people think it's a pile of shite, whereas it may well not have started out that way.

The pressure on op's to do what they are told in difficult situations can I suspect be very great. Especially if they best way to get support is to agree to do what other posters demand.

BeyondPreparedForHell · 29/10/2014 16:41

Oh and i agree that 'live' suicide threads should go. Support threads fine.
But i hide suicide threads, if i clicked on one unwittingly i would be very badly affected.

emotionsecho · 29/10/2014 16:41

Just wanted to say the the latest deletion message from MNHQ regarding inconsistencies with the OP was good. Also, people on the thread drew attention to the inconsistencies without the usual flame balls of 'troll hunter' being lobbed. It was imo perfectly valid for posters to point out on thread the inconsistencies between the OP in question's two recent threads.

BeyondPreparedForHell · 29/10/2014 16:34

All i have to say on the matter...

If troll hunting is not allowed then neither should troll-hunter-hunting be. Same rule should apply, report and wait til the next day for a response.

If someone just can't resist troll-hunter-hunting, theyre probably more alike than they like to think. Apart from the actual trolls, neither the hunters or the hunter-hunters (anyone else finding this hard to read?!) are acting out of malice, both are trying to help the situation they see developing.

Corestrategy · 29/10/2014 14:50

Thanks for the explanation, Rowan. I do like a hot debate no matter how controversial it is - and the more outrageous the points of view, the better ;) However, I understand your reasons for deleting that one.

JustScreamNobHurts · 29/10/2014 14:43

Ahem, note I did put appear Wink

Obviously it's not unusual for you to start responses with "sorry for the delay..."

From the user side, it can look like nothing's happening. Ancient old pain in the arse posters like me know that something probably is happening and leave it, hoping for the best. But not everyone does that.

If I'm really dubious and I think someone is over investing I might drop a pm going "are you 100% confident in giving the op these details about your life" because they can
A) ignore it
B)tell me to fuck off
C)go, Oooh maybe I font want to share, cheers for that

I know technically that could be construed as troll hunting, but it's not, the op is what it is. MNHQ are off doing something, and I'd rather say something quietly than nothing at all.

RowanMumsnet · 29/10/2014 14:30

@JustScreamNobHurts

MNHQ simply don't appear to have the number of bodies to cope with the number of reports or the right HQers in at peak times for useage.

That's not how we see it tbh (though we wouldn't would we Grin). Although we're busy, we very rarely overwhelmed - usually only when something ridiculous (like Heartbleed) happens. Most days/evenings we clear almost everything that's been reported to us, and the Night Watch deal with egregious trolling and spamming overnight.

OP posts:
RowanMumsnet · 29/10/2014 14:27

@Corestrategy

I posted on a thread yesterday and the thread was deleted. Mumsnet said something like they had doubts about the poster. Some people on the thread had accused the OP of being goady. All the OP had done was ask why some single parents seemed to have more money than her. People then thought she was benefit bashing. So what? Why can't people have a discussion even if it is controversial?

It's not about the topic - in that case it was because the OP had a history of starting threads on hot-button topics, and also various things that we can see behind the scenes linked her to previously banned accounts.

OP posts:
JustScreamNobHurts · 29/10/2014 14:08

The only observation I have is that of late if you query the op, directly, with a legitimate question than some posters will strike out of nowhere telling you to back off! and support the op. And will openly accuse a poster of troll hunting.

If you accuse a poster of troll hunting than people start looking for the troll.

The logical and correct procedure is of course to report and trolling or troll hunting if you suspect or indeed anything you think may be worth looking at which leads back to square one.

MNHQ simply don't appear to have the number of bodies to cope with the number of reports or the right HQers in at peak times for useage.

So then people decide reporting doesn't work and the merry troll, troll hunter, troll hunter shamers dance goes on and on and on.

Pagwatch · 29/10/2014 13:16

I wasn't saying it was the same thing. In fact I think I was pretty clear about that.

I was saying that a combination of Hmm posts alongside genuine questions can create the impression that there is more of an issue than there actually is.

