to think NC chickens should have all their nicknames exposed?

[A11TheSmallTh1ngs]

I frequent another site with the ability to make certain posts "incognito" if you need to post anonymously. But if someone misuses that power, the admin exposes their poster name.

The recent thread about disabled toilets made me think. Why not expose people who name change so they can say "controversial" and "petty" things that would tarnish their "mumsnet" reputation?

I'm not talking about trolls who post horrible offensive crap to get a rise. I mean people who name change because they want to say something petty and nasty but still wanna get patted on the back a day later for being nice.

Maybe certain topics that ALWAYS get nasty (like disabled toilets/parking/autistic children in your class etc) should be high alert topics. And if you start a goady thread on them, mumsnet exposes all of your prior usernames.

So next time a disabled person asks an able bodied parent to leave a disabled bathroom, they won't gleefully rush home to mumsnet and namechange to trash them because the price may be too high?

What do you think?

And how exactly do you propose to police what constitutes a "name change for privacy" and what is IN YOUR VIEW "a goady name change"

I think if people are getting all upset and offended by people on an Internet forum, maybe the Internet isn't for them. It's just words, sticks and stones and all that

I understand what you're saying OP but IMO the additional workload for HQ would be immense. In addition to the issue of who polices 'goady'.

GipsyDanger, I agree. I go by the opinion that you're welcome to have a opinion, no matter if I like that opinion or not. Honestly, getting over excited by a forum post solves nothing; then others pile on and it becomes a huge mess.

YABU. The reach of this site is such that almost all of us will know many people who at least read. While not everyone wants to be anonymous on here, lots do at least sometimes. The namechange facility is one of the things that allows people to post quite personal, interesting stuff. If you jeopardise that in any way, people will be less inclined to do it. I'm not inclined to trust the admins in the way that the system you mention does.

I wish namechanging was a bit more limited. I do understand there are a handful of reasons why people want to but it's way too easy IMO.

Personally if I felt the need to namechange to post something it's a good reminder to me not to post it.

It is quite easy to identify cowardly namechangers who are hiding behind a nc purely to post spiteful comments.

Perhaps some of the posters on this thread don't believe it really happens, but believe me, it does.

Thread can be pootling along quite nicely when suddenly, out of nowhere, a poster will start making comments about another poster's history or dragging information over from another thread or just making a spectacularly provocative or unpleasant remark. 9 times out of 10 that will be a "first time poster" who goes back to their usual nname after the thread. HQ could easily ban those people, if they get enough reports from witnesses on the thread.

"
Babyred457 that thread was horrible goady shite and you know it."

That's your opinion.

Look, posters won't gang up on Babyred just on your say-so! Disagreeing with her and telling her she's unreasonable is fair enough; trying to rabble-rouse by starting another thread (with a biased version of her OP) is bullying and that's why TAATs are discouraged.

If some people want to be childish, that's up to them. I don't think Mumsnet needs to go around parenting and punishing them. It gives them more of the attention they clearly crave.

Well, hq do already "go around parenting and punishing" their posters. Posters do sometimes get banned. Some of us think that this particular thing should be a sackable offence!

EverySongbird

I'll explain what I think a goady namechange is. The best way is the example of the Daily Mail. Yes, I know, everyone pretends not to read the Daily Mail but most links here are to it anyway so I know that you will all recognize this.

The Daily Mail have a particular form of trolling down to an artform. What they do is they take a picture of someone they want you to laugh at or dislike. But they post a really neutral or sympathetic text, in fact they often go completely the other way. They often say people are "glowing" or "naturally stunning" when they are wearing no makeup or having a bit of an off day. They are trying to goad commentators into saying "her? Stunning? She looks like shit!". They want the comments to turn on the subjects.

Example: www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3627342/Kerry-Katona-s-daughter-Molly-McFadden-t-hide-delight-Thorpe-Park.html

This isn't newsworthy. They want you to notice the daughter is fat. That's why they posted it. The top comments call out the DM on their disingenuous shit.

Posters on mumsnet namechanging on controversial issues are always framed like this. The poster is always so sympathetic, I mean it mean, i guess i should let the autistic child punch my kid in the head. Right? I mean, I don't want to be mean I mean, is it reaallllly ok for disabled people to be rude to me? That doesn't seem very nice, does it? I'm not realllllly sure.

