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.

I'm really sorry I keep adding exclamation marks for commas

Agreed Wannabe and I think MNHQ need to be more open about some of their deletion messages for example and more active in suspending threads which are concerning people.
I do get that it's really difficult but the MNHQ posts this weekend that seemed to say it's ok to troll hunt because the OP seems able to cope and the thread's funny don't help to clarify their position.

When I asked if the policies could be clear and visibly implemented just before the thread closed, the answer appears to be no, not really. So there is always going to be a grey area, accusations of Royalty, and confusion amongst posters who stick to the rules but see others joining in the 'fun' and troll hunting on threads deemed okay to do that.

Well, if we are talking about troll-hunting I'll post what I posted on Nob's thread before this one opened, in the interests of having it all together:

"The thing is, [the thread that became openly disbelieved] was obviously made up from the start (very like a lot of threads here a while ago, and not the only one by that poster atm, imo) - after 850 posts everyone seemed to suddenly realise it, though mnhq are still indicating they "have no reason to believe, yada, yada, yada" hmm

It was reported very early - it's been on my TIW for over a week.

But if it had gone nasty after 100 posts, with the op possibly being in "trouble" and "needing" rl help, anyone asking questions, giving a warning to lurkers and naive posters not to get involved etc, would have been accused of being a nasty troll-hunter who should be banned from the site and would have been roundly abused.

There are many, many made up threads on here - ones that are completely fictitious. And yet when we have a "let's talk about troll-hunting" thread the same people come along and insist that Every Single Poster be believed, always. Even if believing everyone means a lot of people getting hurt.

This is the problem - even mnhq don't know who (if anyone) is telling the truth. And these days in relationships it appears very few people are.

But I still think the "I'm going to kill myself NOW" and other similar very, very triggering posts should be sorted out first.

If the Samaritans say they should be deleted I very much hope mnhq will agree to do that.

I quite like the idea of a "test your plotline here" topic. I'm sure I'd get as much out of it as I do anywhere else

Deletion messages need to grow a pair, that's for sure.

The "bit of a bunfight and let's face it that's not what MN is about" wishywashynambypamby deletion message gives me the RAGE.

Just say "Some MNers were being absolute bullying arsehole fuckers" and be done with it. Name and shame if you have to. Then, finally, things might actually change.

And I think trolls should be named and shamed too.

But then I'm zero tolerance and frankly, a bit nasty. I don't do the whole "but she's a real person, in real trouble, she just lies to make trouble on MN, bless her" bollocks. You make trouble, pah, you reap what you sow.

See, I don't really get the 'duty of care' thing - what duty of care??
This is a public forum, run for commercial reasons and, yes, supportive (ideally) of parents and non-parents, but "duty of care"?
We are not children and MNHQ are not our teachers who are acting in loco parentis - 'duty of care' smacks of child protection proceedings to me.

Some of the 'funny' troll threads have been very funny and also v obviously made up. And, crucially, NOT emotionally vampiric or asking for RL help and support.

I dunno.

I am coming back to points made by PP upthread: MNHQ, take advice, come up with a rule/rules and then stick to them.
Some of us will like them, some of us won't be too bothered, some of us will hate them - so what. Your site, your rules.

And if we all leave in droves, you can always change your rules again

I'd be sad to see threads like the hamster casserole one outlawed….

Hello everyone

First off, on That Thread: to be honest it was a cock-up. The replies that were sent and the post that was posted shouldn't have been. And we should have gone through the thread more thoroughly following early reports of troll-hunting.

(MNHQ is of course The Borg, as you all know, and we assume collective responsibility for both our brilliant decisions and for our cock-ups, so this isn't to cast nasturtiums on the MNHQer concerned.)

It is true that - as lots have pointed out - marbles has a lovely and engaging writing style; that the arc of the thread was very neat and satisfying; and that in her penultimate post there was a material discrepancy between the two different versions, which marbles didn't address. So we do understand why some posters were cynical - but as ever the only thing we ask posters to do in these circs is to report to us, and to not use the thread to accuse another posting of trolling or making the entire thing up.

