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?

Troll hunting is in fact trolling, if it de-rails an innocent poster's thread.

Wasn't it just half term? Troll numbers/levels always go up in the holidays.

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.

Well, troll-hunting is against the rules we all sign up to; so pointing out troll-hunting isn't derailing a thread, because if it's a thread set up to troll hunt, then it should be deleted anyway.

Agree Rhubs

Agree therhubarb

Agreed Pinot. Although I'm sure MNHQ have probably considered and rejected the idea already.

Fanks Maryz love, I do think the experienced posters should carry a weight in their opinions though and the calls against that are funded from jealousy. (As proved by my volunteering myself to the Dense Bench?). It's being arrogant to think a newb would know as much as a long-timer. Madness, really.

I think you have to earn your spurs on MN (and rightly so).

@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.

I agree that there is usually a familiar line with troll posts, but not always. We've had some pretty long term trolls that may have been posting on Mumsnet for up to a year - one even went along to a meetup. They take great pains to convince Mumsnetters that they are NOT trolls so when their lives go tits up they are certain to get more support.

Those are the trolls that are bloody hard to spot and to be honest I now view most posters whose lives have gone off the rails with a tinge of suspicion and once Mumsnetters start calling for donations or other such help I hide the thread. Terrible I know. I think all posters need to be aware that not everyone online is who they say they are, they need to be a little more internet savvy. It's not about being a long term poster, it's more about lessons learnt and heeding common sense internet warnings.

Never put personal info and pictures on profiles because you really don't know who is seeing them.
Never give out email addresses or even befriend people on Facebook unless you've met them in person.
If you are going to give donations, do so through an official charity or through Mumsnet.
Always err on the side of caution and if anything feels wrong about a post, report it and then hide it.

Makes you realise just how easy it is for our children to be caught out if it happens to us grown-ups and the main reason I will not allow any of mine to have social networking accounts or to access chat rooms/forums.

All of TheRhubarb's post makes perfect sense.

Why not do it?

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?

"But mrsreplicant, trolling is against the rules we all sign up to, so using your logic pointing out trolling isn't derailing a thread because it's a thread set up to troll."

Pointing out trolling is derailing a thread, because it's troll hunting, which is against the rules. And often it won't actually be trolling; just some innocent poster.

I know it's hard. The main thing is: why not obey the rules we all sign up to? Then we all know where we are.

And just one small point.

Very often the troll threads start late at night on a weekend when HQ is lightly staffed.

If we aren't allowed to point out inconsistencies or comment on drip feeding, very many kindhearted posters could have offered support/given money/donated clothes and the like before HQ get a chance to delete threads.

The more troll hunters you have on a site, the more trolls you'll have. It's the same mind set.

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.

They haven't changed the rules.

It's just that there are some people who vigorously disagree with the rules.

@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.

Well, I've been on and off here in various guises for a long time, and I didn't realise that asking someone to explain inconsistencies or commenting on a drip feed was a troll hunt.