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.

I engage because I find it impossible not to respond when people say stupid inflammatory things. So it is an emotional response, for me, and most definitely not fun.

Can someone PM me which poster said they could rape MNers? So I can keep an eye out for him.

Have PMed you.

Reacting emotionally to a post is just as bad at derailing a thread as trolling and being disrespectful, belittling, calling remarks/opinions stupid etc smacks of double standards because that is bullying abusive behaviour. I really wouldn't stoop to that level.

Much better to ignore posters who are believed to be trolls or identify points that can be responded to unemotionally. Resorting to denigration is usually evidence that an argument has been lost and there is nothing else worthwhile to say.

If someone says something totally off the wall it can be reported and the mods will deal with it as they see fit.

It seems a lot are upset by my attempt at satire, my apologise to anyone I upset

If I were a troll would I apologise?

What, being realistic, can MNHQ do about it though? They can only ban a specific ISP address, and those are easily changed. What do you suggest?

Well there really doesn't appear to be a concensus on what the leigibility criteria are for 'trolls', nor what should be done about them re the FS. So it's a bit sticky to suggest to MNHQ a course of action, or guidlines, or a FS statement at the top IF that was thought to be a good idea. What we are left with are very lenghty threads where half of the posts are explaining the ABC of how the world works to people who really don't want to know other than being able to pedal some anti-women views.

It makes it more problematic when posters are labelled troll/anit-feminist/rape apologist etc and the (genuine) poster does not have the intent to be any of those things. And it also comes back to the question asked recently "what is the FS for?".
It may be a time consuming, but for practicalities and clarities sake, I'd distil the solutions into:

• decide what the FS section is for.

• flowing on from that, should there be a 'statement' atop each thread?

• recognise that FS trolls are different to other trolls on MN - that hasn't been recognised, I don't think?

• agree a 'collective' approach' as what to do on the board (ignore, or engage eg) when a troll appears. Tricky on such a big board.

• formulate a brief 'policy for action' with MNHQ to adopt when a troll/post is reported i.e. simply delete the post or ban the poster.

Trolls and interlopers in FS are different to other trolls and yes they do enjoy an obvious space where they can be collectively offensive, but the Talk Guidlines clealry didn't account for that when the FS was set up. So I'd suggest guidance and practice needs updating, with these 5 points, as I very modestly suggest.

This is an emotional topic though. If someone posts something like eg women who get raped are asking for it, that elicits an emotional response in me. I don't see how that is "wrong" or as bad as trolling? Genuinely confused by that comment.

Exactly who said they could rape MN'ers and get away with it? And in what context?
Once you start banning people, it only goes one way. Censorship, if other forums are anything to go by, takes on a momentum of its own.

I wish we could ban the word bullying from the bloody internet. Nobody seems to use it properly.

The only point in responding is to demonstrate that there are lots of feminists out here and we will prevail!

Agree, LeBOF

Can anyone explain to me this (new?) idea that people in this section are not supposed to have emotional responses to the things that they read?

Not possible. Does not compute.

as you'll know trolls here appear out of nowhere, usually only post here and nowhere else eg I looked up BobB - last few days he has sat here only,and wandered off only to post on a porn thread. Not conclusive evidence maybe but consistent with 'trollyism'.

Pan, troll hunting is just a form of witch hunting. You might be right or you might be wrong about BobB but does it really matter or invalidate what he said? As long as posters remain respectful of one another why should we fear or control debate on an open forum?

I don't think the ignore approach works in practice. You get the odd troll/MRA who is clearly misogynistic and easy to identify. But there are many more who try quite hard to come across as reasonable initially. People become drawn in, and once the truth becomes obvious it's then much harder to disengage. Especially as one or two trolls on here (and I suspect they are the same person) have tried quite hard to 'fit in' on several different threads before showing their true colours and making increasingly bizarre and offensive statements. These people are quite skilled and very very sad or twisted since who in their right mind would want to spend what amounts to hours winding people up? They often develop quite a back story. They're wasted on the FS section and should start doing undercover police work the lengths they go to. Why not get a life instead?

Also, some of the more intelligent trolls make misogynist statements that are not necessarily considered unusual but are actually very similar to what is a mainstream view (e.g. women lie about rape), so by engaging with them you are engaging with a commonly held view that might potentially sway several lurkers.

Where a troll is obvious I try to ignore. Where a post is seemingly benign but from a new poster whose name I don't recognise but whose posting style is familiar, I tend to hold off to see how it develops. Occasionally something is written that is so completely wrong/potentially very humorous/worth answering because it's a commonly-held view that I engage anyway, despite knowing the poster is a troll.

I agree with that we could do with a statement line at the top of the FS, so that it is clear that this is a pro-feminist arena, and while differences of opinion about feminism are welcomed, misogyny dressed up as 'an alternative POV' is not. It should make it much easier to report and ban offensive posters more quickly.

Bob I still don't understand how anyone can expect people not to have an emotional response to things that they read.

STIDW where did you get that idea? It is the first time I have heard it on MN.

"Reacting emotionally to a post is just as bad at derailing a thread as trolling and being disrespectful, belittling, calling remarks/opinions stupid etc smacks of double standards because that is bullying abusive behaviour. "

So if someone says something really outrageous, people reading it should not have an emotional response? I really don't understand how that is supposed to work.

I have an emotional response a lot of the time on MN, the things I read make me feel happy, sad, miserable, optimistic, they make me laugh, they make me angry. How are emotional responses "wrong" -how can that be?

They're not just wrong, Sardine, they're bullying...

It's not just me, is it? That doesn't make sense

I mean, if looking at the inequality between men and women around the world doesn't elicit an emotional response, then feminism probably isn't the right "ism" for you!