What is with all the thread zapping?

[LaSquirrel]

I can understand that this one ("DH and Jess Bradley") was iffy, and based on unsubstantiated hearsay.

But this one ("have you ever doubted your views" had been going for quite some time, was almost at 800 comments, and then zapped. When I asked around about it (I was just about to settle in and read it finally) women did not think it was 'troll hunting'.

Basically, it does not seem right to let it go to 800 then kill it. Particularly because it throws out all the work that women have put into it - a kind of devaluing women's work issue. If there was an issue with troll hunting, why didn't the mods jump in and put a stop to it? Why let it run so long (and it went for a week or so I think) then kill it?

What say you @MNHQ?

One of my threads was deleted entirely on the grounds that it was a "pile in" (too many people agreeing with each other, apparently). I'd have thought they'd just stop any more comments, but it was entirely deleted.

MNHQ has given what appears to me to be a perfectly reasonable deletion message

Message from MNHQ: We've deleted this thread as there are so many posts here that are either troll-hunting or personal attacks, there would be very little left if we removed them all.

The OP has been here many years and, as far as we can tell, seems to be completely genuine.

Please can we ask again that you report any concerns you have to MNHQ rather than troll hunt on the boards. Thanks.

And frankly, after the spectacularly inappropriate and insensitive post you made on the Jean Hatchett thread, I'm surprised that you have the gall to still be posting.

That ‘doubt’ thread was good. Hopefully the mods will bring it back (with new contributions closed?) after taking the time to review it?

So, like, are we meant to pretend to disagree with each other just so the one person/minority of people who aren't being agreed with by the majority feel better?

If someone posts a thread about how they prefer coffee to tea are we meant to somehow make sure that at least 30%? 50% of responses claim to prefer coffee too so as not to hurt the OPs feelings?

Yes, I am a bit peeved about the “have you ever doubted” one too. But presumably the OP wanted it gone?

(If that's the case I Lang has an excellent case for having any thread on which Weetabix Banana Horror is mentioned deleted.)

Also I've never understood the whole troll hunting thing, would some patient person mind explaining? Sometimes it's obvious that people are trolling, other times you suspect they may be but aren't sure. Do HQ expect us just to not comment on threads where we think there's trolling, or comment once to say "reporting this", or what?

I left something on my I-pad. This morning it was totally gone, zapped for a pile on , not in the spirit etc. No idea what it was, can't remember any problems with it, but it was neither of the two in the OP.

You can usually get the first page of deleted threads via Google Cache.

Search for the thread name (without the web address bit) then click on the little arrow in the google results, not the main link.

@AngryAttackKittens what about when someone gives the person calling troll, a perfectly good reason for why their troll suspicions are unfounded but and other posters persist in calling them out? It's pretty shit being called a troll over and over and then someone else smears you with something appalling from out of nowhere. But then I might be bringing my own baggage into it.

Does anyone know what happened to the zapped thread started by teentruscum (something like that)?

People responded in good faith and MNHQ zapped and said they were investigating or somesuch.

Was the OP a troll @MNHQ?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3315619-How-Can-I-Help

That doesn't actually answer my question...I'm not sure what HQ consider "troll hunting" to consist of and what they'd like people to do when they think they do have a troll on their hands. It's one of those things that HQ seems to think is obvious but actually isn't.

Do HQ expect us just to not comment on threads where we think there's trolling, or comment once to say "reporting this", or what?

I think the requested method is report the posts you think are trolling, and engage on thread without reference to your reporting, or suspicions.

But I've been on quite a long MN break so they may have changed policy.

Also please don't @ people, it sends them a message every time you do it and is generally considered poor etiquette.

(Even I know that and I'm not exactly Miss Manners)

Thanks, Cesira.

Whenever I get an email because of @ I deliberately don't read the post.

There's a rather large difference between believing someone is a troll and suspecting someone (maybe a new poster, maybe an old timer) is not posting in good faith but in such a way that is seeking to undermine certain things.

Does the definition of troll hunting now include saying to posters "You're not listening, or engaging and are instead making insinuations and indulging in a gentle spot of gaslighting, and I think that's worth pointing out"?

I don't know about others, but I've made 'suggestions' on threads about the intentions of a suspect OP to warn others not to engage - or not to engage seriously, at least.

We all know that this forum gets fished by activists looking for quotations to tweet.

There are clear trolls posting here & screenshot-ing for their wider audience on other platforms. Using planted threads/posts to then contact media outlets, MNHQ, advertisers and government depts too. I think if troll hunting is a reason to delete posts or threads, MNHQ need to up their game & start dealing with the trolls who are getting comfy with their feet right under MNHQs table.

What MNHQ seem oblivious to is the fact that these trolls aren't interested in debate or adding to the conversations - they want MN shut down. Nothing less will do. So allowing these trolls to continue to post & censoring when people are calling out the trolls, they are hammering nails into their own coffin.

Seems utterly bizarre to me.

Does anyone know what happened to the zapped thread started by teentruscum (something like that)?

BarrackerBarmer this earlier one is still up, so may be other considerations:.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3301971-Gender-Dysphoria-Is-A-Mental-Illness

Hey AngryKittens I @ you because I was replying specifically to you, I thought that was the point of this feature. Forgive my poor etiquette but I am not welded to Mumsnet 24 hours a day, if it is a known indiscretion that one must not use that button to reply directly to someone, then you have opened up my eyes. Hence my omission in using it in this reply.

Alao this is an actual example of listening to someone and desisting with that behaviour, unlike the people who call troll over and over and in doing so exclude and invalidate the poster.

Is this thread going to get me-railed into "someone thought I was trolling and now I have a vendetta"? Cause that's not really the point of the thread.

(If that's the case I Lang has an excellent case for having any thread on which Weetabix Banana Horror is mentioned deleted.)

I will never report any of you culinary delight deniers to our glorious leaders. I want the world to see exactly who you are.

So there!

There was a very long thread which I had started about Lisa Muggeridge being banned from Twitter which was zapped completely.

There were also consistant apparent attempts to derail it ( see also the thread below)

It was all a bit odd as discussed in the thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3284251-Lisa-Muggeridge-Suspended-by-Twitter-and-Quoting-her-breaches-MN-Guidelines