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?

The majority of poster join mumsnet because they are looking for support and advice. People will repond to threads that they understand and have some experience of. Its not always practical to just say "get some rl help"

What I would like, fwiw, is for posts about troll hunting to be deleted too.

When comments including any reference to trolling are deleted - even if, like mine, they include no allegation of trolling but refer to the speculation - but the 'you clan of troll hunting bullys' posts remain, it looks as if the posts deleted are exactly that and the few voices in the wilderness are defending the op.
In fact sometimes threads get just as derailed and warped by the 'you terrible troll hunters' posters as by the troll shouters.

If you are going to delete even references to trolling then delete the ant- troll hunting posts too.

At least that way you get left with the situation and the pertinent responses. Not the other shit.

I'd like to believe that many MNers are well-intentioned and don't have some kind of multiple personality disorder.

Hathor, I did actually try to put that very nicely. In my opinion, I do feel you are being a little stubborn. You appear to be asking the same questions again even when MNHQ have tried to answer (and so have I).

The troll policy, as Helen said, was written a decade ago. It has not changed, I can vouch for that. Nor has the deletion policy as I can also vouch for. It may appear that MNHQ are deleting mere implications of being a troll but they are not, if you look at what was deleted you will find a valid reason for it and the only reason there are more deletions is because the troll issue is becoming more of a concern for everyone. Hence Helen saying that they will look into revising the talk policy to take this into account.

Pag - I agree (and you've said it tons better than I tried to say it up the thread)

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.

I do think that the time lag between people becoming aware and thread deletion/poster banning can be too long.

Pag, I agree with that actually. Those who condemn troll hunters also derail threads but I've a feeling that MNHQ will say that if we all abided by the guidelines then there would be no troll hunters and no condemning. The actions of one lead to the actions of the other.

I didn't mean for it to be said so bluntly, liss. Hope you'd know that chick.
Beer you are wise :)

Still pondering maryz idea about hq cuting the thread with a "we're going round in circles, advice already given covers it and if not please contact XYZ, peace and love". (but said better)
It would seem the best of a bad bunch of options, as the current stance doesn't appear to be working :(

There is no right answer is there?

Sorry am on twatphone so my posts are pretty brusque. I agree about the round in circles threads.

Sorry am on twatphone so my posts are pretty brusque. I agree about the round in circles threads.

TheRhubarb - I am not being stubborn. I have said, repeatedly, I will abide by the rules. And I already do.

But I feel that the site is not the "lightly moderated" place it purports to be, given the rules as they have been explained on this thread.

And that is not a question. It is a statement of my opinion. To which, as I understand it, I am perfectly entitled. And entitled to express.

If you read my most recent posts, I did not actually ask a question, I merely expressed my opinion as to HQ's stance.

BIWI, what if the poster is new but in genuine need of help?

I kinda think that unless material support is being offered, then it's up to posters to read the talk policy and figure it out for themselves. Trolls are a fact of life right now, if you use the internet then you need to make yourself aware of the dangers surrounding it. We can't take on the responsibility of educating posters on what is a troll. Besides, many won't thank you for the warning or will carry on posting anyway so what's the point?

MN isn't lightly moderated in the sense of trolls, I agree with hathor.
Swearing, yes. All allowed ya bunch o'cunts but trolling is Deletion Central.

IMO :)

Hathor, it depends on your definition of lightly moderated. If you compare this to Netmums, then this is very lightly moderated and always has been. I've been here 10 years and see no difference in moderation levels.

But that is your opinion and that's fair enough. We shall have to agree to disagree on that one and move on methinks.

Maryz - that's what I'm trying to get at and I can't formulate it in words.

We are supportive on here, that's the point of the site after all.

But that support extends to the posters who get sucked in even more than the trolls.

I think there's more of an obligation to support/help/protect those who are getting sucked in than there is to protect the right of the troll to post until proven to be a troll iyswim ?

Pinot, I think MNHQ do what they can with the resources available to them.

As they've already said, they don't want to cut the lifeline of someone in genuine need of support when there is no clear evidence of trolling. So what do they do? Do you come down heavy on all suspicious posts and frighten away anyone looking for support who is new/bad at spelling/emotional and inconsistent/suffers appauling bad luck/has trouble telling a clear tale?

MNHQ are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Whilst I agree that trolls are becoming more prevalent and actually putting off people from posting on tragic threads, I also don't know what else they can do because they are in real danger of tipping a vulnerable person over the edge if they snatch away that lifeline.