Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk

Back to thread
Original poster

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

56 replies

wannaBe · 20/02/2012 13:40

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?

Go to post
MNHQ

RebeccaMumsnet · 22/02/2012 10:36

@MaryZ

Yep, www.urbandictionary.com/products.php%3Fterm%3Dtroll%2520hunter%26defid%3D1520440&docid=PCVuANJLgREAfM&imgurl=rlv.zcache.com/img/imt-prd/pd-148044169903074104/isz-m/at-238560305421145726/realview.jpg%253Furbanword_txt%253Dtroll%252520hunter%2526urbanimage_url%253Dhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.urbandictionary.com%25252Fproducts.image.php%25253Fdefid%25253D1520440%252526revision%25253D9ece21c09bc633a7d083ec02b94fd9e308c2c639&w=325&h=325&ei=rcRET7zCBMOnhAf7q5GkAg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=552&vpy=215&dur=429&hovh=225&hovw=225&tx=133&ty=151&sig=116338655759963393129&page=2&tbnh=162&tbnw=156&start=19&ndsp=12&ved=0CJwBEK0DMBU" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">this is what I'm currently sporting Grin

Sorry, Rebecca, that was a joke. Honest.

ha! snap, i'm wearing the very same Grin

MNHQ

RebeccaMumsnet · 22/02/2012 10:38

MNHQ

RebeccaMumsnet · 22/02/2012 10:50

@hathorinareddress

Rebecca - thank you but why are the aggressive posts accusing of troll hunting allowed to stand then? If my defence breaks guidelines, then the original accusation should also break guidelines and should be deleted.

And are we not allowed to say on a thread then "there are inconsistencies and you have been drip feeding" if a poster has?

If they are personal attacks, they will be removed when reported to us and yes, the original accusation should be deleted.

We would rather you didn't say "there are inconsistencies and you have been drip feeding" even if in your opinion there are/ have been. Because, this is your opinion and sometimes there can be very legitimate reasons behind what is perceived as dripfeeding and also (on occasion) inconsistencies.

Report all of this to us and let us have a dig behind the scenes, dragging it all out on the thread really doesn't help anyone.

MNHQ

RebeccaMumsnet · 22/02/2012 11:11

@hathorinareddress

Well in that case that is what I'll do in future, but I didn't think that was troll hunting, I thought it was asking the OP to clarify.

But it's not my opinion if someone says (for example) the canary bit my hamster and then changes it to the llama bit my hamster and it spat at the gerbil last week so I know it has a tendency to do these things

When it's obvious (like my dopey example) are we really not allowed to say "hand on was it the canary or the llama and you never said spat at the gerbil before"

If a poster changes their story in a dramatic fashion canaries and Llama's as an example then of course it is ok to say 'hang on a minute, would you mind explaining yourself' it is not ok to say ' You are posting inconsistently' in a troll hunty accusatory way.

We do see that it is a very fine line and it does come down to context so there isn't a clear black and white answer.

If it is a sensitive thread then accusing the OP of trolling (even if they seem to be) when they need some support, really isn't on.

MNHQ

RebeccaMumsnet · 22/02/2012 11:23

@hathorinareddress

In the nicest possible way, Rebecca, that's a trolls charter then. Because as long as they pick a sensitive topic they will never get "called" on it on the thread.

This is where we rely on your reports. Shouting troll on a thread does much more harm than good. If folks report to us, we can take a look and deal with it and try our best to minimise any upset.

Trolls are shit, we can't stop them coming but we can try our best to limit the damage, but we need folks to report them to us so that we can get rid.

MNHQ

RebeccaMumsnet · 22/02/2012 11:24

@LeBOF

I had a post deleted on here which they did by mistake. I think they are all a bit twitchy after a tough week at the T-face.
MNHQ

RebeccaMumsnet · 22/02/2012 12:11

@Pinot

Is there possibly a chance that HQ are leaning too much on the side of "benefit of the doubt" to the (unknown, new) poster and supplying them with their support, whilst leaving experienced, regular posters without support for their concerns?

