Troll-hunting and subsequent Thread-ruining

[oneofsuesylvesterscheerios]

Yes, in some ways this is a thread about a thread, although its actually an interesting general point too. Plus, I don't want to carry on the discussion on the actual thread as it would be too damaging and would take it off in a completely different direction.

So... If a poster broke the rules and shouted troll, and then they were chastised (rightly) and the post removed, unless the offending surrounding comments reacting to the troll-hunt are removed too, the damage has been done surely?

We assume when someone posts regarding a personal trauma that they are telling the truth (well I hope we do) and if we suspect anything, we surely just ignore these days: we know the MN guidelines, etc.

And we know that certain situations in life happen to a lot of people (bereavement, loss, break-ups, etc). So when someone goes through a horrible time, the beauty of MN is that we don't just get sympathy and unmumsnetty hugs; we get empathy from folk who have been there themselves. We also often get bloody good advice, practical and emotional.

A thread that contains an accusation of troll-hunting is blindingly obvious even when the offending poster's comments have been removed. And thus, the damage is done.

When my dad died last I had some fantastic support from mnetters who'd suffered the loss of a parent and knew how 'rootless' it can make you. I'd have been confused and beyond upset if anyone had questioned my grief online. It doesn't matter how many positive posters there are on thread; just one snarky comment and the wave of a pitchfork is enough to send the OP packing, at a time when they might need the 'anonymous' support of MN most.

So, what I'm asking MN Towers is: if troll-hunting is banned, and it's fully acknowledged how damaging this could be on a thread that offers support to lots of people, often not just the OP, shouldn't all references and posts regarding an accusation be completely removed so the thread can remain intact and totally focused on the thread subject? Otherwise, it seems pointless.

I did report one , but its still running so MNHQ obviously think its genuine , I think its a load of bollocks tbh.

They may well be working behind the scenes though, to try and establish if it's genuine. MNHQ, I think, tend to err on the side of the OP and leave the thread running until they know for certain if it's a troll or a genuine poster.

I've reported one, yes.

I've reported two on Relationships this weekend. They are both still standing so possibly they are both genuine.

Can you say why it matters whether the OP is genuine or not? If MNers are posting useful links and info, surely that will help other people in the same situation who are reading the thread? And all that info will then be in the archives for others to read?

I imagine proving/disproving is a tricky one sometimes. So should the general posters of MN act as jury?

There is often such polarityof opinion that there would be chaos?

breadbiscuit - I personally think that it doesn't often matter.

Well, exactly.

Really? You don't see why it matters?

Really? You don't see why it matters?

Of course it matters.
I want to talk to people on here who I trust, not a troll who lies for dramatic effect and attention.
Otherwise what is the point?

But why does it matter so much that it's worth harming a genuine poster in distress?

Oh, you're right. Screw the fifty-odd posters sharing their own traumatic experiences, offering rl help, putting their mental well-being in danger. Screw the genuine posters who need help and advice but are ignored because posters are on the more sensational thread. Let the trolls run free, after all, its only the internet.

Are they offering rl help?

Genuine posters in distress are often ignored because the Trolls make everyone so disbelieving.

Thats the Trolls not the troll hunters

rl help is typically offered, yes. Usually where noone has posted any warnings.

rl help is typically offered, yes. Usually where noone has posted any warnings.

But troll hunting encourages trolls onto a site.

It's what they want.

Usual, yep. And posters are typically drawn to threads entitled "help my dh pushed me down the stairs, has spent all the money, I am 27w pg, in early labour and locked in the bathroom" rather than "is this normal behaviour"

Usual, yep. And posters are typically drawn to threads entitled "help my dh pushed me down the stairs, has spent all the money, I am 27w pg, in early labour and locked in the bathroom" rather than "is this normal behaviour"

Are they?

Of course they are , the more dramatic the better , meanwhile poor poster who wants genuine help is ignored.

No troll hunters do not encourage trolls onto a site. Being high profile and mentioned in the news/newpapers does that.

Otherwise how would the trolls know of the existence of the site?

According to a recent BBC documentary on cyberbullying, fronted by Richard Bacon, troll hunting does encourage trolls onto a site, because trolls want:

a). as much fuss and shouting as possible
b). to wreck the site

And yet again I a still agreeing with Usual.

The links will still be there on genuine threads. the same links are offered time and time again. Why should the troll threads be allowed to stand, they do too much damage. Yes the advice might be useful but it is the same advice offered again and again. It is available in a lot of places. One thread is not going to make the difference of that advice being available. And tbh who actually trawls the darkest depths of old threads to find information when they can just ask on a new thread? which is something that is complained about and complained about the complaining