Anti-Religious Trolling On Mumsnet

Well, you don't know me very well Bertrand. I don't like making specific accusations unless I am very sure and I am aware that much will be open to interpretation.

An official guideline from my perspective is most useful, as it draws a line under what is unacceptable. Until that guideline is officially issued, I feel uncomfortable highlighting where people may have fallen fowl of it in the past, when there was no such guideline. People on the thread, may have been complicit in the diversion, perhaps less than willingly because they thought the diversion was 'fair game'.

The OP has already highlighted threads she has had a problem with, in terms of this issue.

What happens in the feminism boards wouldn't be a help- the trolling is so overt and usually so offensive that nobody is in any doubt and MNHQ steps n very quickly.

It does rather strike me that if an example of these purposefully derailed threads doesn't spring easily to your mind, it can't be a very common occurrence.............

But if you have enough time, Bertrand, perhaps you could give some good examples of stompage on the feminism threads - it could perhaps educate us over on the philosophy / religion/ spirituality boards, how to more effectively deal with derailments!

I have said how that would take a lot of time Bertrand, and why it is difficult to spot retrospectively, when you asked this question before. This is time I just have not got, I'm afraid. As other posters have already alluded to, I have spent a great deal of time on this thread already when I probably should be doing other things.

I'd really like to see an example of a thread that has been purposefully derailed.

I have seen it happen on threads in feminism when the MRA invade, but it is swiftly stomped on. Sometimes too swiftly, in my opinion- I think it's a good idea on occasion to give people enough rope to hang themselves with. But they are an actual movement with an agenda. Who does it on religious threads?

I have said, numerous times, that that rule regarding moderation of persistent and purposeful derailment of thread could be applied across the boards.

As the OP ,was primarily discussing religious threads particular attention was applied to how derailment shutting down conversation has meant posters have specifically felt unable discuss specific aspects of faith.

I have explained earlier, numerous times, how moderating derailment would in fact in one way allow for more freedom in conversation, as posters could not use derailment as a means of shutting down conversations at will.

My concern is mainly for these posters who feel unable to post about their faith. I feel myself robust enough, to counter / call out / ignore any derailing challenges ... So for myself am unconcerned. It would be interesting to see, though, how a guideline regarding derailment if issued , would affect the boards most affected by this issue. I personally think it would aid more in depth conversation, certainly over faith issues ( which I do have a particular interest in).

Capsium, it is you who are repeatedly calling for a rule whereby if anyone is perceived to be derailing a thread they are prevented from doing so and required to start a new thread. I would agree with Biwi that that does seem to advocate a narrow and controlling approach, and it is not insignificant that you only seem to call for it on threads about religion.

Sorry - capsium not caesium. For some reason auto correct suddenly decided this is your name!

On any part of MN if people are being goady or are derailing a thread by peddling a specific agenda the best thing to do is ignore them. 99.9% of people will give up after a while if nobody engages with them.

caesium - you can try and make it seem as if I was setting out to insult you if you like. Although that wasn't my intention. As far as possible I avoid personal attacks. However, I was questioning why you (because it's been mainly posts from you about this issue for most of this morning) wanted what I perceived to be a narrow and controlling way of dealing with posts/posters.

the Bible should be taken literally even though mainstream Christians don't treat it as such,

You're missing the point. When non believers question why Christians don't take it literally it's because we know you don't but we're interested in how you explain it. I'm fairly certain, thank god, that the Christians on MN are way too moral to take the bible literally ;)

If posters on the religion board decide to flag up derailments then it doesn't need any input from MNHQ. It just means that if someone comes to the board wanting to discuss an issue and the usual thing happens and someone decides to pile in with, and in no order ,all Christians are fundamentalists, I won't respect people of faith because people of faith I some parts of the world or at some point in history have done bad things, I don't like collective worship or the fact that some faith schools have an admissions criteria that involves going to church, I don't like the fact that christianity is the established religion, I think that all Christians are thick and it is only atheists who are the brights, the Bible should be taken literally even though mainstream Christians don't treat it as such, etc etc etc

Then we can get on with sharing and discussing in the usual way. Simples as the meerkats say.