The fact that on this thread it seems one is perceived immediately as picking a side isn't really helping. The whole issue is difficult. Shockingly I can actually see both sides.

Corestrategy · 29/10/2014 12:59

I posted on a thread yesterday and the thread was deleted. Mumsnet said something like they had doubts about the poster. Some people on the thread had accused the OP of being goady. All the OP had done was ask why some single parents seemed to have more money than her. People then thought she was benefit bashing. So what? Why can't people have a discussion even if it is controversial?

FrontForward · 29/10/2014 12:33

There's usually a nudge nudge wink wink element to the troll hunting.

FrontForward · 29/10/2014 12:32

I don't regard most questions as troll hunting at all. There are some OPs that need clarifying.

I think troll hunters generally need readers to know that they suspect trollery so they make their questioning obviously sarcastic/pedantic or focused on one tiny little detail that often is irrelevant to the bigger picture. It can be like watching a TV version of a court room with the prosecutor trying to trip up the witness.

Pagwatch · 29/10/2014 12:24

I don't troll hunt but I am wondering if the problem is perceived to be bigger than it is if questions about an op are interpreted as troll hunting?

If an op makes no sense or if the op contradicts themselves on an important point then I will ask them to clarify. If my post ( and possibly other) sit along side an 'interesting first post Hmm' then that might look like troll hunting when it predominantly isn't.

People have to be able to ask questions. When I asked a question a while ago I was accused of implying stuff and being pissy. I'd actually asked a perfectly reasonable question.

It's the proliferation of trolls that is causing the problem. The troll hunting is a by product. It's fucking tedious that half the threads are bollocks or posters trying to figure out if they are bollocks.

FrontForward · 29/10/2014 12:17

Good post TerribleMother.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 29/10/2014 11:59

People are saying that just because there are trolls, doesn't mean there has to be troll hunters.

This! ^

Modestine · 29/10/2014 10:49

The comments like "Interesting first post, OP" are actually sounding the horn for a hunt. Plus comments are simultaneously being made on other threads to the tune of "There's one in Relationships right now" which all add to the numbers involved in the hunt. "Hunt" is the right word for it, including the fact that hunters get caught up in the hunt, and really don't care what the quarry is. Even if it's a pet kitten, not a fox, it will have a bloody death.

RowanMumsnet · 29/10/2014 10:08

Morning all

@LittleBearPad

Posters should be allowed to ask clarifying questions, any real poster would surely answer if they think they'll get better advice by making things clearer. Snide comments like 'is this your first post OP?' and bridge-dweller comments are just obnoxious.

Yes, this, basically. It's totally fine to say 'sorry, maybe I've misunderstood but xx and yy about your story don't seem to make sense'.

What's not fine is if this seems to be straying into a deliberate attempt to heavily imply disbelief/trolling while just about staying on the right side of the rules.

Of course it's not always obvious which is happening, which is where the headaches can come in from MNHQ's POV.

Equally, there can be an innocent explanation for xx and yy not quite adding up - people can disguise details to remain anonymous; the OP may not have perfectly understood a piece of information herself.

OP posts:
TerribleMother · 29/10/2014 09:43

*have

I really should apologise for my grammar on this thread, it's been effin shocking! GrinConfused

TerribleMother · 29/10/2014 09:42

I don't think anyone's denying that there couldn't be troll hunters without trolls, that's just a fact. People are saying that just because there are trolls, doesn't mean there has to be troll hunters.

WannaBe · 29/10/2014 09:36

The calling of inconsistencies on threads wouldn’t be deemed so much of an issue if it wasn’t for the fact that there are so many threads with inconsistencies on them.

Basically, there wouldn’t be “troll hunters” if there weren’t trolls. It’s not the people who out these trolls that is the issue – it’s the fact that the trolls are there in the first place. What exactly is it that people are failing to see about that?

TerribleMother · 29/10/2014 09:32

And now look what you've all made me do! I've mixed up a their for a there, which is in my book, a cardinal sin!! BlushGrin