I agree in the benefit of the doubt thingy, and you'll know I'm a newb on this subject, but it would seem to me that if all of the experienced regs are all saying the same thing (that HQ don't deal fast enough and hard enough with suspected trolls) then there just might be some truth in that?

What if, for a a trial period, HQ clamps down on suspected trolls hard and fast. This would put them off returning, cutting off their oxygen as it were. And for those few innocents caught in the cross-fire, well they'll have the opinion that MN isn't the place for them and go to another of the endless supply of forums and receive help.

HQ, IMO, are shooting themselves in the foot with a "Mother Teresa" attitude of "but what if they neeeeeeed help from us", and are causing angst and upset in doing so. By protecting the few, you are upsetting the masses. There are tons of other forums for them to receive help. What's the worse that could happen? You'll lose a few members, and majority of those will be the trouble-makers/trolls.

I dunno, feel free to ignore me.

With all due respect to you lovely Pinot, the worst that could happen is an individual at their lowest ebb is laughed off of MN and banned by us.

Someone who is in dire straits does neeeeed support and help and should be able to access it.

The consequences of getting it wrong in some situations, could be horrendous.

That is not to say we don't care about others being upset too, we really do and sometimes it is a really tough call. We hope that you can trust that we do take all of this really seriously and investigate as thoroughly as possible

We just have to stress that reports really are the best way forward.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 22/02/2012 12:34

@hathorinareddress

Rebecca - I sent this in an email to HQ but I'd like to put it out here it's from the talk guidelines page

"Remember that this site is lightly moderated. It's often best to wait and see what develops before jumping in to get a thread pulled." LeninGrad

That comment discourages people from reporting, imho, which is at odds with the policy as it has been stated on this thread.

Perhaps you should look at replacing that comment with a more appropriate one in light of the more robust moderating that seems to be being advocated now?

We'll certainly have a look at that, hathor. Thanks for pointing it out.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 22/02/2012 12:46

@hathorinareddress

MrsReplicant - I disagree.

I think MNHQ have subtley changed the mind set with the report, hands off the thread we will deal with it and at the end of the day if that is what they want posters to do (and I will do so from now on) they also need to take on board that they need to step up and take action a bit quicker than they sometimes have done in the past.

No, our mindset hasn't changed at all. Really it hasn't. Those Talk Guidelines haven't changed (in essence) for over a decade.

It's has become clear recently, though, that we have lots of more recent joiners who either aren't aware of our Guidelines or who aren't quite clear exactly what they mean, or how they are enforced. And we're doing our best, here and on other threads, and in emails to those who mail in, to explain more clearly and more fully.

Re the acting quickly bit: take your point, hathor but it's not always as simple as it might seem. Some trolls are obvious to spot - yer average "Look at my penis!" teen troll of a half-term, for example - but others are not, and it takes a while for us to assemble enough "evidence" to ban.

If there's one thing that modding here has taught me, personally, it's that MNers' collective "spidey sense" about suspected trolls is very often right. But there have been many occasions when it wasn't right - and, if we had acted quickly, going by reports alone - we would have banned a vulnerable poster in real need of support.

If it's any consolation to those who feel frustrated that a certain poster is still posting, despite many reports to MNHQ, do remember how many people lurk on Mumsnet, reading threads and taking comfort and strength from the brilliant advice that is posted: so, while the (possible) troll may not be taking on board any of the posts on their thread, other people who are genuinely in the same position most certainly are.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 22/02/2012 12:48

@TheOneWithTheHair

Sorry if this has already been answered but the thread is a little long now and I may have missed it.

If I report to HQ will I get a response even if it's not a troll so at least I know?

Yes, you will always get a response (though it may take a little time at the moment Smile). We may not be able to tell you much, though - other than we are taking a look. But we do on occasion say more - particularly if we can see that the poster in question has been on MN for a while.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 22/02/2012 12:53

@hathorinareddress

You don't always, TOWTH, sometimes you just get a "we will take a look" and very often that's the last you hear, which I think is part of the frustration that those of us who do what we are supposed to do and report suspicions - once reported, they disappear into the ether and the threads stand, and you never hear any more about it.

