Coping with Trolls and Derailers

[ElephantsAndMiasmas]

There have been some very persistent posters on here recently - some of them funny (unintentionally), and some of them not - dragging threads off track so we have to go back and explain something over and over again. I'm all for a lively debate, but there always comes a point when you realise that they are not listening at all, are on a blatant wind-up mission, or are just insulting posters with no intention of debating the original issues.

If we don't want this to happen, and bearing in mind that some people spot the pattern quicker than others, I was going to suggest that we have something like a warning word/phrase that could alert other posters to the fact that they are wasting their time. What do you think? Is this a stupid idea?

Saying "ah, a troll" just adds fuel to the fire you see. But if you were to say "I blame Princess Michael of Kent" or something, and then everyone disappears...well it might work?

you'd think the greyscale thing wouldn't be too difficult, lots of sites use it for spoilers.

I'm a regular poster and have been for two or three years (I don't post in this section all that often, admittedly, though I do on occasion). However, isn't 'derailers' a rather suspect and disingenuous term for people who don't always agree with the prevailing view of the posters who post in this section very regularly?

Right, before the brickbats come flying I would just add that I am going out now and won't be looking at MN again until this evening

well yes, fair point... but i don't think that anyone's calling for a ban, are they? just that it will be easier to filter out people who have no intention of participating in the discussion but who simply want to bang on about their own not particularly relevant or indeed sane pov the whole time. have a look at youknow on the seb horsley thread, or dp on the recent and completely hijacked and ruined 'genesis of misogyny' thread.

Right, I am going to make myself late No, no one's calling for a ban but I do think there's something rather dangerous (and to me, unacceptable) about trying to legislate about who is entitled to join in a debate and the parameters of their views. As for the SH thread, well, actually I posted on the first few pages and got called a freak or a loon or something, and then I went away for a few days and couldn't be bothered to return. Er, let's just say that I don't think it's a particularly edifying thread now and I don't think either 'side' have particularly covered themselves in glory, so I'd rather leave that one aside. However, and I would be interested to hear what the regular posters in this section think: don't you think this section is less of a debating section and has become more of a place where people seem to have their views agreed with by others/'ratified'? Or even simply a campaigning section?

Well that wasn't what I meant by it, LadyThompson. There have been some really clear example of derailing recently and I'm sure you'd know it if you saw it.

It's not about disagreement, this is a board for discussions after all. It's about picking a totally different subject and diverting the conversation onto that in the middle of a discussion about something else. So if you started a thread about wedding songs, and someone came on and started saying that weddings are pointless and stupid and 99% of marriages end in divorce, and wouldn't go away but kept insisting until it drowned out the original topic, for example.

Who said legislate?

er, no, laythompson, you can't just say 'oho let's leave that to one side', that's the thread that has precipitated this one. and bullshit that neither side has covered themselves in glory, absolute bullshit. one 'side' has been unbelievably polite and the other one quite, quite insane.

Back to respond later! Have to dash. But don't agree that one side has been polite throughout, Aitch, sorry.

oh fgs. lol. you just saw that he wants us all to be dismembered and raped?

i would say everyone on one side was extremely polite under great provocation until, say 750 posts in, of which the other side was 99% abuse and insult to MNers.

And again with the view that we have to be nice, all the time, no matter what is said to us, or we are "just as bad as they are".

Anyway, let's not debate who's been good boys and girls. Can anyone see a downside to the grayscaling idea? Could you just have a button on each poster's blue bar saying "Fade poster" or something, or "bollocks alert" perhaps.

I think, as we have a "hide thread" option that it is not too much to be able to have a "hide poster" option. I automatically now just skip posts by a couple of contributors as I know whatever they say is either annoying or nasty (as I see it).

It would be quite nice if I could just press a button and their posts just went to "hidden" status....a bit like hte "message deleted by mumsnet" we could have "hidden by me to save time" message.

This is not banning people, but it would mean I don't have to accidentally read something very nasty and upsetting. At the moment I ahve to avoid the entire thread which is a shame as someone on it might be amking a valid point.

Aw, heck, I have missed my flipping bus anyway now and I live in the middle of nowhere and the next one isn't for an hour I could scream.

OK, just to clarify - Elephants - I have only really been on my postnatal thread for the last couple of weeks so have missed these 'derailing threads, evidently. But I am wary of any clamping down on who can say what, as I think that so many people get called trolls on MN now, with wildly varying degrees of accuracy, that it has 'derailed' and spoiled things a little for me. It's personal opinion, of course, but as a rule I'd rather read a wayward or even batty opinion than someone sneering 'troll'. But no, no one said legislate other than me. I really meant 'take steps to control'. But to go back to your point about derailing (Elephants) I am not sure the poster in question on the SH was derailing exactly (as defined by you) as they were sticking to the topic of SH, prostitution and so on. But yes, I do agree it all got out of hand.

