What is with all the thread zapping?

Cassie Brighter the author is posting on MN so probably reported it all as PAs.

One of the deleted threads had to do with "peak transing" (again!) with a link to, I believe, this individual's page: medium.com/@cassiebrighter/what-do-we-do-about-women-with-a-penis-70e783fb952e

If you didn't check this link out, it's quite disturbing. Further, how is it a "pile on" to say how outraged reading this makes me? How is this not in the "spirit" of MN? VERY SAD to see the direction MN is going. We have nothing like this in the States. Looks like communication and discussion is well on its way to being squelched for you, my friends, as well...

For those us us who don't post very often it's a shame that when we finally de--lurk to actually answer a question in good faith the thread gets zapped, but heyho. 👁

I didn't want it gone. But I did finally snap and after days of not reporting began reporting all of the insults, attacks and assumptions about me. MN response was that there were so many personal attacks and troll hunting posts that it wasn't salvageable. I imagine that will give very few of you pause for thought.

Man friday allegedly consorting with homophobes

Basically ...

What was the Man Friday thread? Could anyone summarise? Or was it all rubbish? I clicked as it was deleted.

And the Man Friday thread has gone. The OP throws some mud and runs away. And the thread is deleted. Time and again.

This MO is getting very boring.

My general objection to that OP was that if any GC feminist on FWR had conflated sex offending with the trans population as the OP did multiple times on that thread, they would have been deleted, given a strike and warned not to do it again. I was made to feel very uncomfortable about that aspect of the thread

Exactly what i thought

My general objection to that OP was that if any GC feminist on FWR had conflated sex offending with the trans population as the OP did multiple times on that thread, they would have been deleted, given a strike and warned not to do it again. I was made to feel very uncomfortable about that aspect of the thread.

It's a shame the thread went entirely because there were some great posts on it. I would have preferred to have seen the direct troll hunting accusations deleted instead.

My thoughts exactly.
The OP was unusually inarticulate but I didn't get 'troll' from that. It read to me like someone losing an argument with themselves.

And there were some really good posts. I always think it's a shame to delete people's carefully considered and perfectly civil responses just because a minority miss the mark re the posting guidelines.

Yeah, well, I will admit I was in no mood to suffer fools this morning and got very cheesed off towards the end of my involvement there, but it was because I had taken the time to try and answer the blurry initial question, and then attempted to explain why the subsequent sporadic, sealioning posts may have been viewed with a jaundiced eye and all I got in response was more sealioning, and the OP started asking the initial question again of people who had already answered just to see if they were sure.

It was goady behaviour. While I am quite happy to say I didn't think they were a troll, I took the time to explain why some had suspected they were, and their responses actually left me completely doubting their good faith in the first place.

Ok, for what it's worth, I remember the OP of the doubt yourselves thread as someone who used to post pro-genderist positions on FWR a while ago and had clearly come back. So I didn't think they were trolling. I did doubt their motives because of their strange lack of clarity and worrying continued conflation of separate issues and said so - I don't regard that as troll hunting. MNHQ - is it? That said, there were quite a few posts wondering if OP was a man or a troll or or or. It's a shame the thread went entirely because there were some great posts on it. I would have preferred to have seen the direct troll hunting accusations deleted instead.

I have also used the @ lots of times. I hate unwritten rules and I often fall foul of etiquette here. I have also been dealt a pretty harsh hand after starting the odd thread and I watched how Farfrom got herself trapped in a similar way. Many posters here are very cynical and suspicious, and as aggressive as you can be without being actually threatening. But even when the attacks are aimed at me I know that, in the end, those rottweilers have my back.

If you want to reply to a point, you just need to put a quote in bold or italics.

@ is used sparingly, if you need someone to join in and they haven't been around. They might be on the loo or something.

There was a very long thread which I had started about Lisa Muggeridge being banned from Twitter which was zapped completely.

There were also consistant apparent attempts to derail it ( see also the thread below)

It was all a bit odd as discussed in the thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3284251-Lisa-Muggeridge-Suspended-by-Twitter-and-Quoting-her-breaches-MN-Guidelines

(If that's the case I Lang has an excellent case for having any thread on which Weetabix Banana Horror is mentioned deleted.)

I will never report any of you culinary delight deniers to our glorious leaders. I want the world to see exactly who you are.

So there!

Is this thread going to get me-railed into "someone thought I was trolling and now I have a vendetta"? Cause that's not really the point of the thread.

Hey AngryKittens I @ you because I was replying specifically to you, I thought that was the point of this feature. Forgive my poor etiquette but I am not welded to Mumsnet 24 hours a day, if it is a known indiscretion that one must not use that button to reply directly to someone, then you have opened up my eyes. Hence my omission in using it in this reply.

Alao this is an actual example of listening to someone and desisting with that behaviour, unlike the people who call troll over and over and in doing so exclude and invalidate the poster.

Does anyone know what happened to the zapped thread started by teentruscum (something like that)?

BarrackerBarmer this earlier one is still up, so may be other considerations:.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3301971-Gender-Dysphoria-Is-A-Mental-Illness

There are clear trolls posting here & screenshot-ing for their wider audience on other platforms. Using planted threads/posts to then contact media outlets, MNHQ, advertisers and government depts too. I think if troll hunting is a reason to delete posts or threads, MNHQ need to up their game & start dealing with the trolls who are getting comfy with their feet right under MNHQs table.

What MNHQ seem oblivious to is the fact that these trolls aren't interested in debate or adding to the conversations - they want MN shut down. Nothing less will do. So allowing these trolls to continue to post & censoring when people are calling out the trolls, they are hammering nails into their own coffin.

Seems utterly bizarre to me.

I don't know about others, but I've made 'suggestions' on threads about the intentions of a suspect OP to warn others not to engage - or not to engage seriously, at least.

We all know that this forum gets fished by activists looking for quotations to tweet.

There's a rather large difference between believing someone is a troll and suspecting someone (maybe a new poster, maybe an old timer) is not posting in good faith but in such a way that is seeking to undermine certain things.

Does the definition of troll hunting now include saying to posters "You're not listening, or engaging and are instead making insinuations and indulging in a gentle spot of gaslighting, and I think that's worth pointing out"?

Whenever I get an email because of @ I deliberately don't read the post.

Thanks, Cesira.

Also please don't @ people, it sends them a message every time you do it and is generally considered poor etiquette.

(Even I know that and I'm not exactly Miss Manners)