when you engage with the trolls

[MitchiestInge]

. . . is it a personal thing (actually engaging emotionally) or are you communicating with a wider, more silent audience or are there other motivations?

I can't work out why more people don't ignore them, but every now and then the exchanges are unintentionally funny or interesting - although mostly it gets very dull very quickly. Wondering what's in it for them too.

What does that mean, not allowed to troll-hunt? Pretend they are not here?

We're supposed to report their posts and not engage...

I agree, Dittany.

It's a non-moderated public forum aimed at adults, with little evidence of rules because of the 'adults' bit. One of MN's strenghts?

I don't see the rules being applied to trolls being any different to the FS than elsewhere. They may clump around on very sensitive issues such as sexually assault, but usually within MN rules re inter-personal attacks.

They strike me a bit like the NF v BNP. NF were clueless thugs in boots with very bad hair cuts. BNP are a bit more savyy, tho' still thugs in better footwear and better hair.

I think the genuine trolls who spout rubbish, insult and abuse women and other posters are obvious and I agree that it's a problem. With the best of intentions, it's hard to ignore offensive posts.

I do want to underline though that not every dissenting or even polar opposite view on a scenario or thread topic is necessarily trolling - there can be a tendency to call anyone with a different or non-feminist (note not anti-feminist) viewpoint a troll, which is unhelpful.

Not sure how the two can be distinguished, it's partly down to personal perception, but I tend to think that usual MN rules should work as well here as anywhere else, in theory. It is a public forum after all.

If we suspect someone is a troll we're not supposed to call them out on it.

Yet they get away with little gems like telling us they could probably rape someone andn get away with it. That could have potentially been damaging for a rape victim to read. Mumsnet have been alerted with my concerns, and I suspect many other people's concerns, yet he was still posting here last night.

Sorry, x posted... Had this page loaded for a while before I replied.

Umm ... I didn't see the post you're talking about ... did anyone reply with "I could come and cut off your balls, but I can't see why I'd post that on an internet forum"?

Looking at Talk Guidlines and the stuff on trolls, there does seem to be a very wide gap that is being expoited by the trolls arriving in FS. Is it time to ask MNHQ to review how it manages FS 'trolls' which are different in behaviour to your average troll??
< been done before?>

the post was deleted, thank god. The user is still here though...

"Is it time to ask MNHQ to review how it manages FS 'trolls' which are different in behaviour to your average troll??"

Yes, I think it is too.

I think derailment should get a warning from MN about 'participating constructively' in a discussion, or something along those lines

It is easy to silence feminist discussion through just derailing and posting lots of sly underhand posts that undermine the discussion/feminist analysis, without actually attacking anyone. As Pan says there is a big gap in the talk rules and it is being exploited.

I don't understand either why it is being allowed.

Another thing I don't understand is why the implications that we are nuts or come from abusive backgrounds are allowed to stand.

Maybe not enough of us report them, but we shouldn't have to put up with that sort of thing - it is personal attack, just it is done in a concern troll kind of way.

All that undermining, really passive aggressive, crap about - "well I'm really understanding about her attitude, she probably has reasons (which are no business of mine, oh no) to feel that way".

It is really dishonest, underhand, sly, cunning trolling/derailment.

Doesn't bother me My abusive background led to my interests in psychology and in gender politics. It's made me much better informed than some dickhead whose ability to think through human issues stops with the Daily Mail.

Well, that's nice if it doesn't bother you garlicnutter but I think it is lowdown behaviour and is unacceptable, a) because it is getting personal b) because it is just a way of invalidating a person's views without engaging with them.

It is lazy and mean.

Yes, of course, it's just underhand bullying. Just making the point that what a bully assumes to be weak points may be the opposite.

it bothers me.
i actually feel uncomfatable talking about abuse ect now.
i feel that others[trolls]will come along and use it against me.
ie..this person is a man-hater/MI.
and yes...i would feel invaladated by this.
i dont bother writing as much now.

That is exactly what I am talking about brokendreams.

It is just really shitty behaviour and not the sort of thing that should be tolerated in a feminist space.