We understand that frustration but reports most definitely do NOT disappear into the ether - we file them all most anally and follow them all up. (And, lordy, if you could see MNHQ right now, with its whiteboards and klaxons and photofits, you would be most impressed, I tell ya!)

Please appreciate that we can't mail back and say, "Yup, she's a troll" because a) we might not know yet b) you might just post it on the boards - and if we're wrong, what a mess that would be c) the troll would love it.

Much better, though admittedly less cathartic for you folks, is for us to implement a quiet ban (if needed). That is the Troll Equivalent of nul points on their Enraging the Mumsnetters rating.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 22/02/2012 12:55

@hathorinareddress

Helen I get what you are saying, I really do, but I have seen hundreds of threads where people have called an OP on inconsistencies or drip feeding and they haven't been deleted, whereas I was.

Well, that's because no one reported those threads, hathor. We don't necessarily see anything unless it's reported.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 22/02/2012 12:58

@everlong

justonemore no it's not a case of just shrugging shoulders.

Say for instance a troll starts a thread about self harm. She then gets some kind and well meaning person who themselves have self harmed, but has stopped doing it, this poster gives the troll her time invests a lot of energy and gives them her personal account of a distressing time in her life.

Then it turns out it's a troll.

How then does the poster feel?

Gutted, we agree. But see my post about lurkers: that time and energy is not necessarily wasted.

I know that, when I was a lurker (many many moons ago) one poster's hugely personal, confessional post helped me turn a corner in my life. No idea if the OP of that thread was a troll or not - but it wouldn't have mattered a bit in my case.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 22/02/2012 13:00

@TheRhubarb

What's wrong with asking for clarification? Posters have done that to me and in fact I've been accused of drip feeding too, when they knew full well that I wasn't a troll, it was just a general criticism of my post.

If you are genuine then you won't mind clarifiying certain issues because when you are posting during a stressful situation your posts can be quite confusing and misleading and a genuine poster tries their best to clear things up. My spidey sense goes when someone asks for clarification and the OP gets very defensive because ime genuine posters don't.

That's not troll hunting, that's just telling a poster that their OP is a bit confusing and asking questions so that you get a better sense of their state of affairs.

I've not seen any mild criticisms or requests for clarification deleted but I have seen such requests worded in such a way that is implying that the poster is a troll and those posts are deleted. It's not so much what you say but how you say it.

Nothing wrong with asking for clarification, Rhubarb - as long as it's done in the spirit of benefit of the doubt and not as a clear statement of disbelief/trollhunting. As RebeccaMumsnet said, downthread...

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 22/02/2012 13:03

@SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius

Helen - would it be possible for you to temporarily close a thread whilst investigations into a potential troll happen? Especially if it looks like one of the emotional vampires who cause so much harm, or if it looks like people are getting to the point of actually sending money/gifts etc. At least then people wouldn't get sucked any further in.

PS - sorry for muddying the metaphorical troll waters with a vampire. Wink

Get what you're saying, SDTG, but worry that this might as well be taken as proof positive that the OP is a troll.

But we do - and did in Jess's case - post on threads about the dangers of sending money/gifts to people you only 'know' on the internet.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 22/02/2012 13:06

@everlong

Sorry which thread about lurkers Helen?

Apols - my post about lurkers here, at the end

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 22/02/2012 13:09

@SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius

I see your point, Helen - but think to suspend a thread would be better than the hurt caused by an emotional vampire troll.

Perhaps it would help to know that we do, very occasionally, ban a suspected "vampire troll" before we're ever so completely 100% sure - just to stop them posting again and keeping the thread alive...

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 22/02/2012 13:17

@everlong

Yes I suppose that is generous way to think Helen and if I'm being honest I was only thinking from my pov.

But if I were on a thread where a poster had said that her son had committed suicide and I gave her my time, experience and a lot of support on this matter to then find it was a troll would make me so angry. I can't tell you how much.

Completely understand, everlong. We would be furious on your behalf, too. But imagine if you had started a thread about your son committing suicide and others came on and said they didn't believe you and called you a troll - that would be terrible, too.

