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?

Thanks Helen

and I am sure you guys are all having a hard time up there in the Towers and I don't want to needlessly contribute to it, but there are some issues that are worthy of debate, and I do appreciate you letting this thread stand.

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?

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.

Confused - so was Jess a troll or not? I was on that thread, at the beginning I was on her side, and towards the ends other wiser mumsnetters instilled an element of doubt but it was such a sensitive issue I think it was a good idea to report it but all the in-fighting on the thread was superfluous.
I still wanted to give her the benefit of the doubt.

It's a shame that people who offered real life support might end up being hurt, but surely it's just a case of shrugging one's shoulders?

Or maybe I'm just too naive!

Thanks hathor. That's quite frustrating. I think they could pm a reporter to say if they think a person is a troll or not.

@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.

@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 ). 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.

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.

And I know it's not simple, but as a poster, when I report, to just get a "we will take a look" and then sit on your hands for weeks and weeks knowing someone is trolling and not be able even to post a very mild criticism or ask for clarification from the actual poster - it's very frustrating.

What I am trying to say (and making a total hash of it) is that if I take what you are saying at face value....

Someone posts a sensitive thread.

I see inconsistencies.

Other posters are offering support/money/whatever.

I report.

But say nothing on the thread.

And the poster carries on.

Are we supposed to never ever if a thread is "sensitive" say "it couldn't be like that that's not what happens if...." or "you said xyz but now you're saying abc the two don't match up"

Because that is how I read what you are saying.

And I don't like it. It makes me feel sick. You're opening MN up to trolls with that policy and I for one believe it will change MN for the worse.

@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.

ok ok, point taken.

@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.

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.

No worries, Bex

@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.

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.

@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...

Hathor, when that has happened the poster who has invested a lot of time on the thread often asks for the thread to be left up so that others can benefit from their posts.

I got very annoyed once after investing time in giving someone helpful advice, but when another poster pointed out that lurkers who may be genuine might get help from my posts it made me feel a lot better.

I guess you take your chances. Thing is, this is an anonymous forum and you cannot put 100% of trust into people on here, you'd be a fool if you did. That's what I mean about being a bit internet savvy. There needs to be a fair amount of common sense around and with all the publicity on trolls and how people are not all they seem to be online, most posters should know that there is a risk the person they are giving advice to isn't who they say they are.

But certainly I do think that in light of the recent rise of the troll, Mumsnet could perhaps rewrite their talk policy to take account of that and make sure that posters are aware of the existence of trolls and that they do take sensible precautions.

TheRhub - I agree completely. I was deleted solely for saying the OP of a particular thread had inconsistencies in her story and was dripfeeding - as that constitutes troll hunting.

"RebeccaMumsnet (MNHQ) Wed 22-Feb-12 10:31:02
hathorinareddress
I've asked HQ for an explanation for my deletion on the other thread, but I'm copying part of my post, as I think it's relevant

"I don't believe my post broke guidelines, otherwise we aren't allowed to defend ourselves - aggressive posters with an agenda can throw out accusations of trollhunting and those to whom the accusation is made cannot defend themselves, which isn't fair."
Hi hathorinareddress

The posts that were removed, were removed for troll hunting or the implication that the OP was/is a troll.

By all means report 'aggressive posters with an agenda' to us and we will take a look but we do ask that you don't troll hunt on the boards.

In your previous post you asked 'How is it troll hunting to say "there are inconsistencies in your posts and you are drip feeding" when that is the case?'

This is troll hunting. We ask that you report inconsistencies and/or dripfeeding to us rather than shout 'troll' on the thread. If you are wrong then folks can and do get hurt, if you are right then the troll is getting all the lovely attention that they crave."

@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.

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.

Anyone for ?

Slurp!

@everlong

Sorry which thread about lurkers Helen?

Apols - my post about lurkers here, at the end