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.

[AugustaFinkNottle]

Silver I think you might be misinterpreting how closely moderated derailment would be, if there were guidelines on this. Humorous asides, natural development of discussion, occasional misinterpreting of topic subject would most likely be tolerated by other posters and the MN moderators. Posters wouldn't report and MN wouldn't act in these case scenarios of well meaning and often fruitful diversion.

I fear you're over-optimistic, capsium. If the non-derailment rule existed, I think you would certainly get people reporting everyone who disagreed with the OP or went off on any sort of mild diversion. Sure, MNHQ would not agree with them, I hope, but it would devalue the purpose of the rule, take up a hell of a lot of their time, and in itself it would cause the thread to derail as you can be certain that people would complain on the thread itself, in just the same way as they troll-hunt know despite the rule against it.

[capsium]

Well, I think MN are best placed to decide, Augusta, they see the reports.

[Atenco]

"ith any luck, people might start exercising their fucking brains, realise that people are dying because of very ancient myths""

I personally believe that most modern wars are caused by economics.

As for whether religious texts are myths or history, I think that myths often deal with universal truths and can be source of guidance for us all.

[SilverBirchWithout]

Silver you say 'deliberate unpleasant derailment' could be reported as trolling. However I'm not sure it would fall into this category. MN definition of trolling is this:
"(For those who don't know, a troll is someone who poses as someone else in order to stir up trouble, fulfil their own perverted agenda, or just for the hell of it.)"

In my experience MNHQ do delete posts which are deliberately and persistently goady and persistently trolling and unpleasant in nature, it's not just people who are pretending to be someone else. A couple of weeks ago a thread was deleted when someone posted about a 'fat mum' outside the school gates if I remember correctly the words "not in the supportive spirit of the site" we're used.

I'm going to report my post to ask MNHQ to join the discussion to clarify this point specifically

[capsium]

Thanks, Silver

[AugustaFinkNottle]

Well, I think MN are best placed to decide, Augusta, they see the reports.

Well, they've clearly already decided that they don't want to institute the rule you suggest.

[BIWI]

Sometimes moderation can aid communication if it prevents dysfunctional posting behaviours which deter genuine, well meaning posters from posting.

But I don't agree that derailing is dysfunctional posting behaviour! At all! It happens on all threads on all forums. (Fora?!)

And if a bit of derailing is deterring other people from posting, then do they really have anything of importance or significance that they want to say?

[BertrandRussell]

I'd still like to see an example of this purposeful derailing.

Would the rules apply to all topics, or just religion ones?

[SilverBirchWithout]

Actually the fear of being perceived as derailing sometimes prevents me from posting on threads as no doubt it would other people.

I found Capsium's attitude to my point about deference and Christian privilege a few pages ago a bit disturbing. Being told the point you are making is not relevant or welcome and then later you should have made it clear why you referenced that point is pretty horrid actually and has the impact of making you feeling shut down and your opinions have no value. The impact it has on a poster is probably worse than some arse running in to a thread and shouting 'your God is not real'.

In RL and on here, I am somewhat a lateral thinker, possibly with some autistic tendencies. Someone's post can spark an idea in me that I would like to share why does another person on a thread have the right to tell me to bugger off? Saying my view is not particularly relevant is one thing, telling me that I should not be contributing is another.

[BIWI]

I agree, Silver. Which is why I described it as 'controlling'.

[capsium]

I'm sorry you feel like that Silver. I can see this is the problem of 'calling out' anything that could be seen as potentially derailing. However, this is what people (as posters have mentioned up thread) will be tempted to do without the prospect of the more malicious derailments being moderated. So there I see see an advantage in moderation, also, in that the report is more discreet and MN who rightly have authority over the site can decide.

In the particular instance you cited, I did genuinely feel like there was potential for derailment in the thread, what would end up being discussed was 'Christian Privalege". I have been jumping in more swiftly, than I normally would on this particularly thread, mainly to see the effect this had. I am sorry you felt worse for this new tactic.

