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

[RowanMumsnet]

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.

OK folks - we're going to lock this one soon for the weekend.

Please don't start new threads on this topic over the weekend; we won't be able to monitor them closely and we're aware lots of people feel this debate has been going on for long enough already. Feels like everyone's had a tough week, one way and the other, and a massive bunfight over the weekend with lots of accusations and hurt feelings isn't what anyone wants.

Plus Olivia's on duty tonight and you KNOW how scary she is.

MrsL, I had to LOL at 'Life is triggering' - too true!

Have a nice weekend, Rowan

Okay . One last thing before you go Rowan. When there is a policy can it be visibly implemented - quick response to reporting of threads, quick deletion of troll hunting, banning maybe of repeat offenders? At the moment there seems to be, with the light moderation, far too much of a sense of ownership and investment frustrating some people who then feel it's okay to be rude or pissed off they don't get there own way.

Oh no, it's Ellen on tonight. Who is ALSO very scary.

Nerf it's our goal (always) to deal with reports and threads using the Talk Guidelines and the spirit of the site as our lodestones (can you have two lodestones?) but with discretion, humanity and common sense. If anyone breaks any rule persistently we will deal with them. But the people we aim to come down on hardest of all is people trolling/deliberately trouble-making in this lovely and unique corner of the internet.

I've just reported your post Rowan, erm please don't take the method of messaging the wrong way

Have good weekends all

considering you said that mnhq dont work a 9-5, you're doing a pretty good job of giving us that impression with leaving this thread at 6pm yesterday, not showing up until after 9am this morning, then saying you're going to lock this at just after 5pm on friday for the whole weekend.

i guess we only get to discuss serious stuff when it suits you!

Hi all,

We are reopening this thread now to continue the discussion.
Please do post your views.

We are having a meeting later on this week at HQ to have a look at what everyone thinks from this thread and others and talk about the advice we will have by then from outside specialist organisations, all being well.

We will pop in and out of this thread over the next few days and follow up on the more recent posts but we won't have any kind of definitive policy changes until we have a chance to sit down and meet with all of the information we have asked for.

Apologies this is taking a while but we hope you can see that it's an important issue that we'd like to address and this can sometimes take a while.

I'm glad you are talking about it.

I think there are two different issues - one the "active suicide" issue which could be dealt with relatively simply, based on advice from The Samaritans and other professionals.

The trolling issue is less urgent, and tbh probably less solvable [sigh]

I am intrigued as to why it is deemed acceptable for some troll hunting on threads and even possible troll threads to remain because the thread has been funny to those at MNHQ? Is that not completely undermining MNHQs own talk guidelines?

I don't think its so much about duty of care, it is at the end of the day a parenting site.

But

Care needs to be taken to really address some opening posts. I'm sure it's awful for MNHQ to have to try and second guess motivations, buuuuuut, if some one genuinely wants advice than I don't see why a deletion combined with a kindly worded message and a suggestion of rewording and reposting, wouldn't be a could thing. Trolly McTroll would surely get bored of reposting eventually and the thread would run better.

I've been deleted before with a perfectly nice message stating I hadn't broken guidelines, but a few people had reported it and it was deleted as needless harsh. Also it would have looked odd standing alone amongst all to he other posters deletions that were personal attacks against my self and others it was a balanced deletion for the benefit of the thread,nothing personal. So I do think we can make this work.

Crisis threads I still think need to be locked if it's a suicide threat or posters are getting over invested in an unwarranted manner. Anyone then determined to continue can do so off oats rather than reeling others in, and more importantly if it's a real life crisi but paid to any drama vultures who say lots but usually are only, in all honestly, detrimental to any aid that may genuinely be needed.

I feel that where we are at the moment is a shambles. MNHQs stance of troll hunting is widely misinterpreted and often woefully abused. If the site is to be kept as free and anonymous as it alway has been but continue to increase in users than to some extent I think. MNHQ might need to adopt a delete/lock first, question later policy. Rather than trying to race against a thread that's ever increasing and gain momentum in hysterics, to decide whether it may or may not be a bona fide op.

**oats is meant to be off board

But I do think we need to look harder at the content of the op it's self not who is posting it.

Oh and thanks Rebecca. I know I'm an insufferable grump, but this weekend hasn't been brilliant on here and I needed to waffle in the appropriate place.

JustScreamNobHurts Fri 24-Oct-14 16:39:51
No, I won't give over. How utterly condescending .... Read Daisy's post, she's now worried that troll hunter, name and shamers may put her on some sort of shit list

JustScream, thanks for acknowledging my upset. It has hurt. I hadn't posted any more about it because I know my minor 'moment of shame' was nothing compared to the tragic circumstances in people's lives that may lead to suicidal intentions. All the same, as I was reading that TAAT I couldn't help thinking shit, I think I may have to either not post on MN any more or change my username, which I haven't done since I first registered. other posters may also be affected, it isn't just about me.