There's no easy answer, really, is there about how far you should give of yourself on an emotional thread? Many posters here have suggested no one should give more of themselves that they feel able to, or invest more of their energy into a thread than is healthy for them, however much they may feel for the OP. And that's probably wise advice.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 22/02/2012 13:22

@hathorinareddress

Actually Maryz has raised a good question - if we report, would we be breaching Talk Guidelines if we posted

"I have reported this thread as I believe it breaches the Talk Guidelines"

Yes it probably would - unless the OP was a spammer or something. Remember, if the OP isn't actually a troll, you're causing hurt and lobbing a hand grenade of bunfighty-ness into the thead; if it is a troll, you're giving her huge amounts of "yeessss, I'm winding them up" satisfaction by announcing your decision to report.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 22/02/2012 13:25

@MaryZ

I personally think that once it became apparent that the op is not going to accept advice, a post from mn hq saying "this is really a matter for social services, it is not a matter for amateurs on a chat site, therefore we are deleting your thread and here are the contact numbers for ISPCC/SS etc" .

Maryz, it's quite possible we may well mail the OP to say precisely that on occasions like this.

But we really can't close/delete threads just because the OP won't accept advice. Just because someone is a mardy cow that's not proof positive she's a troll.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 22/02/2012 13:27

@Pinot

Helen YOU CAN if it's causing upset/strife for regulars. YOU CAN!

But would we then have any regulars left, Pinot? Wink

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 22/02/2012 13:29

@MaryZ

I mean, if someone posts "my next door neighbour beats the shite out of his kids every night, the noise is really getting to me", and ignores advice to do anything about it, you would delete it, wouldn't you?

Very probably because that OP would almost definitely be trolling.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 22/02/2012 13:32

@TheRhubarb

I agree with Helen actually, it is far better to have a dozen or so angry Mumsnetters than one poster who has her lifeline torn away from her when she needed it the most.

I mean, just think back to the one time in your life when something horrible, perhaps even tragic happened. How would you feel if you posted for some online support and on top of your pain and suffering, you were accused of lying about your situation and your thread was actually suspended whilst you were investigated by MNHQ?

Although I also agree with MaryZ. The amount of trolls around at the moment has made me not bother to post on any threads asking for support so there needs to be some kind of balance agreed on or else those in genuine need are still suffering because of the spiteful actions of the trolls.

If the talk policy was written a decade ago then can I gently suggest it is updated? How about:

We do have to advise caution when posting on threads as we cannot guarantee that every poster will be genuine. If you do have any concerns please do report them to us as we take every report very seriously and will take time to investigate all reports that come through. However there are some genuine posters in real need of support so we do ask that posters be mindful of the vulnerability of such posters and not to post any implication that they may not be telling the truth, reporting all concerns to us instead. We also advise posters never to give out personal details and to be mindful of the dangers of any anonymous internet forum.

Something like that?

Thanks Rhubarb - that sounds very useful. We'll look at doing something like that once we've got rid of all the bloody trolls

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 22/02/2012 14:11

@BIWI

But, but, but ....

I agree/accept that troll-hunting isn't A Good Thing. But why can't we post in such a way to alert others if we think that trolling is going on/others are being sucked in? (As well, obviously, as reporting to MNHQ).

Stuff like 'interesting first post' or 'welcome to Mumsnet' can be all that's needed to alert people to beware. And if the OP is genuine, they can easily reply and say 'I'm not new, I've n/changed: Mouldies, nice ham, cube of poo....' etc.

Actually, no, BIWI, saying 'interesting first post' or 'welcome to Mumsnet' is trollhunting, really. Everyone knows it's code for 'I think you're probably a troll'. And, as we said earlier, it does lob a hand-grenade of trollhunty bunfightiness into a thread.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 22/02/2012 14:16

@LeBOF

Bibbity :-

Trolls are bad, people are stupid, Helen is God, and God is good.

I think that's about it.

Liking your style, BOF

Watch this thread for updates

Tap "Watch" to get all the latest updates