The departure of dittany

[Pan]

I only know that she has left, and in her post she didn't say much as to why, though some people can speculate and imagine why.

Quite a few days ago (last weekend I think) there were threads that pinpointed the lack of consideration that MNHQ has toward the sort of trolls that infest the FS section from time to time - different in nature and purpose to your average troll that infects MN from time to time.

It may well be that d. is in contact with regular posters whom she trusts. I don't know.

What I do know is that d. was a fabulous source of invigoration and illumination to a lot of posters, myself included, though we didn't always agree with her.

I would like a review from MNHQ of their current "talk guidlines" policy, in order that the FS is provided with a consideration that recognises the particular vulnerability that it experiences.

D. left for her own reasons - but this presents itself as a sort of 'test case' for MN to respond sensitively.

Would anyone agree and post here in support of this?

no one deserves it

we are adults

Why thank you, Ms LRD

Sorry. He didn't. because no one does. I've got my stern Hat of Justice on atm. I was, and still am, genuinely shocked and sickened by it.

kerry, I don't think ignoring someone saying things about rape/child abuse is the right thing to do. I just don't. We couldn't keep chatting happily after someone had said that 13 year olds enjoy sexual attention from older men - it's something that has to be challenged, IMO, if it can't be deleted.

I do think that's why this kind of trolling is hard to deal with - they know they're saying things no decent person wants to ignore or appear to accept, and they know we're not allowed to get personal or call them on the fact they're posting in order to be inflamatory (=trolling).

Oh, DontCallMeDragon, please it is not personal it was just your names are very similar and my post was in response to your post not LRD's I'd apologise to anyone that I made this mistake with.

Madam - count me in there too. Not on.

We're talking basic moderation.

We're not talking about giving people a ticking off for using the word "fuck" five times in six words. We're talking about mods who respond quickly when someone does begin trolling. We're talking about mods who delete the trolls, not the people challenging them because HQ have ignored them.

LRD, can you post up an example of a comment that's stood that you think should have been deleted? Would be an interesting exercise I think (though I realise you're not here to do secretarial work for anyone )

OK, my "bob deserved it" comment was in jest. However, I think it's the first time I've seen such an attitude from Pan, and I think it came out in a moment of anger.

However, I don't see the point in getting angry because a male member of the section has made a suggestion. For a clear description of male entitlement, follow Bob and LRD's convo on the same thread.

Therein lies the problem. We get deleted for calling someone a troll. They look like a troll, smell like a troll and even have a distinct fear of goats, but they're still here a week or so later... Their posts stand because they're subtle about it.

If we post something in anger, we usually retract it quite quickly, I find. Pan didn't.

kerry - I don't know what the point is, no. I just want it to go back to how it was with lots of chatting about feminism.

cel - the one that really upset me (there were quite a lot but this is mine) was a series of comments where the poster said he knew that underage girls (13-15) loved sexual attention from older men, and he said he had experience of this. Then he backtracked and said he just meant he knew teenage girls, but I thought the first comment saying 13-15 year olds welcome attention from adult men should have been deleted. And I think HQ should maybe have posted on the thread saying to posters to be aware of the law. I really felt shaken up by that post being allowed to stand and say that it's a 13 year old who enjoys the attention, instead of blaming her abuser.

LRD, I'm glad I missed that. :(

I think it would be more helpful to deal with it on the thread, lrd, so all can see the issue and the law too.

I think in that instance, I would be hard put not to get very shouty indeed. But would think I would just say "That is a paedophile statement. I will not engage with you at all on this thread and I have reported you"

DCMFD - it was a bit of an odd thread, because there were basically two separate topics going on at that point - one about who you fancy when you're over 16, and one about underage girls. IMO, there was some deliberate blurring of the lines between the two, but the comment about 13-15 year olds seemed not to merit being deleted and I wonder if it would have in a different context.