Anti-Religious Trolling On Mumsnet

Agree.

In light of the issues raised on this thread I propose the use of a pre approved list of responses:

1. I fully agree with everything everyone has said, ever, everywhere on Mumsnet and in real life.
2. Have you tried turning it off and on again?
3. Aren't fluffy kittens just the cutest!

BIWI all I am advocating, is a polite steering of the discussion back to the one the OP raised. As you say, if posts are deliberately inflammatory, they could be reported anyway. If the discussion cannot be steered back to the OP, then of course that would suggest people are not interested in discussing the OP's subject any further.

As it stands now, people can and do, do what I have suggested, it just has been a bit of an eye opener, for me, considering how discussions can be steered on here. This awareness has clarified my options, in this matter, for me.

... and if someone doesn't feel strongly enough to revert back to the original point/discussion, then perhaps it's because they have nothing to say on the matter?

Yes, capsium, if someone is doing it deliberately to inflame - like they often do on the feminist board - then you report it. Have I not said that all along?

But your beef seems to be with the idea of derailing altogether! Which is a totally different thing.

Personally, I would say it can shut a particular discussion down, that is the discussion the OP wanted to raise, as the subject matter of the thread is diverted. The posters who wanted to have that original discussion feel shut down as the original discussion is lost

It's not lost at all. If someone wants to revert back to the original question, there's nothing to stop them whatsoever.

Yes, off topic comments can encourage debate but 1) a debate may not be the purpose of the discussion the OP raised 2) the debate may totally unrelated to the particular issue the OP raised.

But it's not up to the OP of any thread to determine the nature of a debate or the issues that other posters want to discuss. This is what you can't seem to grasp. That it's not up to an OP to dictate how the thread evolves through a discussion.

So what does the OP do if a large number of people are more interested in the supposed derailment and carry on discussing it regardless of her attempts to stay on topic? Obviously they can't be reported. I would say at that point she needs to recognise that actually the discussion has moved on, and leave it there.

Augusta, well in this case scenario I suppose the OP would have to start a new thread if they wanted to discuss the issue further. Seems a bit unfair and would look a bit messy (title # 2 : the one which is actually discussing this) in the thread titles but needs must.

Bertrand no point trawling over old threads now, but watch this space because, partly as a result of this discussion, I will be apt to point out comments / questions that are 'off topic' and potentially derailing, where I feel this is necessary.

I'm finding this thread increasingly incomprehensible. I think it's because I don't think I know quite what a "purposeful derailment" is, except in the context of incredibly obvious and offensive posts, like the ones that happen sometimes on the feminist boards when the MRA invade, which can immediately be reported and deleted.

I do wish you could come up with one, capsium.

So what does the OP do if a large number of people are more interested in the supposed derailment and carry on discussing it regardless of her attempts to stay on topic? Obviously they can't be reported. I would say at that point she needs to recognise that actually the discussion has moved on, and leave it there.

When it comes to shutting down, I'm far more concerned about the tacit ganging up that happens on some threads where a poster who dares to disagree with the consensus can barely post a full stop before someone is misconstruing it and telling her off about it. Again, it's not something you can report unless it comes within the established rules.

BIWI ah, so you think it is clear, that if someone is deliberately derailing to 'shut other posters down' then it is 'deliberately inflammatory behaviour' which could be reported.

headinhands but you don't think it is clear, that a series of off topic comments or questions shuts other posters down. Personally, I would say it can shut a particular discussion down, that is the discussion the OP wanted to raise, as the subject matter of the thread is diverted. The posters who wanted to have that original discussion feel shut down as the original discussion is lost. Yes, off topic comments can encourage debate but 1) a debate may not be the purpose of the discussion the OP raised 2) the debate may totally unrelated to the particular issue the OP raised.

Curiouser and curiouser. I can see the only option, when faced with an, unwanted derailment is to politely remind the poster, diverting the thread, of the thread topic and move the conversation back on topic. Then continue with the discussion raised in the OP. Then if they persist, report for 'inflammatory behaviour'. This risks the poster, who is derailing the thread, not much liking their alternative derailing conversation being shut down, of course, but they can always start a new thread devoted to exploring the issue, they raised, in detail.

Well yes, I agree absolutely headinhands - but capsium doesn't ...

to shut other posters down

And that's another issue. One person might feel a comment is intended to stop debate but others may see the comment as encouraging debate. Who is to say? I'm still not sure how you can shut someone down. Not something that's ever happened to me. I like to think that if you're confident in your position and can illustrate your thinking and how you arrived there then you can't be shut down.

Talk guidelines:

No personal attacks
No posts that break the law
No trolling, misleading or deliberately inflammatory behaviour
No trollhunting
No spamming

Surely that's clear enough, capsium? I would say that if someone is doing it deliberately to shut other posters down, then it would be classed as 'deliberately inflammatory behaviour'?

^ sorry posted too soon. The guidelines regarding trolling etc are not that clear that they would include this sort of behaviour at the moment.

So does this mean persistent, deliberate derailments could be reported as a poster being goady? Could this be made clearer in the guidelines? The

Thanks for clarifying Helen

"On previous 'privileges' threads I've mentioned other religions, to have people get really stroppy saying 'this is about Christians stick to the topic!!!!'."

Presumably because if the thread is about institutional religious privilege in the UK it is irrelevant to mention other religions

So would you, yourself' post to challenge this for being 'irrelevant' 'off topic' and derailing, Bertrand? Do you think posting to challenge for derailment is the best course of action, as was done on the particular thread referenced here? Or do you think it is best to stay quiet?

"On previous 'privileges' threads I've mentioned other religions, to have people get really stroppy saying 'this is about Christians stick to the topic!!!!'."

Presumably because if the thread is about institutional religious privilege in the UK it is irrelevant to mention other religions............

I'm sorry you feel like that Silver. I can see this is the problem of 'calling out' anything that could be seen as potentially derailing. However, this is what people (as posters have mentioned up thread) will be tempted to do without the prospect of the more malicious derailments being moderated. So there I see see an advantage in moderation, also, in that the report is more discreet and MN who rightly have authority over the site can decide.

In the particular instance you cited, I did genuinely feel like there was potential for derailment in the thread, what would end up being discussed was 'Christian Privalege". I have been jumping in more swiftly, than I normally would on this particularly thread, mainly to see the effect this had. I am sorry you felt worse for this new tactic.

I normally would engage with the conversation, if I had something to say but then threads have been derailed, away from the point for discussion the OP raised and many of the original posters have left.

I agree, Silver. Which is why I described it as 'controlling'.

Actually the fear of being perceived as derailing sometimes prevents me from posting on threads as no doubt it would other people.

I found Capsium's attitude to my point about deference and Christian privilege a few pages ago a bit disturbing. Being told the point you are making is not relevant or welcome and then later you should have made it clear why you referenced that point is pretty horrid actually and has the impact of making you feeling shut down and your opinions have no value. The impact it has on a poster is probably worse than some arse running in to a thread and shouting 'your God is not real'.

In RL and on here, I am somewhat a lateral thinker, possibly with some autistic tendencies. Someone's post can spark an idea in me that I would like to share why does another person on a thread have the right to tell me to bugger off? Saying my view is not particularly relevant is one thing, telling me that I should not be contributing is another.

I'd still like to see an example of this purposeful derailing.

Would the rules apply to all topics, or just religion ones?