mn hq, can we have an explanation - jess - and maybe re other trolls in future?

[wannaBe]

I am aware that you can't divulge the means by which you determine whether or not a poster is genuine, predominantly because if you make that common knowledge then posters will know how to avoid being detected in the future.

but jess (long ongoing eleven weeks abortion threads) threads have now been deleted for being a troll, and I was wondering if, given it's the site users who usually report these things, we could perhaps have a bit more by way of explanation?

e.g. when sassysusan was banned, mn hq confirmed that she had previously posted as washwithcare, and users were able to identify.

There has been some speculation that jess was dizzymare, and I wondered whether this was the case?

Also, these threads have been ongoing for over a month now. How is it that it takes quite this long to determine that someone isn't actually all they seem?

No - it did smell a bit though. These ones usually just don't sound quite right. I am not sure if its the language or way they are written but they dont ring true.

I get annoyed when posters put their hearts on their sleeves (and some of the stories are really heartbreaking) to try to help or give advice and it turns out to be a big joke. The sad thing is that if someone gets their fingers burned, they may think twice before helping out someone who really is genuine.

"Extensive background in advanced crowd control management" might sound better than "expert in use of fuck off".

See I am really confused now - I had a post deleted on Saturday that said something like "Actually XXXnameXXX a personal attack is[..] if MN wants [..] - but that's a little two-faced of you isn't it?"

I was deleted and asked why, and was told that the two faced comment was a personal attack. I was calling XXXnameXXX two faced.

To me the two-faced bit was a question, not an attack. And more like Helen's fourth example than the other three.

(I always thought I was good at English, and at explaining myself - now I'm and .)

There needs to be a full equal opportunities stylee appeal system against deletions.

And warnings need to go to a tribunal.

The private bit is not true [bitter]

I have in the past reported messages on the grounds they were personal attacks (and tbh it has to be pretty bad for me to report) only to be told that "while we agree it's a personal attack, we don't feel it's appropriate to delete it at this stage because of other content or the post" or some such.

@mrsreplicant

There needs to be a full equal opportunities stylee appeal system against deletions.

And warnings need to go to a tribunal.

Only if I can wear a wig and use an actual

@wannaBe

I have in the past reported messages on the grounds they were personal attacks (and tbh it has to be pretty bad for me to report) only to be told that "while we agree it's a personal attack, we don't feel it's appropriate to delete it at this stage because of other content or the post" or some such.

Really?

I'll do it for free MaryZ

I feel I should qualify that statement as it makes me sound freakishly nosey/weird.

I am freakishly nosey/weird

I've had this in the past.

From: "Mumsnet Towers"
Date: 7 February 2011 8:30:52 AM AEDT
To:
Subject: Re: (Case 42984) 23649687

Hi there,

Thanks for contacting us.

We agree that this thread/post is in poor taste but we don't tend to delete on those grounds because it would be really hard to know where to draw the line.

The truth is, we don't think we should be the arbiters of what people should find offensive and what they shouldn't. On the whole, we think it's better to let the boards self police in these instances, as it's very rare that a tasteless comment is left unchallenged.

Best,
Catherine
MNHQ

Argh, hit post too soon, reply was for a comment that was beyond what's deleted now. What's changed that self-policing isn't seen as the way to go anymore?

And MNHQ, I only meant to the last bit about self-policing but am clumsy on an iPad. Please delete if you'd rather not have the whole email up.

If you switch to mobile view, it's much easier to C&P, for some strange reason, Hester.

I'm in mobile, BOF, I'm sadly just crap at it anyway.

everlong I agree entirely re "just because a user has a profile with pictures"... (or whatever your wording was).

I also think that one should be careful of going down the line of saying that just because someone is a regular poster they can't be a troll.

My vampiric troll from the site where I moderate was a regular. She had in fact herself been a moderator of said site (which is probably how she got away with it for so long). She had a regular, well-known account that had details about who she actually is. She is a real person. She has a real life, a job, a twitter account, a blog and a partner. And then she has lots of personas (I know of at least four, and two others that relate to one of them, but am told there have been more).

And she is of course friends with her personas. So when she came on and posted that one of them had tragically died people were so so sympathetic and upset. When she logged into that persona's account the mods (I was not one of them at the time) thought nothing of it when they asked her why and she explained that the family wanted to know if there had been any pm's etc as she had committed suicide.

She gives her troll personas credibility because she vouches for them under her real name, her real identity.

I Can often tell the big trolls like the Jess thread, at first I was a bit hmmm, maybe it's just me as I'm very cynical but when she started second thread for 'all her followers' it was obvious.

The ones I tend not to spot are the normal ones so if someone could PM me what TSC was on about that would be great, because emotionally I can't afford to get sucked in so would like a heads up, don't have friends on here so have no one else to ask or tell

Has MNHQ re-stocked the gin now?