Reading this thread makes me realise what a massive job MNHQ have on their hands in trying to keep this Forum on track so it provides a place of solace and companionship to people who need it, and a very tiny minority don't spoil it for genuine people who give great advice.

I just don't think people in general, and that may be new as well as seasoned posters, take time to be familiar with the policies that seem to make good sense.

It's really bad form IMHO to allow a proliferation of TAATs that instantaneously spring up as soon as a thread has been zapped. There should be adequate info posted by HQ into the "zap message" that means a TAAT is unjustifiable. Sadly people invest so much, some may feel they must resolve the disappearance of a thread that have been >500 posts long. I can see their point of view, however it leads to the sort of tittle-tattle and name calling, that led to me feeling the cloud of suspicion was on me

Maybe HQ could clamp down on TAATs a bit more rebeccaMNHQ?

I think if posters are troll hunting on a thread where even HQ think the thread is a load of bollocks then the thread is fair game.

So who decides that it's fair game Usual. Does MNHQ have to come on, post something cryptic which means it's fair game to post disbelieving posts? Because having grey areas is what causes the problem in the first place

There will always be grey areas though, posters are quite happy to 'troll hunt' on the FB Blocking annoying troll threads.

I am intrigued as to why it is deemed acceptable for some troll hunting on threads and even possible troll threads to remain because the thread has been funny to those at MNHQ? Is that not completely undermining MNHQs own talk guidelines?

This^

The whole New Year site shut down debacle was because "MN royalty" were posting trolly threads (is completely made up but intended to amuse), other folks didn't recognise the posters so responded seriously etc etc.

MNHQ should probably delete all fictitious OPs, regardless of the intent of the poster and regardless of how much traffic it could drive to the site.

But if troll-hunting is against talk guidelines there shouldn't be grey areas. MNHQ tells us to report, report, report both trolls and their hunters.

and then there will be threads where the op is a (crap) novelist in the making but where mn hq allow it to stand because they think it's amusing, and posters who suggest that it's a troll novelist are told to shut up because otherwise the thread might get deleted and it's a fun thread.

I suggested last week on a separate thread that we could have a plot lines for novels topic where people could post as if it were a real thread but people would know that it wasn't and would therefore either not be upset by it and it wouldn't be full of accusations of troll And people could reply as if it was genuine..

The thread in relationships has as good as been acknowledged as a troll, mn hq have even posted on it congratulating the op on her rubbish ending. if we had a novellists topic it could have been moved there. instead we have yet another troll thread in relationships and a double standard of some troll threads are ok, others aren't. I accept that it is not possible to do something about all trolls on account of the fact some will slip through, however if a troll is known to be a troll in this instance (and the op didn't start out as amusing) then allowing that thread to stand is a blatant double standard.

It does make it rather confusing. I'm surprised that thread didn't end up in classics TBH or on the MN FB page.

" if troll-hunting is against talk guidelines there shouldn't be grey areas. MNHQ tells us to report, report, report both trolls and their hunters." But it really isn't that simple - it really isn't. As I said up thread the most prolific and hurtful trolls on mn have only been stopped after someone has dared to call them out on a thread, or suggest that they might not be all they seem. Even after weeks and weeks and weeks of reporting, for the sheer fact that it's just not always possible to be able to know for certain that someone isn't genuine.

And the one thing that absolutely has changed over the years of being on mn, is the fact that people are far less likely now to start collections/rescue missions for distressed posters posting in their hour of trauma as the drama unfolds.

When I first came on mn I lost count of the number of collections which were started for posters who then turned out to be trolls. most noteably was the one who was fleaing an abusive marriage in Japan and where posters even tried to find ways for her to break the law to get out of the country back into the UK. there were clothes collections, toy collections, arrangements to meet her at the airport... and it turned out she was a troll.

Imagine if all this were just discovered behind the scenes, mn hq quietly deleted and then the threads disappeared never to be spoken of again. People wouldn't remember that posters were trolls, they would talk of x and y poster who had been helped so spectacularly by mn'ers.

There absolutely does need to be some public acknowledgement of especially damaging trolls, however unpalatable that may seem to people.

The whole New Year site shut down debacle was because "MN royalty" were posting trolly threads (is completely made up but intended to amuse), other folks didn't recognise the posters so responded seriously etc etc.

Tbf, I reckon 50% of my threads are made up bollocks! as are a lot of posters! some of the fun is trying to guess the literary / current news story/ film/tv programme it refers to then joining in the joke. Nearly all the time a few people wouldn't get it, then catch on and go "ooooh you fuckers had me" to this day I've no real idea what happened on NYE to cause the furore other than what MNHQ acknowledged afterward. Newbie mods on. Mumsnets drunken night of the year is not a good idea, and probably won't be repeated.

That is so why I think MNHQ should assess the post not the poster. It can always be reinstated, but if it goes to far than its goes tits up and is pulled to late than if it is a troll or lives are at risk, than the impact is too great.

I hope that makes sense.