The poster has been around for some time, her previous posting history completely backs her up, we can see no banned or troublesome posters associated with her behind-the-scenes account details, and we have absolutely no reason to think her account was substantially untrue.

We realise we haven't covered ourselves in glory on this one - apologies.

BTW - please don't use this thread (or any other thread) to accuse her of lying or making stuff up.

Is it just feasible for you HQers just to address each post, as a post if it's reported?

PDog thanks for putting my feelings in my head on the duty of care thing into actual words that make sense. I agree totally with what you said.

On the question of being "a bit nasty", I suppose a poster can be as nasty as they like in the privacy of their own heart, but the Talk Guidelines are there to protect all MNers from people being nasty to us . Especially to protect us from continued and unremitting nastiness.

of course mn hq have a duty of care to an extent. If something happened to a mn'er as a result of a thread posted on their boards they would at the very least be brought to account over it in the press.

So if e.g. posters had been reporting a thread for weeks and nothing had been done about it, and accusations of troll had been deleted from the boards and a poster had gone out and met an alleged victim of dv who turned out to be a murderer and they were killed, the press reports would lead straight back to mn, and then ultimately, to individual mn'ers who were on that thread. It hasn't happened yet, but IMO it's only a matter of time.

Similarly if a poster committed suicide live on mn as it were it could be said that mn were partly responsible as they had failed to shut down the discussion and encourage the op in the direction of rl help/support.

Sadly, I think a board for potential novel plotlines would never solve the problem. Trolls generally want people to believe their stories are true so they'd stay far away from such a board.

And therein lies the problem (or one of many problems). If an OP swears up and down that his/her story is true, and there's nothing in the posting history that indicates a different identity or previously banned NNs or whatever, then MNHQ accepts the story must be true. But that means MNHQ will very often be wrong. Because people lie all the time. They lie in person and they lie even more on the internet. I guess the MNHQ rationale is "better ten guilty trolls go free than one innocent person is accused of being a troll." Well, fair enough if that's what MNHQ want, though I wouldn't adopt that policy if I were Queen of MN. But it certainly means that MN will attract even more trolls.

And I sort of agree with Pacific about the duty of care. But I think mnhq will continue to quote duty of care and if they do they really should have a duty of care to the readers/lurkers/bystanders as well as the op, which is where I think they are currently failing.

Rowan when do you expect to hear back from the Samaritans with their opinion of how to handle suicide threads?

The twitching around marbles thread just shows how sensible the MN guidelines are IMO. Seriously - if everyone just obeyed some simple ground rules the trolls would soon get bored.

• Be Nice
• Be Honest (but yes preserve anonymity by fudging where you live, details of dcs etc)
• Assume others are being nice and honest but preserving their own anonymity
• don't give more than you are willing to lose (time, emotion, etc )
• remember you might be wrong

Please MN enforce your own guidelines about troll hunting - sometimes it's like watching a horde of armed gunmen shooting to protect a herd of cattle from wolves and mainly hitting the cattle

Oi

Are you calling us all cows?

I neither know nor care whether the Marbles thread was made up, but, if I were in her position I'm sure I would have written about it in a very similar way, gallows humour and all that.

I do think it's rather lame that people are so keen to point out what they see as MN moderation inconsistencies that they are using that thread to do it. Do we really want MN to become so entirely humourless that if a poster doesn't post about something in exactly the tone we would use, or some of the details strike us as a little odd then a thread gets deleted? Even though nobody is being harmed in any way by it, and those exact threads are why lots of us actually like MN?

Nowadays would the Pom Bears story have people doing sceptical faces and snidey bullshit calls? Or the Mexican House Stealing one?

I hate all that 'back in the day, MN at its best bollocks', but I do think things have gone a bit mad. There is a huge difference between the Marbles thread, Brian from Hull, Balonz etc and malicious trolling where naive MNers somehow (and I still don't quite understand people's inability to protect themselves or press report) put themselves in harm's way emotionally or financially.

I like Dingles's ground rules.

I agree Tomb. And I really wish I had seen this Marbles thread everyone is talking about - I'm assuming it's gone pftttt by now.