Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk

Back to thread
MNHQ

OFFICIAL MNHQ THREAD on posts about suicide, troll-hunting and related matters

84 replies

RowanMumsnet · 23/10/2014 10:10

Hello

There have been so many threads about this over the past few days, and so many divergent points of view - and so much upset - that we'd really like to have the discussion in one place rather than in many different threads all over the boards.

For those who haven't heard yet: we are actively reviewing our policy about threads regarding suicidal feelings and suicidal intent. We are seeking expert input from outside organisations including the Samaritans. Once we have that we will come back and have a further discussion with MNers about the way forward.

We'll be here to talk on the thread throughout the day, but do please note that we WILL delete troll-hunting posts for all the obvious reasons. So PLEASE do not use this thread to make insinuations about identifiable posters - keep it general please.

Re: Wombat: we understand that some reporters had concerns, but at the same time this poster had been around for years with a very consistent posting history. We absolutely do not have any concrete reason to disbelieve her. However, her thread had been immensely upsetting and triggering for many users, and has prompted a site-wide discussion about how we handle these threads. Once her husband had posted that she was at home with him and under the care of RL professionals it really seemed best all round to delete the thread.

We contacted Wombat at the time to explain our deletion and we still feel that for many very good reasons this is best sorted out off-board between us and her; we've asked her again to reply to our email and we will happily take it from there.

We also think that this whole case is a very good illustration of why we have no-trollhunting rules. We understand that some of you find them frustrating, but for every correct troll-call, there's an incorrect one. Being called a troll in public when you're giving an honest account of deeply upsetting real-life circumstances can be devastating for people.

Equally, we do 'get' that there are a lot posters and threads at the moment that seem deeply suspicious. We are on the front foot with this and have been being pretty pro-active at closing things down when they are reported to us and when we can see that things aren't adding up, particularly if they are new users.

So we need you to keep reporting and NOT break troll-hunting rules on the boards unless MNHQ itself has said publicly that we are confident that someone was a deliberate trouble-maker.

The namechange/sock-puppeting thing is extremely easy for us to spot when it's reported. It's not a judgement call - it's black and white and it's the work of a moment for us to spot it and deal with it.

Go to post
MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 23/10/2014 11:56

@FickleByNurture

But what about the normal everyday users who, without wanting to out themselves to friends, colleagues, families and clients will name change, or change subtle details about their lives where it doesn't matter. Example: What about when under one name they have a DDog and the other a DCat? Must it be mandatory for all MNers to always tell the complete truth all of the time in case someone sees a discrepancy in the minutiae and yells troll?

From MNHQ's POV, we distinguish between the kind of thing you describe here (ie changing a few details because you want to post about something intimate or identifying and you don't want it associated with your 'normal' username) and people who seem to change details that are central to their overall account - if that makes sense?

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 23/10/2014 11:58

Thank you VSeth Brew

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 23/10/2014 12:05

@AlaskaNebraska

Oh! Post took so long to type that you've already answered this!
MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 23/10/2014 14:02

Thanks for all the suggestions - we will note them all and discuss, promise.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 23/10/2014 14:10

@ExtraWickedDevil

What I would really like is some honesty. Troll hunting is bullying and it is really unedifying to read posts from people who are kicking vulnerable people when they are down. Do they get banned? Or are they just " reminded" Hmm of the talk guidelines?

Well, our usual MO is to first clock that someone has done it once; then to mail them if they do it again, reminding them of the Guidelines; then to take it further (sin-binning or banning permanently) if they carry on. This isn't set in stone; sometimes we'll ban outright if someone seems to have joined up purely to troll-hunt and be nasty, sometimes we'll warn people a few times (if they're otherwise a poster with a record of being genuinely helpful and supportive) before moving to more extreme measures. But it IS against our rules and it DOES get dealt with.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 23/10/2014 15:02

Derek, it was deleted because of your remark that you were 'calling bullshit' on a thread. As we said in the OP, we really want to keep this discussion general and we will delete troll-hunting posts.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 23/10/2014 15:16

@EatDereksCorpse

Ok. I'll type it again missing bits out.

Thanks Cake

@EatDereksCorpse

As I said people don't report threads as the usual reply is just 'we will keep an eye out'

No, this isn't fair really.

If we take a look and we agree it looks dodgy, we'll do something about it. But we do need something to go on; we can't delete and ban people just because one or two reporters don't like their style.

We have banned and deleted scores of posters and threads over the past couple of weeks.

