Goading and group pile ons

[LuckyHazelFox]

I would be grateful if you could confirm what measures you take to deal with goady posters and pile on attacks. I am seeing this on here every day and nothing is being done about it. I have sent you two emails.

I wish MNHQ would ban anyone who says, “Links please” or “Educate yourself”. That would make me very happy.

Morning all.

No, we’re not saying you can’t disagree with someone, challenge what they’ve said, or ask them for evidence. A lively debate is very much part of Talk.

What we’re asking is that people keep the focus on the post rather than the poster. So it’s fine to say “I don’t think that’s right, because…” or to ask for a source. It’s not fine to keep demanding an answer, treat someone not replying as proof they’re being dishonest, or start digging through their history to build a case against them.

No issue with using Advanced Search to find old threads or information. It becomes a problem when it’s used to trawl through one poster’s history and bring that into a thread to make claims about them personally, rather than addressing what they’ve said.

Hope that clears things up a bit.

I would be banned then as I think links are important to back up claims and to counteract misinformation.

But if they criticise certain individuals that can mean that your observations are accurate, carry weight and risk influencing others. Which is a back handed compliment when you think about it.

I'm happy to provide links myself, usually two so as to be impartial.

I'll dig them out for others if they can't link themselves.

That is a very glass half full approach!

OK. So @BeckyAMumsnet you seem to be saying that we are allowed to challenge or request evidence once, but we aren't allowed to ask again or point out that the poster hasn't provided the evidence requested?

When I have reported disinformation previously, the moderators have told me that MN can't determine what's true and what isn't, but we should feel free to challenge disinformation on the threads.

What you now seem to be saying is that we aren't really allowed to challenge on the threads in any meaningful way after all, because posters will just ignore the initial challenge and carry on posting whatever nonsense they are eager to promote. In other words, disinformation must be allowed to stand.

As for saying "I disagree because...", that is not always possible when someone has made a very vague sweeping statement without any evidence - hence the need to ask for evidence so the the point can be properly debated.

Sadly, it seems that you are confirming that MN is no longer a place for robust and rigorous debate where people can actually be challenged effectively and held to account for what they say, because we are all expected to pretend that everyone is here in good faith and that all posts are equally valid.

What a shame.

So if someone posts blatant disinformation and refuses to provide links when asked (sorry maturingcheeseball 😁) we mustn't challenge further?

If so, that will be a gift to any bots and trolls who might start, for example, ragebait threads.

That seems to be the official line, unfortunately.

Sadly, it seems that you are confirming that MN is no longer a place for robust and rigorous debate where people can actually be challenged effectively and held to account for what they say, because we are all expected to pretend that everyone is here in good faith and that all posts are equally valid

I agree @MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack

Thats not my interpretation of what Becky had said. You can challenge and disagree, but you don't have the right to continually pester a poster. Opinions that differ from yours are equally valid, even if you don't like them.

True.

We’re not saying that asking for evidence or noting that it hasn’t been provided is out of bounds.

However there is a point at which a discussion can become less about the claim itself and more about pursuing a particular poster. We’re sure most people can recognise the difference. As ever, we’ll look at reports in context.

Thank you for your opinion, but I am seeking answers from MNHQ rather than your personal interpretation.

There is a well-known tactic employed by certain posters of posting deliberate disinformation and then refusing to substantiate their claims. If we are not permitted to press for evidence, that effectively gives them carte blanche to carry on posting whatever made-up claims they like.

I'm not sure when insisting that claims should be appropriately evidenced started to be regarded as "pestering". Or when it became the expectation that all opinions should be regarded as "equally valid" when some are based on evidence and some are not.

Okay. That is a helpful clarification, thanks. Maybe something could be added to TG so everyone is clear?

‘Certain posters’ is probably the type of stuff the op sent through to mnhq which prompted this update.

It is already covered by the Talk guidelines, particularly the parts about keeping things civil and not making discussions personal. We’ve clarified it here because it’s a useful reminder of how those guidelines apply in practice.

What I mean by “Links please” is that often it’s the go-to response to an unpalatable (to them) point. If someone posts a wild statistic, fair enough, but I have seen demands for links for things which are very public. One I can remember is a poster’s “Links or it didn’t happen” about the Cologne sex attacks. It’s annoying as it interrupts the flow of argument (so probably done on purpose).

Is it ‘pestering’ to ask someone more than once to provide evidence for a claim they’ve made? Particularly if it seems to be unfounded or contradict what you believe yourself?

Fair enough.

We can already report for misinformation and we can all ask for clarification or evidence. That hasn't changed. Thats not what this thread is about.

Sorry, @BeckyAMumsnet I am not trying to be obtuse here, but that doesn't actually clarify it for me at all. If someone is repeatedly pressing for evidence of a particular claim and pointing out when that evidence is not forthcoming, how is that about the poster and not the particular claim in question?

Obviously, I understand that it becomes about the poster if personal remarks are made in relation to that poster. But your instruction on the other thread was about repeatedly asking for evidence and pointing out that the poster clearly doesn't have an answer because they haven't responded. So are we still allowed to do this, as long as there are no personal attacks and we remain focused on the specific claims that are not being evidenced?

It can easily be countered by providing back up for your claims

Yep. Mnhq have added some good stuff due to the op drawing it to their attention.

We can report for misinformation/disinformation but when I have done this previously, I have been told that MN can't decide what's true and what's not so I should challenge on the thread. So I want to know the extent to which we are allowed to challenge.