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.

Is there a reason why a system could not be put in place whereby if a thread receives x number of reports, or x number of reports in x time, the thread is automatically locked and hidden until MNHQ can look at it/check it?

Up depends whether MNHQ are saying NO Trolls or ONLY those trolls who are funny and entertaining. A definitive policy either way is required.

A definitive policy on troll hunting/querying thread inconsistencies is also required, imo posters should be able to point out discrepancies, inconsistencies or incorrect facts and ask for clarification. As someone upthread said if the OP mixes up dates I can see no reason why someone can't say "could you just clarify your dates, originally you said x date and now you've said y date" without other posters or the OP getting snippy and shouting about troll hunting.

Agreed ScaryZ.

I don't know how many times that's been suggested - I think the answer was that un-named regulars a group of posters could get threads blocked by all reporting at once.

But I agree - I think if a thread is reported by, say 50 unique posters in less than 2 hours it should be locked and hidden.

I started a thread that went on for ages asking exactly what troll-hunting was. Sadly it went on for a zillion posts but got nowhere [sigh]

Hmm, think that's a pretty poor answer ScaryZ, if there is nothing untoward about the thread and the poster it can be reinstated in Active Convos with a suitable message and I don't see any harm in that.

Final thoughts on leaving funny, entertaining, suspect threads, if they are to stand then the troll hunting rules shouldn't apply as the troll rule doesn't. I do wonder though that if all the people saying it's fine we believe the OP because it's funny would feel the same if the OP then published the thread in a newspaper or magazine under the heading "Look how gullible MNers are, I posted this clearly made up story and no-one questioned it, they all fell for it and cheered me on...."

I didn't "bow down in awe" on Marbles thread, people really are getting their knickers in a twist about that thread, there was nothing remarkable about it, it was just a diverting event.

I don't think I remember Nursey, but if anyone takes medical advice from the Internet unless it's NHS direct they are daft, and there are warnings against exactly this on the top of each topic.

It was remarkable because MN accepted it was bollocks and allowed people to question whether it was a story.

Whereas there are a dozen more I could link to in relationships that are also just as made up, but giggling on them would be troll-hunting.

That's the problem.

@emotionsecho

Up depends whether MNHQ are saying NO Trolls or ONLY those trolls who are funny and entertaining. A definitive policy either way is required.

To be clear on this one, we always say no to trolls, regardless of how funny they may be.

If they are a troll, we will ban them. We may leave threads up for varying lengths of time but we always ban trolls.

I think some people are a bit confused over what IS a troll though - some seem to imply that anyone telling porkies or untruths or who is a fantasist is a troll

that is not the commonly understood meaning of the word, a Troll is someone seeking to provoke a reaction by shit stirring. the wikipedia explanation is a good one I think en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

someone living a fantasy life online and pulling people in to their web of deceit is not a Troll - more of a catfish.

Of course they are a troll.

If you deliberately start a thread to get an emotional response of any kind. be that to cause an argument, to get a laugh, to make everyone feel sorry for you, you are trolling the internet.

Up thread HQ said that marbles wasn't a troll or trolling. Marbles seems like an easy going poster who could let it wash over her though.

Well MNHQ like a nice funny thread, doesn't matter to them if it's not real really.

Which is my point really. People will still make stuff up, some posters will think it's funny, some won't.

Nothing will change.

And I'm sock puppeting on this thread. ooops

@usualsuspect333

Which is my point really. People will still make stuff up, some posters will think it's funny, some won't.

Nothing will change.

What would you like to see change usual?

We do see a difference between a nasty troll who is here to cause upset and hurt and a stupid troll who is here for half term the kicks but is harmless, mainly because they are so blatant.

Both will be banned when they are reported to us but we would probably deal with the aftermath slightly differently.

Is there anyway in which an thread can still be active but taken off the public boards? This way the OP can still keep talking and get support but the support can be from organisations such as the Samaritans. MN could have an agreement with them so that they take over when the professional element of support is needed.

I don't think anything can change TBH.

You have said it's difficult to prove if someones trolling especially if they have a posting history. So I'm not sure what can change there.

If funny troll threads are left up then more people will start them, it's the way of the internet.

I don't really blame you for leaving the funny threads up, you need traffic or MN will die.

But I do think that focusing on 'troll hunters' causes more angst on here than anything else.

I support mumsnet in that troll hunting does so much damage, and damage the hunters seem to either be blind to or very cavalier about - its acceptable collateral damage to them.

There is no need for it.

Yes absolutely clarify confusions and errors, ask searching questions and do the odd 'reported' if you must.

But don't get swelled with vicious savagery hell bent and hounding and chasing down the one in your sights. Dress it up as virtuous and saving people from harm all you like, its unpleasant, unnecessary and cruel.

I say this as someone who had to name change after my difficulties were deemed too incredible and the hunters started to get their knives out. I desperately needed support and some lovely individuals were there for me, but so much damage was done by the unthinking callousness of others. I know mn is not a specialist support forum, I know you can't rely on it. But surely sharing something you're shocked and upset by shouldn't result in further alienating cruelty. It just shouldn't.

Re: trolling. Can MNHQ tell when there are several accounts to the same IP address? I have no idea how these things work but if so then if a 2nd or 3rd account is registered from the same IP address within a specified time frame then could this trigger some sort of delayed registration or a flag for MNHQ to check on posts / user activity before giving them full access to MN

Can I add a totally random thought (haven't read all of the thread sue me!)

Would it be really difficult to have a section of Talk to which access is only open to posters who have been members for x period of time, say over a year or something? I know this doesn't directly address the problem, but so many MNers end up using the site for years and years that you could have a busy and active old-timers section in which troll hunting would surely be much less likely or necessary. It could have a lighter moderation policy than the rest of the site. And MN could feel more comfortable closing down dubious threads on the rest of the site since the users posting there are perhaps less likely to be relying as heavily on MN for support (or to be genuine ...). You could still allow long term members access to all the site, but just reserve some of the talk boards until posters have more of a history.

Thanks for the link Tomb / Light - I remember that one now!

@headlesslambrini

Re: trolling. Can MNHQ tell when there are several accounts to the same IP address? I have no idea how these things work but if so then if a 2nd or 3rd account is registered from the same IP address within a specified time frame then could this trigger some sort of delayed registration or a flag for MNHQ to check on posts / user activity before giving them full access to MN

We can see that, yes and we do have something like this in place - yes, we're being

Thanks all for your feedback, we are still reading through and will be back with more comprehensive responses to some of the issues raised after we have met at the end of the week.

Good video, Rebecca. Zombie laughed out loud.

:o