Reducing Moderation Load for MN (continuation of Dealing with Inflammatory Posts)

What's most alarming to me is that they brushed off FFJ pretty easily, but the TRAs? Not so easy. What's going on behind the scenes (not just at MNHQ, in general, in goverment/media/etc) that makes this the one group that you can't just tell to piss off?

Yes Kittens - this decision won't keep the TRAs causing havoc on FWR threads, it'll just keep the rest of MN from finding out about any of it

I might take another little MN break. I'm surprised by how fucking furious I am about this - the fact that MN, which prides itself on talking to and listening to its members, is happy to take this decision behind everyone's backs and with no discussion, just because they are being pressurised by a violent, aggressive, group of men

I was really agreeing with Datun's post of 9:28, but I'm happy to agree with her later post as well. Taking the personal out of it is good. But I don't think that will reverse this decision of MN.

Trolls are mostly coming directly here and bypassing the rest of the site entirely. Could be something was linked on Twitter, etc - they're not browsing the site for parenting tips and then running across a trans thread, the only reason they're here is to "fight transphobia".

I think we're definitely going to see specific individuals being targeted going forward. It's how to shut down a grassroots movement 101.

What Datun said. As per bloody usual

[depressed]

Surely, surely, the fact that posts are being reported all over the shop is proof that the message is getting through.

Personally I don't believe self-regulating is going to stop the reporting. Not when much of the reporting is of posts along the lines of "a man is not a woman because he says so" or "transwomen aren't women".

MNHQ are in a difficult position. But essentially they've said "we agree with you, but we don't have the courage of our convictions. We've asked you to shut up modify your posts, but you won't so we are shutting you up hiding them.

They also seem to be saying "and we're a tad pissed off you've noticed, we hoped you wouldn't, that's why we didn't tell you"

training in coercive control for moderators seems a really good idea. and perhaps then also a pinned post about how DV tactics come accross in online communication too? i had never heard of DARVO until somebody linked to it here and OH MY GOSH was it enlightening.

i keep wanting to suggest a short term support of extra voluntary moderators too but i am a bit uncomfortable about the whole women doing all the work for free implications this has.

Can I just add it's really, really easy to avoid pronouns. I know it goes against the grain of the principle, but the principle is massively compromised if you don't get to talk about it.

Secondly, I see no issue with talking about prominent transactivists when they say things that are damaging to women.

But when it generates into piss taking, mockery about clothes, hair, etc, the moral high ground is lost. And the report button will start to glow.

For instance, you can absolutely and justifiably, talk about clothing as a stereotype, and how it's damaging to women, and how transactivisim encourages it and here's an example.

Rather than a '...look at the state of 'er', sentiment. I know, again, we are being held to a higher account and it's deeply exasperating not being able to blow off steam and act in an entirely normal, rational way, with a bit of piss taking and time honoured mockery.

But it's actually quite satisfying being creative with a sentence, that absolutely nails it, but without even touching a guideline.

*MNHQ wouldn't I mean.

They wouldn't do that I don't think AAK.

I don't get how hiding feminism chat from Active fixes any problems with trolls through.
I mean they don't come here from "Active" in the first place.

If Datun is right there's a risk of good old-fashioned bullying too. What's to stop people reporting someone they don't like over and over again until MNHQ give up and just ban that person to make their own lives easier? What if that's done strategically to shut down the voices that are waking the larges number of newbies up?

Datun that is a really good idea. I'd guess that MNHQ do not ban people lightly because they profit from the traffic.

Do you think you could post that idea to Site Stuff or contact MNHQ (somehow).

If trolls are reporting every and any post to cause workload, surely that is a reason enough to be banned even temporarily.

I wonder if a sticky should also suggest something of a three strike rule? That if you are a serial post reporter, but your complaints are continually found to be groundless, you get a week's ban.

Yes, there should be such a thing as vexatious reporting. It's a difficult line to draw though, I appreciate.

Sorry that response was to Rowan.

So the problem, as far as we know, is too many posts are getting reported and creating an unsustainable workload for the moderators?

And the solution is to hide this from active? Is that the only solution being suggested?

And this will help because it tacitly agrees that the reason people are reporting is because it's getting too wide an audience? It's becoming too influential? Have I got that right?

There are several issues about this. Firstly, anyone can report any post, which takes up mod time. Is the issue that assessing and forming a judgement on that post is what takes the time, or just the fact it's been flagged?

Because we cannot control the reporting of posts by trolls. They don't have to genuinely think we have overstepped any mark. They can just report willy-nilly. To piss off the mods. They're clever enough to take a phrase or word to make them sound authentically concerned.

Secondly, it puts us in a Catch-22. If we have noticed a sealion, and have alerted the mods, that in and of its self is just adding to their workload. Especially as the sealion posts often don't come across as particularly rule breaking. And they're often long. It's a pain in the arse for the mods.