They know that the comments will get out of control and it will attract disablist comments and nastiness which then makes many people on mumsnet feel unwelcome. But they they get to step back and say me? Who me? I was just reallllly upset. Goady? I'm sure I don't know what you're talking about! See, actually being empathetic would mean being aware of the structural inequality that people with disabilities face. That would mean actually taking responsibility for the toxic stew of bile that you churn up as well as just that statements you actually make.

The thing is, people get lots of pushback if you make statements like that over immigration or race because most people are really familiar with what a racial dogwhistle sounds like. They know that people often "just saying" aren't "just saying".

It's nasty and I don't know why people get to do it under a different name. I feel like drawing a hard line - not banning but making people responsible for that they say - would probably put a stop to it.

Ah right, I appear to have inadvertently got myself caught up in yet ANOTHER taat!

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

But exposing name changers just plays into their theory that they are important. Most people who name change could post under their regular name and 90% of mumsnet users wouldn't have a clue anyway. To me anyone could be regular, new or in one of the cliques. I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't pay attention to user names.

SmallThings I recognise that and as well, that there definitely is on the forums, an issue with disablism both overt and covert, to the degree that, I a wheelchair user now intentionally avoid disability related threads as I know, I will get upset by them.

However it is possible for a person to be ableist/racist/goady/fat shaming in one respect in their lives

and YET in spite of that unpleasant aspect of themselves that either you dislike or deep down they know is unpleasant or frowned upon

STILL require anonymity for other things such as threat from a spouse or ex, victim of crime, problems in the home

ie it's possible to be a bit of a twat in one area of your life and still be deserving of help.

I despise David Cameron. I think he's an epic knob. But if he came on here seeking help grieving his lost son, he's still entitled to do so without necessarily being outed as someone who has put his penis in a dead pig.

In a perfect world people would name change to protect their privacy. In the real world sometime people name change because they want to post nasty shit and they are too cowardly to do it in a recognisable name.

They know why they do it though. Imagine knowing you are that chicken shit.

One of the problems is that I do genuinely feel lines are blurred between having a minority view and between having a view that is deliberately posted to goad.

Good grief

I think there are possibly blurred lines in terms of what various posters regard as a minority view or as a goady post.
I don't think there has been any blurring by MNHQ and the ability to post goady shit seems pretty embedded.

I'm confident I could create a massively shit stirring thread in about 10 seconds by asking a wide eyed question in AIBU

You probably could pag but I have to admit I once asked a question and got my arse handed to me because apparently I was being a 'goady fucker', and i really wasn't (nothing to do with disabilities by the way.)

I know Kate - I'm not pretending it's easy. Sorry you got your arse handed to you . We've all had that - it's no fun.

I'm just saying let's not pretend it isn't happening.

Kate I do genuinely feel lines are blurred between having a minority view and between having a view that is deliberately posted to goad.

This.

I've had some awful expereinces that give me a certain minority perspective on certain issues. In order to explain where I am coming from I may have to explain situations/experiences that are highly personal. There are times I've wanted to chip into a debate with my relevent experiences but am too scared in case I get labelled goady (because having horrible personal experiences dismissed or disbelieved is really difficult to deal with). No doubt if I did post but NCd as describing personal stuff, this sort of rule could easily have me outed.

Who gets to decide what's "goady"? Look at the transgender debates on here, for example. Most other forums would dismiss radfem viewpoints as goady fuckery. The debate wouldn't be allowed.

I don't know if it's just my viewpoint due to getting older (am only 30 though!) but people seem to be getting increasingly more reactionary; everything's slogans and hashtags and as much hyperbole as one can fit in 140 characters. Reasoned debate and considering various pros and cons of different issues seems to have gone out the window in favour of a sort of tribal, black-and-white thinking, accusation -laden personality politics.

Meant to add, surely it's possible to make it so posters can only use one name on a thread though?

That's very true OnceThere about the trans thing.

Once you NC you cant go back. So its not a case of people keeping their profile nice looking when in real life they're not.
That complaint is made a lot - that people 'pretend' to be nice then reveal their true nasty selves. The fact is not everyone is nice all the time, get over it.

You dont actually know anyone here, none of the names are real. They are nicknames.
People don't want to be outed in RL because some people here are downright vicious. You cant fix it so they can still post and harass people in real life.