I normally would engage with the conversation, if I had something to say but then threads have been derailed, away from the point for discussion the OP raised and many of the original posters have left.

[BertrandRussell]

"On previous 'privileges' threads I've mentioned other religions, to have people get really stroppy saying 'this is about Christians stick to the topic!!!!'."

Presumably because if the thread is about institutional religious privilege in the UK it is irrelevant to mention other religions............

[capsium]

"On previous 'privileges' threads I've mentioned other religions, to have people get really stroppy saying 'this is about Christians stick to the topic!!!!'."

Presumably because if the thread is about institutional religious privilege in the UK it is irrelevant to mention other religions

So would you, yourself' post to challenge this for being 'irrelevant' 'off topic' and derailing, Bertrand? Do you think posting to challenge for derailment is the best course of action, as was done on the particular thread referenced here? Or do you think it is best to stay quiet?

[YetAnotherHelenMumsnet]

Hi all,
we'd love to say that we have a conclusive answer on this one, but unfortunately we don't really. We can see both sides , and both make good points. In that respect, of course, this has been another valuable discussion. We do, as Silver has said, step in reasonably frequently when we see posters behaving in a goady fashion, but if it's not immediately obvious we tend to wait a little until there is a consensus with regards to the reports, trying to balance the need to let the conversation flow with the general mood. So as ever, really, our response is 'please report in and we will take a look'. If we see that someone is being a GF, we will act.

[SilverBirchWithout]

Thanks for clarifying Helen

[capsium]

So does this mean persistent, deliberate derailments could be reported as a poster being goady? Could this be made clearer in the guidelines? The

[capsium]

^ sorry posted too soon. The guidelines regarding trolling etc are not that clear that they would include this sort of behaviour at the moment.

[BIWI]

Talk guidelines:

No personal attacks
No posts that break the law
No trolling, misleading or deliberately inflammatory behaviour
No trollhunting
No spamming

Surely that's clear enough, capsium? I would say that if someone is doing it deliberately to shut other posters down, then it would be classed as 'deliberately inflammatory behaviour'?

[headinhands]

to shut other posters down

And that's another issue. One person might feel a comment is intended to stop debate but others may see the comment as encouraging debate. Who is to say? I'm still not sure how you can shut someone down. Not something that's ever happened to me. I like to think that if you're confident in your position and can illustrate your thinking and how you arrived there then you can't be shut down.

[BIWI]

Well yes, I agree absolutely headinhands - but capsium doesn't ...

[capsium]

BIWI ah, so you think it is clear, that if someone is deliberately derailing to 'shut other posters down' then it is 'deliberately inflammatory behaviour' which could be reported.

headinhands but you don't think it is clear, that a series of off topic comments or questions shuts other posters down. Personally, I would say it can shut a particular discussion down, that is the discussion the OP wanted to raise, as the subject matter of the thread is diverted. The posters who wanted to have that original discussion feel shut down as the original discussion is lost. Yes, off topic comments can encourage debate but 1) a debate may not be the purpose of the discussion the OP raised 2) the debate may totally unrelated to the particular issue the OP raised.

Curiouser and curiouser. I can see the only option, when faced with an, unwanted derailment is to politely remind the poster, diverting the thread, of the thread topic and move the conversation back on topic. Then continue with the discussion raised in the OP. Then if they persist, report for 'inflammatory behaviour'. This risks the poster, who is derailing the thread, not much liking their alternative derailing conversation being shut down, of course, but they can always start a new thread devoted to exploring the issue, they raised, in detail.

[AugustaFinkNottle]

So what does the OP do if a large number of people are more interested in the supposed derailment and carry on discussing it regardless of her attempts to stay on topic? Obviously they can't be reported. I would say at that point she needs to recognise that actually the discussion has moved on, and leave it there.

When it comes to shutting down, I'm far more concerned about the tacit ganging up that happens on some threads where a poster who dares to disagree with the consensus can barely post a full stop before someone is misconstruing it and telling her off about it. Again, it's not something you can report unless it comes within the established rules.