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 think "cultish" might get deleted now - probably under the easy-to-report "negative generalisation" rule.

I got deleted for a negative generalisation of men - actual men. Whether the reporter thought I meant transwomen (I wasn't - no mention of trans in my post), is not clear, nor relevant - presumably they only have to "perceive" that I might be referring to transwomen to get my post deleted. Or maybe referring to men as a class is now a 'negative generalisation' and deletable on a feminist board

What does that mean

It means that they, effectively, judge a post in isolation; it having been reported by someone - rather than having looked at others surrounding it, and judging for themselves. They rely on the reporters interpretation alone. A totally 'blind' and unfair method.

How can you discuss patriarchy if you can't generalise about men?

Ok, thanks just.

And I agree with previous posters that an edit function would be very useful.

Mumsnet has basically been captured by the TRA agenda, and in having been has itself become part of the problem I was attempting to discuss: which was totalitarianism and cultish ways of thinking and behaving.
No semblance of reason, fairness or true moderation. The moderating function, certainly on this forum, has become a blunt tool of oppression.

*I think "cultish" might get deleted now - probably under the easy-to-report "negative generalisation" rule8

And yet it had been used by quite a few others...and was entirely appropriate for the discussion at hand. Not everything has to relate to the TRA agenda, and 'cultishness' has far wider applications than that.

Editing is horribly open to abuse and unless it is very strictly limited, eg. only within 30 secs of posting and only if there are no further replies.

If editing is left completely open, as on Facebook, you get people posting inflammatory statements then, after others have replied, the troll goes back and edits the inflammatory post. It makes it look as if they have posted something completely innocuous but have been subjected to a tirade of bullying.

Editing inflammatory posts can also be done just to make those who have replied look stupid.

Freedom to edit posts at will makes moderation even more of a nightmare and is a gift to trolls.

Oh, I agree totally Justhadathought - it's hard to keep up with deletable offences, tbh.

Freedom to edit posts at will makes moderation even more of a nightmare and is a gift to trolls.

Got it. I haven't thought of any of that. Presumably because my mind does not work like that of a troll 😁

Did the policy towards disruptive MRA's change recently?

Editing is horribly open to abuse and unless it is very strictly limited, eg. only within 30 secs of posting and only if there are no further replies

Well, that is what I'm talking about...so one can correct SPAG mistakes, and maybe add additional information......

Freedom to edit posts at will makes moderation even more of a nightmare and is a gift to trolls

Only contributing to two forums, and not using social media, it is clear there is a whole world out there that I have little awareness of......thank goodness!

Apparently we're meant to be naice to MRAs now?

I did think that, Mole, but on fb you can see the full edit history, so that presumably helps?

One thing it maybe encourages is (usually) for me to be more circumspect and careful in what I post if I know it can't be edited. Probably mostly a good thing.

It means that they, effectively, judge a post in isolation

I agree that there are times when context is all. However, I recently asked MN to look at the overall pattern of someone's posts - ones that, in isolation, did not quite breach the guidelines but taken as a pattern and in context, were clearly targeted at goading others into biting back and so pushing the thread towards complete deletion. MN obliged and the poster stepped back sharply, much to everyone's relief.

I appreciate that's quite different to your experience, Justhadathought, but it might be worth knowing in the future if good threads are at risk of being derailed and deleted because of the behaviour of a few.

It can be done, but you have to make your case to MN.

Freedom to edit posts at will makes moderation even more of a nightmare and is a gift to trolls.

I agree that on Facebook in theory the ability to view edits helps. In practice, when a post or thread is reported and posts have been edited, Admins/Moderators have to view edits on all edited posts to try to work out what has been going on and who has been trolling whom.

I Admin several FB Groups and just one report can take up a lot of time when comments have been edited, often multiple times. Don't forget that you can't just look at the content of the edits - you have to look at the ruddy time-stamps too and try to work out who posted what and when

Sometimes people just have second thoughts after a "red mist" posting. Other times, when fights break out, all parties can engage in deliberate wind-ups then delete or edit comments.

I have been moderating forums for about 20 years - I must be insane! The only user-editing provision that works is on "old style" forums that automatically bar deleting or editing posts after (usually) 30 seconds and always bar deleting or editing after a post has received a reply.

I was surprised at first that Mumsnet does not accommodate any user-editing but it seems to work out OK in practice. People usually correct any errors or clarify issues very quickly in a follow-up post.

There will always be "bad faith" posters and "external monitors" taking screen-shots of ill-advised posts or posts with errors/typos, ignoring any corrections/clarifications that follow. Allowing free user-editing is not the answer.

Separate issue: What would be more helpful, due to so many posts linking to material that has since been deleted, is if people could archive articles, tweets, etc. then link to the archived version - screen-shots should be an extra, not a substitute. It takes longer and is tedious but if the linked item is important then it is worth a few extra minutes.

Thanks for the reminder about archiving, Mole. I am guilty of avoiding it due to the inconvenience, but it is actually worthwhile. I will try to do better in future!

That makes sense, Mole.

Er, can I be useless and ask how one would archive something? I do take screenshots sometimes, but don' tknow how to archive stuff.

The two most popular sites for archiving URLs are:

Archive.today (based in Iceland, does not remove archived web pages because someone might find them embarrassing)
archive.today

"Archive.today is a time capsule for web pages!

It takes a 'snapshot' of a webpage that will always be online even if the original page disappears.

It saves a text and a graphical copy of the page for better accuracy and provides a short and reliable link to an unalterable record of any web page

"This can be useful if you want to take a 'snapshot' a page which could change soon: price list, job offer, real estate listing, drunk blog post, ...

Saved pages will have no active elements and no scripts, so they keep you safe as they cannot have any popups or malware!"

Internet archive / Web Archive / Wayback Machine (DOES remove archived pages on request)
web.archive.org

"Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in the future."

----

On both the above, you can see the original URL if you want to visit it.

TIP: Threadreader is NOT an archiving system.
The tweets will disappear if they are deleted or the account is deleted. Threadreader also cannot retrieve tweets after a certain time even if they still exist.

If you archive a Threadreader page, eg. using one of the archive sites above, the thread will be archived even if the tweets or twitter account are deleted.

You also get a nicer print-out from an archived Threadreader page than from the Threadreader page directly

Brilliant, thanks so much! Archive.today looks like a good un, then.

ANOTHER TIP - Don't forget to bookmark an archived site once you have created it, otherwise you might find it hard to find next time you need to refer to it.

There are Search Functions on both archive sites but it can take a while to find a specific page archived at a specific point in time if you have not bookmarked it - learn from my mistakes

Noted! I do not would not have had a clue! Thank you!

That’s very useful info Mole, much appreciated.

I might be wrong here. But has anyone noticed some odd threads and posters over on the relationships board in the last week or so?
The tone seems to have changed.
There are several threads now about women excluding other women, because obviously we're all bitchy and are apparently competing for male attention. Especially older women and Conservative women.
Dunno, the tone seems off. Lots 9f misogyny, just doesn't read right.
lots of posters with sparkly princess names agreeing with each other. Too many Americanisms, I know we have American members, but the ratio seems off.
Maybe nothing.

Not sure of the rules here, but we might need a Lang cleg message elsewhere.. have tried but don't have your language