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.

They get more drama from the pom pom waving,place marking for updates posters.

So what? If it's a thread that isnt hurting anyone - Marbles thread whether real or not didn't/couldn't have damage(d) anyone - why worry about it being real or people waving pom-poms.

So you are saying some troll threads are ok?

That's why I've given up reporting.

If it's not real it's a troll thread.

You can't pick and choose your trolls

I think if it's harmless fun then whether it's strictly true or not isn't the end of the world.

More serious threads I think shpuld be treated more seriously and reported if people have concerns.

But actually I don't make the rules, MNHQ do and they've asked that people don't trollhunt on threads. So your reason for not reporting doesn't make sense

Why report if MHHQ are going to leave a thread up because it's harmless?

Seems pretty pointless reporting if some made up threads are allowed.

Either trolling is allowed or it isn't.

Trolls see their threads as 'harmless fun' to them, so that doesn't stack up, really. MNHQ can't have it both ways. If Trolling is banned then the amusing threads have to go too.

@wooooosualsuspect

If it's not real it's a troll thread.

You can't pick and choose your trolls

It can be a judgement call sometimes though Usual and we can see things at HQ that posters can't and can make better informed decisions on whether or not someone is a troll.

It's not always the case that if it looks like a troll, it is a troll.

It's not that simple at all. Our jobs would be considerably easier if that was the case.

Please do report and let us have a proper look from our end.

OH, I've been told off.

To those saying "No-one was hurt in the making of Marbles thread", maybe not hurt but certainly used, whether for her entertainment or as guinea pigs for her fledgling book writing career and that is troll like behaviour, as usual says you can't pick and choose which trolls are more acceptable, either it's a troll thread and it goes or it's not. Personally, I don't like being used as a test audience for someone's creative writing exercise and again is that part and parcel of the ethos of the site?

Also on occasions journalists will post made up scenarios to guage the reaction of MNers, the threads might be fun, amusing and peurile until they appear in print complete with comments made my MNers.

Oh this is getting ridiculous.

Go back and read 2shoes post. She felt empathy for a poster, she believed her story, she PMd her, it was about SN, and it was a troll. How do you think that makes someone feel? When they give of themselves like that, sharing their own stories?

That's why woooooo(don't know how many ooooos) is right. You can't pick and choose your trolls. But that is something HQ seem to ignore.

the problem though with regular posters who create amusing troll threads is that they almost become pisstakes i.e. on marbles' thread everyone was playing along even the op. So the message that sends out is that if you're a regular it's ok to create a (at first glance) serious thread which just happens to end up as something lighthearted, and you won't be deleted. I can see the logic to it but it does send out a very mixed message to those who are told to report.

Over the years there have been some amusing trolls, but they have been amusing from the outset. Pirate sex and the milk machine ones to name but two (in fact milking machine was the first ever thread I came across on mn.)

But with there having been a number of threads of late where an op has rather distressingly discovered that a partner has a wife and children they knew nothing about, a thread which started on that trend could very easily have gone a different way, it's just fortunate that it didn't.

And of course people will call inconsistencies on threads. I can think of at least one extremely emotive thread which I think that most people thought towards the end was highly likely not to be true but posted with some sympathetic noises and let it run its course... I know it was reported, I know mn hq said there was no reason to believe etc etc, but there were so many things which didn't add up that I'm not sure anyone believed it in the end. After it finished the op started another thread but had almost no responses.

"It's not always the case that if it looks like a troll, it is a troll." And it's not always the case that if it doesn't look like a troll, it isn't a troll.

I know from personal experience how hard it is to make that judgement, and fwiw I know from personal experience that the feeling of finding out what you thought was a regular, well trusted poster is in fact a complete fraud who has made up numerous lives all over the internet in order to draw in vulnerable and gullible people for your own means. And actually, having banned such a paracitic troll from the site I moderated, instead of making me feel glad that I had stopped her actually made me feel physically sick that anyone could do that. It's a very hard thing to have the power to confirm that kind of discovery and to be able to do something about it. I do know that.

But it is often about more than just the technical ability to be able to see these things. If there are blatant inconsistencies all over a thread, the fact that the op is a regular or has no previous form doesn't mean that they shouldn't be called on their inconsistencies.
Otherwise surely these threads would just be full of faces and [[]]] ones, which kind of defeats the object as well, no?

So, I'll ask again. Why can't MNHQ simple reserve the right to remove a thread based on the content of its opening post, rather than the poster.

I can't see why it's a problem?

But it is often about more than just the technical ability to be able to see these things. If there are blatant inconsistencies all over a thread, the fact that the op is a regular or has no previous form doesn't mean that they shouldn't be called on their inconsistencies.