Plus sealions do provide a very useful service. They think they are putting a spoke in the feminist wheel, but they're not. As long as one can remain patient and not rise to the obvious goadiness (always, always think of the lurkers), one gets the opportunity to restate one's case, over and over. It's a gift, really.

And their response is always incriminating. If not immediately, then eventually.

Asking feminist posters to remain above reproach should, in theory, work. But not if it's about the volume of reporting, rather than the real content of their posts.

I wonder if a sticky should also suggest something of a three strike rule? That if you are a serial post reporter, but your complaints are continually found to be groundless, you get a week's ban.

Because I think we do need to find out whether or not there is any real grounds for all this post reporting. If there is, then we can self regulate successfully. If there isn't, we can't, and there needs to be some kind of recourse for us. Banning serial post reporters for being arseholes could be a solution.

That's just me thinking out loud.

Yes agree. I have tried to do this more carefully recently.

Yes I'd opt for not using pronouns at all rather than the wrong pronouns.

I mean we know we are being watched. This board has been a teensy bit unfair to LM with endless threads. Quite vocal about other transwomen like IW. SF definitely comes on here. All prominent TRAs who are experts in twisting even the most innocuous comment as "transphobic" they watch here and I suspect there is a legal case now on, since ManFriday happened and all bells went off.

Mumsnet feminists are being accused all over the Internet of "recruiting transphobes" and I think MNHQ are being accused of allowing whatever they call it, incitement to commit hatred, or that sort of thing...
So just be careful how you come across I guess. Nothing provocative or piss-taking and nothing encouraging others to target individuals.

Sometimes people use 'trans' when I know they mean either 'some TRAs' or 'transgender ideology'... I think this is very important to consider!

I'm not comfortable using preferred pronouns. It is a battle I've picked. I think the insistence on it is a large part of the problem we're facing. I am happy to use no pronouns at all.

I wonder whether pronouns are an issue. The media, the police, the NHS, local government etc will address people by their personal pronoun of choice. So I am always a bit taken aback when I see (quite a number) of posters on here who make a choice not to do this.

I always notice it and it jars a bit - and I understand and am involved in these debates. For a new person to the board, I wonder whether they see it as just plain rude or offensive? I will always try to be respectful and if someone wants me to use a particular pronoun, frankly I am going to do it.

It is quite possible to write about someone without using she or he. It's the issues that we're debating that's most important, not using language that some will see as insulting.Pick our battles and all that.

As I see it, all I can do is keep my temper, be polite, and continue to make the points I want to make, even if those points are not appreciated outside the forum. Because otherwise, why am I here?

YY to this

There was an "all dogs are disgusting!" versus "dogs should be allowed everywhere!" thread in AIBU recently. It was a bloodbath compared to this forum. OTOH, as far as I'm aware there isn't a highly organized group of dog lovers/haters trying to get AIBU shut down, so...

I agree with Floisme about it being useful to engage with people asking apparently disingenuous questions.

"I think it's extraordinary what counts as deletable on here, in comparison to what counts as deletable on AIBU. There's no end of FFSaking, telling people to get a grip, goading, rudeness, derailing and swearing at people there"

Quite. AIBU is fight club most of the time.

And don't get me started on the dog threads!

I agree with Floisme. I've only been on these boards a few weeks and was naive when I arrived. Discussions with the 'sealions' were what opened my eyes to the issues for women and girls with the changes that are happening wrt who is considered trans and their legal status.

Nevertheless, I am worried about the board getting closed down and the space for these discussions being removed.

I also think that there is something in what WidowWadman says. I am inclined to engage in good faith, until posters prove to me that they are not reciprocating. Once I notice that, I reduce or stop engaging (e.g. with crispbutty) - although, I did learn a thing or two through engaging with them and I think it is always important to challenge the basic premise of your opinions. This is how we avoid becoming an echo chamber.

Others may already know that a poster has form for not engaging in good faith, or spot it sooner. I don't think it is necessarily helpful to point this out aggressively in that case. My inclination would be not to engage, or engage in a brief polite way, so as to alert other users that this discussion has potential to deteriorate into a slanging match. The TGLWGH approach suggested initially has that effect.

I'm a bit concerned about the recent deletion of the thread that was taking the piss out of a graphic explaining gender, agender, etc. Is that where we are now? Gender is serious business and levity isn't allowed? A few of us were making jokes about the idea that women have AGP in another thread - is that now not allowed on the same grounds, pisstaking being unacceptable even if not aimed at specific people?

I feel like we're being herded in a particular direction without a whole lot of clarity in terms of what the direction is. Which may be a legal thing, who knows, but it's disconcerting, the lack of clarity.