Anti-Religious Trolling On Mumsnet

[DioneTheDiabolist]

I get that not everyone is religious and that some people are very anti-religious (some with good reasons).

But some MNetters are religious, others are simply curious. So how come so many threads are allowed to be derailed by anti-religious trolls? Today a thread about Good Friday was deleted because a troll came on. FFS, it's Easter! Threads about Islam are regularly derailed by Islamophobes. On a thread seeking information on Judaism in the Philosophy & Religion topic, a troll has posted LMFAO. Ok, serious question, why does the Jewish God make all men wear a funny beards? She continues venting for a few posts before eventually exiting the thread saying that she is on drugs because It's Easter, party time.

She is a MN regular, like most of the anti-religious trolls here. I have reported her posts but they still stand.

Trolls are not interested in knowing what other people think or believe. They have no desire to discuss the point of actual threads and rarely start threads of their own regarding their issues with religion or belief. They just derail threads in the hope of driving all talk of religion and different beliefs off MN. And they are succeeding.

Why are MNHQ allowing this to happen? Deleting threads instead of dealing with posters? Allowing blatant anti-religious trolling to derail threads that people may find supportive or informative? Is MN a religion free zone? Because if it is, that's ok. I just think that religious posters should be told. Then they can go elsewhere if they wish to discuss their beliefs.

But 'troll hunting' is not allowed in MN? So you can't call it out as 'trolling'.

Given that troll hunting is one of the few things that are specifically against MN rules I can't imagine that would work. Mumsnet is only very lightly moderated, mostly in retrospect through posts being reported. Sounds like the sort of things people want here would result in far more things being reported and the possibility of very subjective deletions. Any rule changes would have to be site wide too, so I can imagine derailment type reports all over the place. Some might be very legitimate (I know that it's incredibly annoying having to field all the MRAs in feminism, and hurtful having to face all the babysnatching trolls in adoption for example). But others will simply be differences of opinion, all in the eye of the reader.

For example I'm an ex-Catholic, went to a church run school, took my catechism etc but never really thought about quite a lot of the major tents of Catholicism until I met my anti-catholic dh (brought up as a non-conformist) because they really weren't a feature of my upbringing.. Looking back I was a member of a club with some very unpleasant beliefs and actions, should I not feel accountable at all for things done apparently in my name? That seems a bit of an abdication of responsibility to me.

nooka but what if the criticism was aimed at you regarding beliefs which weren't even Catholic (as per the beliefs you used to hold) and were aimed at you just because someone identifying a Christian, somewhere, holds them?

If moderaration, is unworkable, as you fell, what is the answer?

Personally, I think there is a huge subjective element to moderation and this might help this issue. If there was an official guideline people might pay attention to it. I rarely report anyway and usually deal with comments addressed towards me on the thread but I can see a guideline being useful.

I'm not suggesting troll hunting which I'm well aware is against MN rules but pointing out common derailments. We can have a part of MN where people of faith and no faith can share, comment and discuss matters of faith and spirituality or we can say that on MN that isn't possible because of a small number of posters who consistently derail threads.

Ah, I see and agree, thegreenheart.

On websites I've moderated the behaviour I see on MN is called crusading rather than trolling. Pointing out that someone is taking their usual hobby horse out for a canter is not troll hunting but engaging in classic conflict resolution techniques. Of course if M NHQ wants to make religion threads a no go area for people of faith it would be helpful if they could make that clear.

At the risk of being accused of disingenuousness, I still don't understand what sort of things people want deleted. I presume as a prolific poster on threads about religion I have posted lots of them myself, but I don't think that I have spewed hatred or derailed. And this thread has really not helped to show me where I have.

I wonder whether the problem is partly because the P&R area encompasses such a broad area of conflicting beliefs and non-beliefs.

Does it not perhaps draw in a group of people with very disparate views as well as those of us who are very concerned about the snake-oil nature of certain unusual beliefs that can do downright harm to the vulnerable?

I hadn't been on P&R section of MN before the 3pm and this thread and Lottie's links and I was frankly concerned to see a few potentially dangerous beliefs being peddled without much challenge.

crusading is an interesting phrase in the context, but I agree fits the behaviour better. Mumsnet isn't treating the religion boards any different to any other. The only way that the type of issue you are discussing has been managed elsewhere on the boards is to take the topic off active conversations.