So ask them to clarify the point or report them. More frequently however instead of this there are references to hairy hands, bridges, etc etc.

the thing is, this in a nutshell has been rumbling on since the debacle at New Year, when someone from MNHQ decided to stop the entire board from being able to post after deleting some regular posters funny trolly threads, and threatening us all with being banned if we posted any more.

MNHQ set the precedent then, and over a few threads afterwards, said a troll thread was a troll thread, funny or not.

well, apparently now the goal posts have changed, its only a troll thread if it doesn't make someone from MNHQ laugh, and that depends on which MNHQ'er gets to it first.

instead of going for the trolls these days, it seems us long term posters are instead the targets, you delete our threads over the tiniest infraction, the smallest sniff of troll hunting, and the louder we protest, the more you clamp down on it.

i love mumsnet, and the 'if you're not happy, leave' brigade will likely trot their line out again, but it really feels again, and consistantly has done since New Year, that MNHQ want to get rid of their long term posters, not the trolls.

if you're going to make some rules, stick to them.

Posters on the marbles thread were getting deleted for the slightest sniff of saying it didn't add up. It seemed if you weren't de-lurking, saying how good her literary expertise was or sending her flowers and encouraging her in all the madness you were nasty and troll hunting.

This thread is supposed to be about whether MNHQ delete all threads about suicide, isn't it? Marble's thread is completely irrelevant here.

lbp I don't disagree that references to bridges and such are necessarily helpful or constructive. But these days even calling inconsistencies is considered troll hunting.

Let's say for instance that a poster posts a thread about... oh, to name a previous example, the birth of a premature baby. Poster posts that she has been beaten up by her boyfriend and is now having pains and is awaiting the ambulance. Posters are a bit about how true it might be, after all, why would you come on mn to post that you're in agony awaiting an ambulance (oh, and you're a first time poster)...

But as the weekend passes the thread disappears, some posters have questioned on the thread, some have reported and mn hq have been unable to verify that the poster isn't who/what she says she is.

Then after the weekend the poster comes back and announces she has given birth to a baby girl, who is tiny and fighting for her life. And she posts a picture of her tiny baby. except in her haste to troll distressed state she has omitted to airebrush out the caption which is behind the picture, the caption which reads that this was the world's smallest premature baby... It's bearly visible, but a poster spots it, does some digging on the internet, and then posts the picture again and calls the op on it. She does, fwiw, report the thread as well, but it is some time before it is deleted because it's late at night and mn hq are not as quick to react at that time of night. Before questioning the poster the thread was filling up with posts about how beautiful the baby was, what a fighter, how brave the op yada yada yada. Would you still say report and move on? potentially until morning? the day after? however long it took to get the thread pulled, by which time that poster may have some off-board contact from other posters?

You see troll hunting is just not that black and white.

And yes, that thread actually happened.

YeGods '....suicide, troll hunting and related matters'. I think the trolls/troll hunting debate was sparked by what went on on the original suicide thread and the fall-out from that and has morphed into a general discussion. Marbles thread is being mentioned because I think it was reported and then exampled here as an unbelievable/possible troll thread and the replies from MNHQ to the reporters became a topic for discussion.

I think MNHQ should have separated the issues into two separate discussion threads as the trolls/troll hunting is pushing the suicide thread issue to one side and I fear MNHQ will be side-tracked.

I do take your point Wannabe. I really do. I think one solution might be to beef up the night shift. The night watch exists but its not the same as MNHQ. Maybe there needs to be less benefit of the doubt given by MNHQ too.

Thanks sec. I am finding the overlap insensitive and hard to put the two things togethwr. However with a bit of an idea of what things look like on the MNHQ side of things and how this all impinges on moderation, can see the reasoning.

I agree with that emotion - the two issues should be completely divided.

LittleBear, you said "ask them to clarify the point or report them" - according to mnhq, asking anyone to clarify anything is troll-hunting.

And I too wish we could come up with another term - what about troll-spotting? I hate seeing trolls, I certainly don't go looking for them. Sadly I spot too many of them and it pisses me off. It doesn't give me any sort of satisfaction, I don't call them on thread (much as I would like to sometimes, when I see all sorts of nice people, like 2shoes, being drawn into threads that are subsequently obviously bollocks), I report and report and report.

But there are more and more all the time that simply don't make sense.

I have no problem with funny and entertaining threads, btw, as long as we can interact with the op, question, comment etc, instead of all having to bow down in awe, offer and believe everything.

And also, for those who think trolls are harmless - who remembers Nursey happily giving out medical advice and pretending she was a nurse, and then outing herself as not even a student nurse yet? That's just plain dangerous. She had been reported umpteen times before she was eventually banned.