Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

Troll hunters and HQ.

65 replies

MiddletonPink · 15/10/2014 09:19

If a poster is accused of being a troll on a thread numerous times and by more than one person then HQ pull the thread because of troll hunting shouldn't the accused be vindicated by HQ first?

OP posts:

HavanaSlife · 15/10/2014 09:21

I think so, it would be nice to know if mnhq thought the poster was telling the truth or not

Original poster

MiddletonPink · 15/10/2014 09:22

Indeed. For the poster, those believing her and those not.

OP posts:

HavanaSlife · 15/10/2014 09:28

Saying that, id like it if mnhq could tell you why they think a poster is a troll. So pbp, sock puppeting has lots of accounts to the same ip address. How sure can they be that a poster is a troll

Original poster

MiddletonPink · 15/10/2014 10:14

They won't divulge the ins and outs and I understand that. I just think it's unfair if someone is being called a liar the HQ should either pull the thread and say they were a troll or that the poster was genuine.

After all they make a big song and dance about troll hunting don't they?

OP posts:

Maryz · 15/10/2014 10:35

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster

MiddletonPink · 15/10/2014 10:39

Mary this wasn't the OP but someone posting from the start of the thread. She was blatantly accused of trolling by a good few.

If the thread is pulled for troll hunting why didn't HQ exonerate her?

OP posts:

Maryz · 15/10/2014 11:27

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster

MiddletonPink · 15/10/2014 12:03

Good points.

Just seems wishy washy that troll hunters can get away with that sort of behaviour and not have any comeuppance.

OP posts:

WerkSupp · 15/10/2014 12:07

It's a big, open website, not a criminal court.

Mintyy · 15/10/2014 12:18

But, ime, threads which contain lots of troll hunting are not usually deleted, unless HQ are pretty darn sure that op was indeed a troll.

Of course, no one can ever be 100% sure, but I'm sure they are not over-hasty to accuse people of being trolls.

Original poster

MiddletonPink · 15/10/2014 12:25

Mintyy it wasn't the OP.
The delete message said it was because of troll hunting and that it wasn't the spirit of the site thing.

Werk what do you mean?

OP posts:

Mintyy · 15/10/2014 12:28

Oh well in that case then I do agree that HQ should stand by the op. But then I don't think they should delete a whole thread for troll hunting either! It may be against the rules but its unrealistic to expect no one to raise a cynical eyebrow when the site is absolutely fucking riddled with trolls.

Original poster

MiddletonPink · 15/10/2014 12:56

Well quite. But if you're being accused of being a troll can't be nice if you're not either!

OP posts:

BeyondPreparedForHell · 15/10/2014 12:56

As the troll huntiest on the thread, I'm quite curious why hq have stayed quiet in the open, yet have emailed me about the pm i reported to them (not publicising private conversations after yesterday, so not saying either way what hq said)

BeyondPreparedForHell · 15/10/2014 13:01

Basically (hope this is vague enough to be okay but still explains the situation) the op started a thread asking about a deleted thread and it was quite a quiet one. The next day, it got bumped back up by a new poster, saying the original op was possibly real, and that people should pm her for details. I pm'ed, as i had believed the original deleted poster, then suspected trolling from my reply. I reported the pm to hq, went back to the thread and shared it, yes, a bad idea, i know this. Anyway, took a few hours for hq to get back to me, and they then deleted the thread for trollhunting.

Original poster

MiddletonPink · 15/10/2014 13:06

Strange indeed.

I did email them after they deleted the thread asking whether said poster was genuine but they haven't replied, hence my thread on here.

Just seems to me they didn't know so just came up with the one size fits all delete message.

OP posts:

DontDrinkAndFacebook · 15/10/2014 13:08

Surely if MNHQ pull the thread it should mean it is a troll? There is no need to pull a perfectly above board thread because of troll hunters - just deleted their posts and say why.

DontDrinkAndFacebook · 15/10/2014 13:08

delete

BeyondPreparedForHell · 15/10/2014 13:12

I've replied to my email, asking if they could pop in to this thread.

If they werent sure, taat would have been an adequate deletion message, its what it started as!

Original poster

MiddletonPink · 15/10/2014 13:12

In that case why not say the thread is being deleted because reported poster isn't genuine instead of because there were troll hunters on it and it wasn't in the spirit of the site?

OP posts:

BeyondPreparedForHell · 15/10/2014 13:25

I would have gone with "thread deleted as it started as a taat and spiralled into one giant trollhunt against a poster that hq feel to be genuine/not genuine"

Answers all questions then, you agree?

BOFster · 15/10/2014 13:25

I suppose they could say either, quite reasonably. I imagine that once a thread gets too peppered with people squawking TROLL, though, and they haven't had time to complete their investigations, it is more logical for them to delete it on the basis of the troll-hunting on the thread, which is just as much against guidelines as fantasists spinning a line. It's a lot more obvious and easy to prove, so that's the deletion message they choose.

MNHQ have never (and could never) swear blind that an OP is telling the complete truth, or speaking with accuracy, which is why they add disclaimers at the top of many topics about not taking people's professed qualifications etc as gospel. They might be able to surmise that something is very unlikely, by using their behind-the-scenes superpowers, but I have never seen them say anything stronger than that they have no evidence to prove trolling and that in the absence of that, their policy is to give the benefit of the doubt.

That is as near to 'exonerating' an OP as you are going to see. What else can they do?

ChippingInLatteLover · 15/10/2014 13:32

I wish all the trolls would just bog off back under their bridges.

BeyondPreparedForHell · 15/10/2014 13:38

Me too, chipping. :(

As I said to hq when i reported, I was upset from related stuff elsewhere and the PM at that time was the straw that broke the camels back. That 'ping' moment where things clicked into place and i just saw red.

Troll hunting is bad, im very aware of that and i know why, 5 minutes before receiving my PM on that thread, i was defending the original OP and saying that even people 'known' to hq can have bad things happen.

But, well...argh!

wantacatplease · 15/10/2014 13:39

I s'pose the poster would be banned if suspected a troll or sockpuppet. If you advance search a user, will it say
there is no known user by that name if they were banned?

Flip

1 2 3