I would suspect that apart from a few individuals who actively like crusading on your boards (and there will be a small number of people doing similar things on other boards too) most people arrive in religious conversations simply because they are on the last 15 mins/active conversations lists. Certainly that's how I ended up on the 3pm conversation, I didn't think it had anything to do with religion at first. Like a few others have said I assumed it was some sort of commemorative moment that I'd not heard about, and was unenlightened even after opening it (it was relatively early on). But then as an atheist who is interested in philosophy too I don't see that section of the site as being 'not for me'. For better or worse religion impacts upon a much wider group of people than those that actively follow faiths, an as such it is something that lots of people have opinions about and not all those opinions will be favourable.

"hadn't been on P&R section of MN before the 3pm and this thread and Lottie's links and I was frankly concerned to see a few potentially dangerous beliefs being peddled without much challenge."

And presumably under the suggested new rules, any challenge would be deleted as derailing?

And, once again at a risk of the disingenuous accusation, I really don't understand this idea that people are deliberately shutting down threads to stop Christians posting. Why would anyone do that?

Bertrand tbh I often would say, if I thought your comments were potentially derailing / too off point to discuss, at the time.

I often didn't in the past(with various posters) and defended my faith, to varying success - as sometimes this would have contributed to an effective derailment. Sometimes though the resulting conversation is actually helpful to people and they have said. Clear cut derailment is not always easily apparent at the time, even though, looking back it might be clear that some posters divert the topic of conversation in order to derail. Forwarned is forarmed though, thegreenheart's list may prove useful...

And presumably under the suggested new rules, any challenge would be deleted as derailing?

Only if they didn't relate to the topic the OP had raised to be discussed.

If the challenges did not relate, they still could be posted, but in a new thread.

"And presumably under the suggested new rules, any challenge would be deleted as derailing?

Only if they didn't relate to the topic the OP had raised to be discussed. "

OK. Let's think about the threads Lottie linked to- the "how can I help my religious daughter one". Lottie's line was that only people with ideas about how to support this 6 year old develop her faith should post. Despite the fact that the OP was worried about the child being uncomfortable about dinosaurs because they didn't fit in with her faith. So under the new rules, all the posters who talked about broadening her views, and counteracting the Creationism she was getting from somewhere who if have been deleted. On the other, all the people who had suggestions about why the OP's dd was being scared which didn't involve her seeing ghosts would be deleted. Is that what you want to happen?

A short post as to how Creationism is not necessarily implicit within all forms Christianity, in the developing faith thread, and how neurological occurrences can cause auditory or visual hallucinations, in the ghosts thread, would not be off point IMO. Both points relate to what the OP wanted to raise in discussion.

Nope, I suspect not everyone agrees with my opinion on myself too. If anyone felt the need to tell me about it without resorting to insults and slurs, great. Not sure why that is so hard to grasp?"

Ms Pot, allow me to introduce Ms Kettle.........

But only one post, capsium? By a Mumsnet Authorized Intervener? Any other posts to be deleted as derailing.

Excuse my potential ignorance but whether a post is derailing or not is subjective surely

And who on earth would decide?

Sorry but I think it's an unworkable idea. Sure, report and delete for blatant breakage of the talk guidelines, decided by MNHQ but anything else is too complicated Imo.

I forsee posts along the lines of "Umm sorry, previous poster, even though your comment isn't against talk guidelines, I do feel it's not contributing to how the thread is going at this present moment, please desist or keep up"

Which sounds all controlling and wrong on a free speech (guidelines aside) forum.

I never said anything about 'Authorized Intervener' (s). The guidelines I have talked about would not even have to be that strict. But filling up threads with off topic questions and comments is derailing and distracting.

Having a guideline, with warnings and possible deletion for going against it would mean those who purposely and persistently try to derail might be put off. The occasional innocent off point comment would not come under the derailment heading.

This whole scheme sounds nuts.

So someone starts a thread in the gardening section asking what flowers would grow best in a shady garden. Another poster comes along as says she doesn't grow flowers as she prefers to grow veg.
So that second poster should be dealt with by the moderators?

Seriously?

Backing up a bit but I don't see this issue as being about respecting beliefs, but respecting the fact that people want to discuss things that matter to them. Even if you think it's bonkers.

Only if people reported and only if she persistently makes attempts to divert the conversation, away from the OP, pearl.

I think it's plainly totally unworkable, whether it's confined to religious threads or not. We've already had an example in that recent exchange about how people would really struggle to define what is and is not derailing with a difference of opinion about it, and that's a discussion that would happen time and time again if that rule were brought in.

It would also, to be honest, make MN a very boring place if, every time a stimulating aspect of the discussion starts to be debated, someone pops up and says "No, sorry, that's derailing, if you want to discuss it you'll have to start a new thread".