If we say 'we'll keep an eye on it' it's because, having had a pretty good look, we can't see any reason to be suspicious, or because we can see things that indicate the poster is on the level. We're always happy to revisit those ones if new information emerges, but in the meantime, no troll-hunting is the rule.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 23/10/2014 15:56

@WorraLiberty

We have banned and deleted scores of posters and threads over the past couple of weeks.

Would it help if the deletion messages stated whether the poster had actually been banned/sin binned?

I think a lot of people get fed up of reporting because they're not seeing the consequences.

Yesterday a poster name changed just to start a TAAT...and a pretty nasty one at that, taking the pee out of another poster's thread.

All the deletion message said was it was a TAAT, but what I'd like to know is, was the person banned for abusing the name change function and taking the pee out of the original poster?

If you can take a firmer stand on the cowardly name changers who simply want to cause trouble, it might cut down on the trolling.

Well, we've always tried to avoid the public punishment thing. Our view is: we're all adults and nobody needs to be hung out to dry in front of a crowd.

Where someone is an absolute slam-dunk troll and has been banned, we do tend to let reporters know and put it in the deletion message. But anything that has a grey area, we've always found it best to keep more private between us and the poster concerned. We do occasionally get things wrong, after all, and don't want to publicly announce that someone was a troll/has been banned and then subsequently find out we'd made a howler.

Not sure about the other TAAT you're referring to - can you mail in and we'll take a look?

We did agree recently that we would suspend people's ability to namechange if they abused it and we're happy to carry on doing that. It would be helpful if you could flag up in your report that that's one of the reasons you're reporting them.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 23/10/2014 15:58

@26Point2Miles

Quick to delete dereks post but can I ask? Why have all the posts been left up which mentions the recent 'suicidal' posters name?

You said you wanted to keep this thread general and yet...

Obviously that's the thread that prompted all this soul-searching 26 so it wouldn't really make sense to try to have a discussion about it without mentioning it at all. We're asking people to not post up anything that implies that any identifiable poster is trolling - none of the posts on this thread are making that insinuation we think?

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 23/10/2014 16:02

@JustScreamNobHurts

Be reported threads where posters have said blatantly this is bollocks and they've been left to stand Confused

Sorry nob, are you saying you have reported them and they've been left to stand?

We don't bend over backwards to delete troll-hunting posts if we have actually banned the poster concerned as a troll - it seems a bit needlessly punitive really. So it might have been something like that.

Equally, sometimes posters are saying 'this account of events doesn't make sense' and in certain circs (and this is why we try to play it by ear) we think that's a valid thing to say and isn't the same as calling someone a troll; it can be a genuine observation that something isn't adding up, possibly because the OP has deliberately left something out to avoid being identified.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 23/10/2014 16:14

@JustScreamNobHurts

And of all the abbreviation of my name you picked Nob are you trying to tell me something? Hmm

Grin

Arf, sorry.

Do we say somewhere that MNers have 'saved' people? Can you flag up where and we'll take a look?

Our Guidelines don't obsess over either we think, tbh. Everything that's not allowed is in the Guidelines and it's all given equal weight. Trolling isn't allowed, and neither is troll-hunting. Admittedly, the second is more prima facie easy to spot than the first in a lot of cases, but there isn't a lot we can do about that!

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 23/10/2014 16:18

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

- don't grant the ability to create threads until x amount of minimum posts have been reached.

Problem with this is a lot of people may lurk, and only post if they need help/advice - this would prevent them making that thread asking for help.

Yes, we'd probably be reluctant to stop brand new users actually starting threads. We will look at the post count idea though.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 23/10/2014 16:20

@26Point2Miles

Ok I'll spell it out and probably get deleted, but wombat has been mentioned by name here.... On this very thread!

She's mentioned in the OP 26 - quite extensively! But nowhere is it being implied that she's not on the level (we think? Do flag if we've missed something)

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 23/10/2014 16:24

@MrsLettuce

Are MNHQ considering not taking the advice you've sought from the Samaritans et al about suicide threads if it comes into conflict with the opinions of some posters which it's bound to?

TBH I don't think MNHQ should be giving the impression that this sort of policy decision up for discussion. A decision needs to be made and implemented about something where there is no right answer.

We do take your point MrsL but MN has been unusual for a long time in this respect - both that we seek users' views on all sorts of things, and that so far we have usually allowed posts referring to suicide to stand.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 23/10/2014 16:27

@Bassetfeet

I find it a bit difficult to imagine a new person searching for help to access mumsnet as first option . So delaying posting privelege may stop some trolls I think

Well talking v generally Basset (ie not just about people who are feeling suicidal) it's actually the case that a lot of people find MN through searching a particular term and finding that a MN thread is one of the highest and most useful search results. MN is very 'highly indexed' (in SEO terms) and pops up on the front page of all sorts of weird and wonderful search terms. So yes, tbh an awful lot of people will go from 'searching for [chicken coops/bootcut jeans/domestic violence advice] and arrive at MN and be ready to ask a question within minutes. And we'd be reluctant to do something that would effectively turn them away at the door.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 23/10/2014 16:29

@ScaryZ

I'm also very saddened by this.

