Bunbury's guide to community disruptors part 4

[BarbaraStrozzi]

Thought it was time for another of these. I'll just cut-and-paste the opening of the last thread:

The useful Bunbury Guide to Spotting Community Disruptors is constantly evolving.

The best research and advice is not to engage with community disruptors and trolls. As ever, if you suspect troll activity, report it to MNHQ.

This is a continuation of the first Public Service Announcement thread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3438714-Bunbury-s-Public-Service-Announcement-2

Thread 3 was deleted with this note from MNHQ; We're sure there will be a Bunbury 4 around soon, but we'd be grateful if we could draw a line under the issues raised in this thread if there's to be a new one.

If and when you see threads plopped into FWR, especially a curious repeat of well worn topics, maybe check for poster history before engaging.

There are a number of posts/posters/threads that are reproduced on Twitter or Facebook to foment controversy using screen shots & flagging to either MNHQ to have threads or posters deleted. Sometimes, it’s used to approach commissioning editors with ideas for articles. It’s a tiresome tactic that we’ve had several community disruptor posters who themselves post the comments that they then highlight elsewhere as purported evidence of racism, religious intolerance, anti-men sentiments, or transphobia.

Some helpful links can be found in the first posts on thread 2 (linked above) but in essence FermatsTheorem recommended “that in the absence of a block/hide poster button, I suggest the following strategy (given that you're talking to the lurkers).

Do not name check the sealion. Instead, respond to a depersonalised paraphrase:

"It is sometimes erroneously suggested that blah. Blah is wrong for the following reasons (short and pithy). If you need more information re. debunking blah, here's a link."

Then (this next step is important to combat derailment) go back up thread to the last useful contribution to the discussion, make sure you do name check that contributor, and pick up the discussion from that point.”

I started noticing a lot of personal attacks being defended against so I tracked back and read what I normally scroll past. I reported the personal attacks I saw for a while but it proved fruitless so now I have returned to scrolling past.

That’ll ensure you only read opinions you agree with.

No it ensures I don't waste my reading time on disruptive trolling. I don't come to these decisions instantly. They are borne out by lots of evidence.

Honestly at this point there are some people whose posts basically play as "blah blah, I hate it when women don't do what they're told and I'm going to have a strop about it" in my head every time I bother to read them, so I mostly don't bother any more. Occasionally I do read a comment just to say if there's any actual content but nope.

Exactly.

It is astounding that in the last few days some posters have stated that we have to reply to posters with whom we do not wish to engage, read everything that is written, show respect for posters who show no respect for others, be kind, centre men in feminism and ignore biology.

Sorry, no. (Not really sorry.)

If someone feels that they need a captive audience from which they can always be guaranteed a response perhaps they should consider hiring someone for that purpose. Since they haven't offered to pay me, then nope.

I remember that feeling of making a salient point and being ignored when I first entered the internet. It goes away for most people within a short period of time, I think.
I did what most people do. I asked the "is it me or is it them" question. Also known as reading the room.

I started noticing a lot of personal attacks being defended against so I tracked back and read what I normally scroll past. I reported the personal attacks I saw for a while but it proved fruitless so now I have returned to scrolling past.

Scrolling past was difficult for me at first, since it involves a sort of judgment call, but now that it's my first reaction, reading Mumsnet is so much easier and less annoying.

None of us have time to read everything posted here, so we should use that time as best we can.
I trust the posters that can be bothered, and I who I do want to read, to catch any points that might be worth responding to, but still feel frustrated by how often the GFs succeed in derailing, and making the thread all about them in true narcissistic fashion.

Thank you to notbadconsidering for stopping me taking the bait.

Must avoid obvious traps.

yeah. i try to only read posts that i have reason to believe are made in good faith. people who are here to mess others about can do one. i don't owe them anything

Thank you for all these helpful reminders

No problem, it’s a balance sometimes, if you post you risk perpetuating the situation but I think it needed it there.

Honestly, I would be happy to read the opinions of those who come here only to abuse us if they were capable of doing the same for us - it's really clear that there are posters who are only reading our posts to find something to attack us over, not actually reading our words. People who don't engage in any other way or in any other threads (despite often saying they agree with us on self-ID the big meany transphobes that they are...) but only pop up to say how we're big meany transphobes.

yeah, the late and lamented lass was a professional contrarian. she disagreed with everyone on here, often mostly just on principle it seemed to me

but i always read her posts and was happy to engage with her because she did the same. plus she had interesting things to say and generally made sense. this is a big plus

sorry, lass is late of this board, not of life! (don't want to give the wrong impression!!)

I miss Lass too for similar reasons.

but i always read her posts and was happy to engage with her because she did the same. plus she had interesting things to say and generally made sense. this is a big plus

Many a thread (about prostitution etc) where we were on the same side of the debate and she was a formidable ally.

Thanks to the posters who continue post relevant information when I can't even recall the detail of points raised.

I've been mulling over the safeguarding thread overnight, dreaming about it and then waking up ready with more stuff bursting out of my head, not always coherent though

Yes, I do feel we're suffering from the lack of women like Lass.

I said it on another thread recently, but it's the disagreements (often heated!) between posters on this board that have really challenged my views and opinions over the years, and made me consider why I believe what I do. And you don't get that sort of conversation when people are just throwing insults and refusing to engage.

Agree with you all re lass

Didnt agree with everything she said but she always said it well

Yes a real miss. Lots of prostitution
/porn threads recently would have really benefited from input from Lass.

I am very keen to have proper good faith discussions with people who disagree, and can argue their case logically and eloquently. Yet to find much in that vein, though.

Yes, I miss Lass, too, though I disagreed with her on many things.

Mumsnet has to be one of the most unsophisticated forums.....not only is there no edit function, but moderation seems to be conducted totally 'blind' and without taking into consideration the contexts of discussion.

I had a post deleted yesterday, and am feeling quite sore about that ,since there was genuinely nothing offensive, or personally directed in at at all. It was a short post, that was basically agreeing with one that went before, and many others previous to that one.......all in the same vein. Yet mine got deleted.It was a discussion about how totalitarian things are becoming, and how that is connected to cultish ways of thinking.

Mumsnet have said that they cannot go back and look at the context of the post since their moderating function relies on reporting alone. This is clearly open to abuse and malicious intent, as well as being terribly unsophisticated and leading to deeply unfair and illogical, inconsistent outcomes.

An edit function would be a HUGE improvement.

Mumsnet have said that they cannot go back and look at the context of the post since their moderating function relies on reporting alone.

What does that mean?