Any chance MN HQ could ban posters who consistently speculate regarding trolls...

the childmodelling one (izzyRuby)met people in rl too. And she was all of the things she'd said she was, name etc, and children as she'd said, she had bbq's at her house etc.. But even after she was anned by mn hq after the modelling agency confirmed they had no dealings with her she still continued off-board friendships with mn'ers, and some were even moderators on the forum of her website.

The fox troll met someone in rl too, but while she was trolling under a different name.

yes but never with her DS - I think they only met face to face once or twice. Psycho was dreadfully unlucky because CVQ parasited onto her and apparently "acquired" some of the things that had happened to psycho herself. There was definitely something wrong with CVQ, however - it just wasn't what she said it was.

so CVQ even went so far as to meet people in rl.

God the cvq debacle was just outrageous actually.

For so long before she was outed I just thought but the response at that time would have felt like a virtual stoning. She had so much support on here

actually, cvq is an interesting case in point - psycho met her in RL, I think with (or maybe not with) Flame - and she definitely didn't match up with her MN persona - they outed her as a troll but didn't give details which caused a fairly major uproar and also got pretty heated. Later psycho did give details and it all became very clear - it was a pity (although understandable) that she hadn't felt able to give those details in the "outing", as it would have avoided much of the furore.

MNHQ were quite cagey about whether or not cvq was a troll at the time of the outing, iirc.

You fuffing piff off you twaff

piff off

well
I didn't have a pop at anyone
so piff

Eh? Who I have defended now? I tend to make a habit of arguing on here rather than defending unfortunately

And no I didn't say that, I said 'defend someone fair enough' 'BUT the vitriol that tsc got was surely not deserved'

I'm not saying that, 2shoes. Anyone can obviously express an opinion as to whether they agree with someone or not. But wading into a thread for the sole purpose of saying "Oi, back off, that's my mate you're talking about and she's the best fucking mother I know, you cunt!" is never likely to end well.

so let me get this right.....
it is ok for you to defend someone
but not for others too!!!

I agree. TSC got pasted for having an opinion, at the end of the day. Why people get so irate, I don't understand. It's always awkward when people you know and like are getting it in the neck, but it's generally better to let them stick up for themselves, or it turns into a real bunfight

Defend somebody fair enough but the vitriol that tsc got was surely not deserved. The one poster, can't remember their name, was totally out of order imo.

wannabe that is unfair.
it is natural to defend someone if they are bing treated unfairly,.

I think part of the issue though is that if someone is a bit about a post and says so, then immediately a lot of people jump on the defensive "x is not a troll, why don't you just f* off." etc etc.

If people just ignored the questioning posts then some of these threads wouldn't kick off quite so spectacularly, and often the trall callers stick around to argue the point, whereas if no response happens then there is no point to argue, iyswim.

If boobs left mn because of that thread then it wasn't just the fault of the disbelievers, it was equally the fault of the posters on the other side that allowed the thread to continue to be about their argument rather than the issue at hand.

2shoes is right, questioning posts is fine, but calling people trolls because they've met a nutter on the bus is just daft. globetrotter and JF and all the rest were far more complicated than that!

of course it is ok to question a post, but to then carry on making trouble for the op, well that is plain nasty

oh absolutely geek. People met cvq in rl, and the child modelling one.

I firmly believe that knowing someone in rl does not make them incapable of trolling or exagerrating.

Agree with catinthehat, why is it deemed not okay to question a post you are sceptical about? Especially when it is a regular.

Think it was Wannabe though think I might have blanked specific info from my memory!

2shoes yes I recall that as well- was very concerning.

I once started a thread in chat
it was a no event thread, about 10 replies, one person disagreed, so no biggie, the subject was me needing advice on shaving dd's armpits!

months later, long after the thread would have disapeared she brought it up on another thread, even remembering it was my thread!!! that was odd

that's right I remember that.

Afaik that was the thread where I voiced my opinions.

Wannabe I remember her of yes- she started a thread about me becuase I (peachy) didn't have enough aspirations for all disabled kids and that all could work or something. Except the kid she was referring to that I had meant was my own child who has severe ASD.

She nearly got me to leave Mumsnet in a fit of tears.

i do have to say that DD did get the pc9I am on it now) and she did seem real, We emailed for a while(as you do when someone has helped your child) but then the school bit came up.
so i have had no more contact.
so although she was "real" she was still a troll.

Wow