Just explain the recipe shit to me please

(Removes earrings) Let's go!

Seriously though, every forum has in-jokes, people who're friendly with each other, and so on. It's unavoidable, as are disagreements about the best ways to handle potential trolls.

(Being allowed to actually say you think they're trolling would help - that rule never did make any sense to me.)

(Weetabix Banana Abomination!)

Are you saying you're hard enough?!

Also hilarious Socio that you address a post directly to me asking me 3 questions, and then then announce you will not engage with me.

Another suggestion: If you don't want to engage with me don't ask me questions, because I might respond

(Weetabix Banana Abomination!)

Socio 'Eh?' what are you on about?? I don't know why you would presume my intentions/motives are bad faith?

I have been around on FWR for a long time. YEARS. I frequently name change, but have had this one for several months.

I thought the bad faith thing was based on first time posters posting something delibrately controversial in a disingenuous way? And not just anyone who you didn't agree with.

Yep, I might be assertive in my opinion, which you could call bossy if you like., and yep that might cause a debate/disagreemnt, but I think you are seriously missing the point if you thought that the view here is that people who disagree should not post.

There is a huge difference between disagreeing and debating and the bad faith which is being spoken about which refers to (I presumed) disingenuous posters.
I'm not that, but I may be bossy.

Crikey, bossy women on a FWR thread, shut her down .

Oh, and by the way, IIRC, recipes became the accepted signal for this type of thing when one inimical poster ran off to "ice a cake" after being challenged. This then morphed into an in-joke about icing cakes whenever anybody flounced off, and then morphed into cake recipes as a signal, and then morphed into any old recipes as a signal.

So that's the history.

And I think I will sign off with....

WEETABIX
HOT MILK
BANANA

... come and have a go if you think you're hard enough!

That thread was started as a way to accuse Posie Parker of being into far right and anti abortion politics in order to discredit Posie. It simply took the use of donations as a vehicle to this end. The OP didn't give two figs what happened to the donations.

This is an entirely different animal to a thread genuinely about what we think of crowdfunders for legal expenses that don't turn out to be needed in the end. If Lass, a known FWR poster, had started such a thread, it would not have got recipe responses.

MNHQ have closed down all other ways to signal vexatious or malicious intent and FWR - alone of all the boards on the MN forum - is subject to immediate sanction for deleted posts so nobody is going to say "bugger off, troll". This is the community's way of giving one another a heads up.

If you want to join a relatively settled online community, you will always find specific ways of doing things and the only way you learn them is time and observation. Telling online communities they can't have their quirks because you don't immediately understand them is just rude. Take time, work it out for yourself.

Lass agreed. As was I. Our opinions differ. At least we're still allowed to say that here (I think).

Yes, it was you who I was speaking to. Sorry, I should have made that clearer. The point is, it's not terribly easy sometimes to make out the genuine posters from the not so genuine. I read your last post and thought "well, that's us told how to do it properly". Your post read to me as bossy and "correcting". Which may, or may not, turn into hostility and arguments, should your intentions not be honest, and should you not be responded to in the "correct" way.

That may not have been your intention. But that's how it read. To me, at least. My interpretation of your motives was a negative one.

So, instead of engaging, people share recipes, or talk about gin, or something else neutral.

And now, I'm going to follow your instructions and say - I'm not engaging with you any more. I wish you a lovely afternoon.

The recipe talk is normally done on threads started at night by obviously massively misogynist trolls trying to provoke a reaction from women. I think it's a proportionate response to that. I'm not sure it was a good approach on the funding thread as that seemed to be somewhat different.

As someone who often contributes recipes to those threads I agree with the above from Assassinated.

I've been posting for about a year and lurked for absolutely ages before that and I do see why posters may think there there's a clique of old timers but I'm not sure why that's a problem - if you've been here for a while you get to know posters, the in jokes, language used etc and more or less fall into line with it but I do remember how baffling I found it at first.

I'm not sure what point I'm trying to make just that every online space has its own style/way of doing things that confound newbies and MN FWR is no exception.

Are you telling us what we should and shouldn't do?

Who is "us"? Baby was expressing an opinion.

You might not like her opinion but she has every right to express it. Your own post is far more "telling others what to do" than hers.

That would also let those who want to, respond, because they think it's a valid question,

Posters quite often continue to respond...even those with recipe ideas

It definitely smacks of a cliquey in joke which leaves those not 'getting the joke' feeling excluded, which is why is pricks at the memories of school bullies

Agreed. And I get the joke.

The seeking of funding was publicly conducted on MN so I'm not sure why clarity about it's use should have to done by individual and private messages?? Seems odd?

Again, I agree.

Are you talking to me socio?

If you are: I'm not telling anyone what to do, just giving my opinion and making a suggestion(see the word suggest in my post)

So what point am I proving and to who?

Are you telling us what we should and shouldn't do?

Genuinely?

After all that's been said?

Wow. Way to prove our point.

Wouldn't a clearer 'code' such as:

'This is a late night post from a first time poster so I am going to choose to not engage'.

Not be a better way to achieve this stated goal of informing other posters of suspect bad faith, without coming across to some as smug/bullies/cliquey.

That would also let those who want to, respond, because they think it's a valid question,.

The recipe crap is not only shutting down threads which some people want to discuss, it's alienating other FWR posters.

So I'd suggest: find a better tactic.

It only happens because we're not allowed to say the word 'troll' on mumsnet. On other forums posters are allowed to deal with trolls directly, like adults, but people have to work round it here, and thats why you get silliness like that.

In essence - it does what the biscuit emoji did so succinctly, until MNHQ started deleting for inappropriate biscuit use!

The recipe talk is normally done on threads started at night by obviously massively misogynist trolls trying to provoke a reaction from women. I think it's a proportionate response to that. I'm not sure it was a good approach on the funding thread as that seemed to be somewhat different.

MNHQ have outlawed posters being able to state "I believe you are a troll".

When a troll does pop up, posters revert to signalling to one another in a way to warn other posters to be cautious, lest they
-be goaded into posting fodder for a Twitter screen grab
-be subject to unpleasant gaslighting
-waste their time responding in good faith to a troll
-feel like giving up posting at all because this kind of sealioning is so draining

It's like an early warning system. Genuine posters looking out for other posters.

I'd prefer it if we were able to call a spade a spade, but we can't.

Humour is not the worst way of dealing with trolls, really.

It definitely smacks of a cliquey in joke which leaves those not 'getting the joke' feeling excluded, which is why is pricks at the memories of school bullies.

If a tactic was needed to shut down bad faith threads, I think a more refined response would be preferable to what comes across a smug group finding themselves hilarious.

The best way to have shut down the 'bad faith' funding thread if it needed it was to answer the question in a clear informative way with a 'nothing to see here' clarity. Which Posie did.

Whether you thought it was bad faith or not it was a reasonable question which some regular FWR posters also wanted an answer to.

The seeking of funding was publicly conducted on MN so I'm not sure why clarity about it's use should have to done by individual and private messages?? Seems odd?

I only usually hang about in FWR so I don’t mind a few recipes and sports chats etc popping up in the mix

There's also a certain amount of dig back that those posting here in bad faith have been known to comment about MNetters ought to just be talking about prams and Victoria sponge recipes and not bother their silly little heads with Man Stuff

It's a pleasant, non inflammatory way to warn others not to engage and to occupy the thread in a much more entertaining way. I enjoy it. Much better than arguing back or ignoring.

It's useful to me as I wouldn't realise otherwise that the op wasn't posting in good faith.

I can therefore ignore the thread when I see recipes etc rather than wasting my time.