It seems to me that mnhq can say "we have no proof that X is a troll" but they can never say "we have proof x isn't a troll" unless they go and visit x and check her medical history and all the facts of the case, which they are blatantly unable to do.

I'm saddened that this is the one site where they will believe someone, no matter how impossible the story, and how many times the story changes, and how many times the story has been posted, unless they can absolutely categorically prove it to be false - which of course they can never do.

Absolutely categorically proving something to be false isn't the standard - as you say, that would be impossibly high. It's about the balance of probabilities, and any Hmm factors we can see behind the scenes. We can and do ban people on this basis several times a day (and probably more at the moment)

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 23/10/2014 16:38

@Maryz

I find it bizarre that an unmoderated board, with no professionals available to support op's and readers of threads, will go against the advice of the provessionals and encourage people to post live suicide threads

We're not encouraging it. We provide a platform, and our members use it. So long as it doesn't break our Guidelines it will stay up. What we're discussing now is whether to change our Guidelines.

@Maryz

Will you at the very least move them to a part of the board every one can hide. And give The NightWatch instructions to move any started at night.

One thing we have to hold our hands up to is that we haven't always been moving these threads to Mental Health, which we promised to do last time we had this discussion. This is absolutely our bad and we will make sure we do this from now on (and ask the Night Watch to do the same).

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 23/10/2014 16:46

Gah! Just remembered that Night Watch don't have thread moving powers so please ignore that bit for now. But we will make sure the regular team do this from now on.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 23/10/2014 16:50

@WorraLiberty

Would it be impossible (techy wise), to allow everyone just one name change, but the history never gets logged in that NN?

That way we could have one NN for general board usage/chit chat and one for posting anything personal/where we don't want to be identified?

That way posters will become familiar but no-one can nose through their posting history, and there's no need for the constant name changing.

That's radical Grin thanks Worra

BTW if we've haven't specifically acknowledged your suggestion, it's not that we're ignoring it or think it's not good. We will be sitting down with printouts of this and the other threads and we will go through all the suggestions.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 23/10/2014 16:52

Really need to correct the impression that MNHQ knocks off at 5pm. We keep going, seven days a week, until very late indeed.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 23/10/2014 16:53

@ElliotLovesGrub

Isn't there somewhere else the suicide threads could be moved to rather than mental health? It's going to make that section harder to use for people who might not want to be thinking about suicide.

This was the solution we hammered out last time with users - what do other people think?

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 23/10/2014 16:56

@Lweji

At the moment you'd still be able to somewhat check a pps history.

My username and Mumsnet has yielded over 3000 records on a Google search! Shock

Oh yes, good point...

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 23/10/2014 17:09

Generally speaking, we like anonymity on MN and we think it's a good thing and allows MNers to talk about (and get support/advice on) all sorts of things they'd be very reluctant to discuss otherwise.

And while we completely accept that lots of you are really concerned about what you perceive to be a problem with sockpuppeting and namechanging, in all honesty behind the scenes we don't see a lot of that. It's easy to just get a new registration and start up an entirely new account, and that's what determined trouble-makers tend to do in our experience.

We do have some tools to frustrate this process, but - like every single other site on the internet that allows people to sign up and post - there's no surefire way of stopping people doing it if they're really determined. and it seems some of them are

But please DO report people you suspect of NCing to cause trouble or to start nasty threads with impunity because we are happy to suspend people's NCing ability if we think they're doing that.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 23/10/2014 17:37

Please folks, let's keep in general . We're going to delete some of the more recent posts as we really don't want this to descend into a dissection of any particular thread or poster.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 23/10/2014 17:54

@WorraLiberty

Yesterday a poster name changed just to start a TAAT...and a pretty nasty one at that, taking the pee out of another poster's thread.

All the deletion message said was it was a TAAT, but what I'd like to know is, was the person banned for abusing the name change function and taking the pee out of the original poster?

If you can take a firmer stand on the cowardly name changers who simply want to cause trouble, it might cut down on the trolling.

OK we think we've found this one now Worra and yes he was immediately banned.

Watch this thread for updates

Tap "Watch" to get all the latest updates