I think I am just wondering (and I hope this isn't derailing!) about the extent to which one is allowed to deviate from the 'orthodoxy' in this section, because it seems people get rather hot under the collar if you do. I'm not even some anti-feminist! Far from it. But I don't agree with every word or view expressed in this section and do genuinely wonder whether I should just not bother responding to threads on here and stick to In the News, or something!

Oh, and Aitch, I think it's pretty clear SH wrote things for effect, and to bait. I don't think posting various quotes from his book (as someone was) is really going to further the debate because half the time he wrote them merely to be outrageous and garner attention. He was by no means the first and will not be the last, and he would be beside himself at the thought that he'd annoyed a load of posters on MN so those of you who truly revile him, I would suggest the best way to express this is to merely ignore. The reason why I posted on that thread in the first place was merely because I didn't agree with the protester at his funeral (and I don't agree with protesters at funerals as a general rule) and if people want to disagree with me, fine, I was only expressing my view and all that.

Orthodoxy question. People can express opinions, there isn't really an orthodoxy so not sure what you mean by that, even the regulars disagree on lots of things. But if you say something which a lot of people strongly disagree with, you can expect them to get "hot under the collar" about it, as they would in any section. But how does that equate to you not being "allowed" to express an opinion. If I went onto a thread and said "oh stop moaning, I want to park in the parent and toddler spot because it's closer", I would expect people to have something to say about that. Doesn't impinge on my ability to say it though.

Mmm. Well, you see, I DO find there is something of an orthodoxy on here, though I must admit I am most interested in the threads in this section that deal with matters of the criminal justice system and perhaps it is more particular to those.

I am not saying that people can't express an opinion in this section, but I guess I am saying that more than most sections I have come across (with the possible exception of Gifted and Talented), if you zig against the general thrust of the section's zag, things get quite nasty quite quickly - however politely your opinions are expressed. It really is my impression that people won't brook disagreement much on this section. And I find it a bit stifling/hectoring (which is probably why I don't post in this bit much).

I would use grayscaling to work out namechanges.

Press "BollocksAlert" button,
grayscale TerryTroll poster,
and then check posts by LovelyMummy99 to see if her posts go grey at the same time.

but the 'he wrote for effect' line is so dumb...

IF he wrote for effect, to bait and rile, then what the fuck are his friends doing getting their dirty knickers into a twist about one woman holding up a placard at his funeral and a bunch of other women on the internet saying that they thought it was a good thing that the victims of prostitution were represented in some fashion.

for 'effect'.

"Of course I have a reputation as a misogynist. This it is simply not true. The fact is that what we gentleman would like to do when we see a good interesting woman is fuck her or kill her and we should not make any bones about that.

For example, if I could get two beautiful, buxom women, chainsaw them in half, throw away the legs, the voice boxes, the genitals (all the useless bits) then sew them together at the waist, so that I could fuck one in the face while I gobbled the other?s tits, then I would do it. I would keep this ?thing? in a stable chained to a wall on a bed of straw and feed it Kitty cat, beating it on special occasions.

But these days, dear reader, you are not even allowed to hit one!"

• Sebastian Horsley

Jesus, Aitch, that makes me feel ill.

or this, from his blog...

for effect, of course.

"I am told that women find men who have a fine sense of humour extremely sexy. I am always making women laugh. But they never say : ?Oh stop it, you?re killing me. Take off all your clothes and give it to me you dirty bastard,? See - you?re laughing now. But you won?t come down to 7 Meard Street (Black bell) and fuck me until my teeth rattle, will you? No, you?ll just sit there on your mountainous bottoms, with your pointless enthusiasms, saying things like: ?Oh men, they have a one-track mind.? Well, let me tell you something girls. It?s better than having a no-track mind like you lot. Indeed, in the entire history of the world the smartest thing ever to come out of a woman?s mouth is my cock.
I have to say writing this has given my a fucking hard on. It is said that lust is an enemy to the purse and a foe to the conscience. Just as well I?m rich and amoral then isn?t it?
Right, that?s it. I?ve had enough of this bollocks. I?m off to the brothel to get a good housemaids wank. I?m off to see my favourite Serbian whore. Her name? Sloberdownmycockyoubitch."

Me too, that is so incredibly vile and fucked up.