@prettybird
On the Westministender threads, we have an
unspoken technique of collectively ignoring those 🐿 🐿🐿 that come and try to derail the discussion. Those Brexit supporters that do genuinely engage are listened to and respected. But the 🐿🐿 get ignored.
It might be worth adopting that here.
This is the highly pertinent advice from the Bunbury threads in FWR about managing disruptive posters. I’m too lazy to format so everything below this paragraph is copied across & I’m reproducing whole, though a couple of paragraphs in the middle do not apply here. The last paragraph is very helpful:
The useful Bunbury Guide to Spotting Community Disruptors is constantly evolving.
The best research and advice is not to engage with community disruptors and trolls. As ever, if you suspect troll activity, report it to MNHQ.
Remember there are people out there who would like to silence us by fair means or foul.
This is a continuation of the Public Service Announcement thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3944572-Bunburys-guide-to-community-disruptors-part-5?pg=40
If and when you see threads plopped into FWR, especially a curious repeat of well worn topics, maybe check for poster history before engaging. AS is your friend.
There are a number of posts/posters/threads that are reproduced on Twitter or Facebook to foment controversy using screen shots & flagging to either MNHQ to have threads or posters deleted.. Sometimes, it’s used to approach commissioning editors with ideas for articles. It’s a tiresome tactic that we always have community disruptor posters who themselves post the comments that they then highlight elsewhere as purported evidence of racism, religious intolerance, anti-men sentiments, or transphobia.
Some helpful links can be found in the ‘Break it Down for me’ and ‘It never happens’ threads but in essence FermatsTheorem recommended “that in the absence of a block/hide poster button, I suggest the following strategy (given that you're talking to the lurkers).
Do not name check the sealion. Instead, respond to a depersonalised paraphrase:
"It is sometimes erroneously suggested that blah. Blah is wrong for the following reasons (short and pithy). If you need more information re. debunking blah, here's a link."
Then (this next step is important to combat derailment) go back up thread to the last useful contribution to the discussion, make sure you do name check that contributor, and pick up the discussion from that point.”