It would take a trawl through past threads Bertrand, which as you know is time consuming.

Also, as there is no rule in place, as yet, against derailment, people often feel compelled to engage - which makes it difficult to detect whether the diversion has been purposefully engineered or willingly agreed to. What it requires, is knowing how posters feel about diversions in the thread conversation at the time - I am sure there have been allusions to not engaging with particular conversations on threads but I cannot remember which ones.

Only when posters feel they can report, as it deems purposeful derailment more clearly unacceptable, will it be possible to know more fully the extent of the problem.

Capsium- I'd just like to read a thread that has been purposefully derailed.

With apologies for a minor derailment . DionetheDiabolist, if you are reading, please feel free to raise the points you have made via PM on the thread. No need to "spare me embarassment"!

Capsium- seriously, could you show me?

Show you what? What do you not understand about how the mechanism of purposeful derailment might work?

NotDavid if that is the decision, so be it. I am pleased this issue has been raised for discussion, though. Added to this MN said earlier they were pleased this topic was brought up for discussion again. Changes are made occasionally.

BIWI sorry, my mistake, I see it was you now.

The way you have worded what I quoted, though, does not make it explicit that it is simply your view that the moderation I suggested is narrow and controlling. It assumes this is a given with, 'this very narrow...' And being 'keen' on stuff which is narrow and controlling, is hardly complementary, especially when you apply this keenness to somebody in particular.

capsium I feel like you're wasting your time a bit here. This issue was done to death years ago on the FWR board where these kinds of derailments are extremely common. MNHQ has always made it pretty clear that they have no interest in which views are being expressed on a particular thread and will only moderate if the talk guidelines are being broken. Past history suggests that they won't have any interest in enforcing a no derailments rule.

Er - it was me who said that, not Silver!

And it was about a way I perceived you wanting to control things. I didn't say I thought you were narrow or controlling. But I do think that your suggestion is narrow and controlling.

capsium - you seem very keen on this very narrow, controlling way of people posting on MN. Why?

Bertrand, Silver's speculation above, which suggested I was personally 'keen on this very narrow, controlling way of people posting on MN', seemed rather personal as 1)it singled out myself, suggesting I was narrow and controlling in this respect, and 2) it assumes what I was suggesting is, indeed, narrow and controlling.

Capsium- seriously, could you show me?

Another thing I don't understand is why people think the " derailing" is deliberate- and what the derailers get out of it

Bertrand I explained this in my earlier posts. It is quite clever really. Because people want to avoid the thread being derailed they ignore the derailing posts. This gives the derailleur a platform to say what they want without being challenged.

You are correct that not every conversational diversion is an intended derailment but I would say a persistent bombardment with comments and questions, that are unrelated to the issues raised in the OP, probably are intended to derail.

Augusta well, I think reviewing the lack of moderation on purposeful derailments does require serious consideration. Simply my thoughts on the matter, though and I do not make the decisions.

At the very least I am pleased this conversation has happened. It gives an opportunity to highlight how the more purposeful malicious derailments, as opposed to natural diversions, might function to give a poster an unchallenged platform to promote their own agenda. So at least people are prepared for this possibility.

Yes, all change is different and comes with some advantages and disadvantages. I do think the moderation of derailments could be done in a way that is workable though, without being too heavy handed.

It is a real shame when a people begin to feel as if their conversations, that are within talk guidelines, are being unfairly and automatically shut down, just because they are discussing specific aspects of their religious faith. Personally I have not suffered greatly because of this, I have not come to MN yet asking much specific advice or support over a faith matter, but I can see how shutting down conversations, regarding specifics of religious faith, could be damaging to someone who is vulnerable in this area.