Troll hunting

Fennel He/She could have come back, without your knowledge. Perhaps using the name OliveOil, though I would add that there are other types of oil on open sale.

I used to belong to a forum where there was one man who was always attacking other posters, including me. Making personal remarks etc.
So I decided to try winding him up, which I did. Teasing etc. He lost it completely and was banned.
He was a nasty bully, like Bluto.

I agree with the last few posters.

I was very nervous about posting at first and 'lurked' I am afraid without taking part.
When I did post in the end I was quite shocked by how what I thought was an innocuous post caused such vitriol. I was even told by one that it was a bad post despite receiving many replies. I realise I probably took it to heart more than I should have but we do not all have thick skins.

I think we should be cautious about how much information we give away and not rise to the aggressive posters. Like bullies in the playground if we do not respond they will go away on their own but it would be sad to put off genuine posters.

Some interesting thoughts there, last 2 posts.
I like the back and forth on here. It's more likely to result in an agreed solution than on Mumsnet which seems to have many more members. On there, usually each gives their view without considering what previous posters have written.
Threads seem to be much longer on there.

NanaandGrampy, Yes I agree with you it is a big melting pot of ideas and experiences, and that's GN greatest asset-the ability to access lots of differing perspectives.

It doesn't work so well if posters are put off by the initial replies though, as I think people tend to take their lead from the first posts, and judge which way posters might lean.

Then the resulting thread becomes narrower and narrower with posters polarising into for and against groups. This closes down the discussion very often leading to an argument! Which is such a shame (unless you are a troublemaker!!) as I really feel that the wisdom of crowds is such an under used facility, and here the wisdom should be enhanced by experience!

The difference here in my view, is that we don't have to react immediately. We can read and re read before we answer.
All things considered we should be more well balanced conversationalists on here than in normal one to one chats. For that very reason.

I find that the opposite tends to be true. People (not all by any means) quicker to speak without thinking. Probably because they can do so with impunity.
Obviously saying exactly what one thinks in our day to day lives would cause chaos!!! So there is a reason we hold our tongue face to face, which is weakened on the internet.

I could be wrong but the more comfortable a poster feels by confidently knowing his or her 'audience'. the more likely they are to play to the crowd IMV and IMV only, you understand

Which is why I feel more comfortable with leaving the troll hunting to the experts, even if it takes a little longer to root them out. Report by all means, over and over if they have their eye off the ball.
But I'm not comfortable with my abilities to root out a drama queen and feel a little squeamish passing comment on their thread to a third in-the-know party, personally!!

Being blunt and leaving an honest comment that you feel uncomfortable on a thread is acceptable I think.
After all we've already accepted that we're all different, and honesty cant be faulted surely, but then I would as some others have put it bow out gracefully.
There's always room to re engage when we feel reassured.

Having a group conversation at the expense of the op, not on topic or discussing the validity and truthfulness of the thread, is what our friends in the USA who are more up to date with personality labels call Triangulation I think.
A conversation with another that has at its core the means to upset a third party.

There's always the possibility of PMing each other if you really feel the need to chortle about or criticise someone!

So I guess after all this typing I could argue that I'm in favour of the status quo of letting them at't coal face deal with trolls.....or perhaps I'm just lazy .

Bluebell, yes I think I can agree with you whole heartedly if I understand that you are suggesting proceed with caution! For all the reasons you say. Notwithstanding just holding your council before you cast pearls before swine....
Sometimes though every rule has to be broken I suppose and to lay out your argument, state your case at the onset, firmly and reiterate it is all one can do. If its the truth as you know it and people don't accept that, for what ever reason, what else is there?

Sorry its very late and although I'm often awake through the night, even I'm getting delirious trying to concentrate (just spent 2mins trying to remember how to spell concentrate!!)

Goodnight Bluebell off to make a cuppa and then bed!!

Good post Namsnanny !

I also don't think newcomers understand that when you post about something you may not get the replies you want as everyone sees things in a different light.

If the post is light on details people fill in the blanks , sometimes incorrectly .

Its hard to judge tone /seriousness sometimes too.

People need to understand that once a question is posted its no longer in their control , it may wander in unexpected directions, they may get responses they find hurtful or negative , they may get no response at all. Its the nature of the beast I'm afraid.

but someone who has innocently posted is more likely to be hurt by a negative or unresponsive response

That’s why it’s best to tread gently, if you feel an original post from a NEW poster is a bit too strange to be true They are more often or not in the relationship or health or ask a gran Forum and posted with contentious subjects often mother in law /daughter in law problems or a sexual problem I think it’s a really good idea before launching in with advice to try and get them to introduce themselves quite often spoof posters don’t cone back they simply like to throw the firework into the fire and watch the sparks fly

So I think it’s best to not stop helping people but proceed with caution and desist from help in detail until you are sure it’s genuine

What do you think ?

winterwhite..Lurking is a negative word isn't it? I've used it before when stuck for finding a more appropriate phrase.
Because I've used it I just take it as an innocent way of describing reading loads without posting!

As Judge Judy always says, once its on the internet its there for good.

It does worry me a little that people could easily find out a bit about me. But its either accept that side of things and hope no ones that interested, or be cut off from what is essentially an avenue of interest.

I do think new members can easily be put off if there's a negative response, and the trouble is, if the op is actually for want of a better phrase, a troublemaker, its unlikely they will give up, because they're after the thrill/buzz setting off some drama.
But someone who has innocently posted is more likely to be hurt by a negative or even an unresponsive response (if you see what I mean .

I've always been quite open to my friends and relatives that I'm on this site and I expect if anyone wanted to find out who I am in real life there's enough information for them to do so. Sadly I took down my profile and took some time off GN a few years back when a poster started to involve herself in my real life situations - she was banned, but it was seriously worrying at the time.

What happened to Phoenix with someone contacting her employer was so far beyond the pale that I was truly shocked. In comparison the newer 'oddballs' that are popping up don't seem to me to be quite so damaging.

I find it quite sad that, as a result of the reaction to 'our' posts appearing on F B and msm, so many posters changed names and deleted profiles. I do understand why of course but it was lovely to get to know someone whose posts you found interesting.
Easily done by going to their profile, seeing pic's, discovering more about them .
It didn't seem remotely creepy or stalkerish at the time but looking back, we were a lot more naive than we are now!
Did we even think about trolls back then?

Me too!

Although it was OK when I mentioned in a post buying them for the DGD for Christmas (which I didn't because they didn't have their size).
Nor the boots

Perhaps just as well, because they are apparently rather passé now, according to a young DGD!

Be careful, I got deleted because I mentioned that all in one garment Fennel

I remember that. Not sure whether she realised how unpopular she was or whether GNHQ stepped in but she overstepped the mark once too often and disappeared.
Did she jump or was she pushed!

I can remember that Elegran

And on another occasion a reader (I can't imagine it was a member!) worked out where a poster was working, and passed on to their employer something that had been said, hoping to make trouble.

ie not subject to copyright laws.

Namsnanny I don't understand the connection to onesies either.
As for you other question, not a serious con job (as far as I know). But on one occasion part of a thread on here was published in the Daily Mail, with the user names of a few of us.
After which some of us changed our user names.
Some people don't realise that these forums are open to general public view and reproduction.

We used to have one spoof poster who always asked about where to buy cheap ugg boots and onesies for her gay grandson so it became a bit of a joke to refer to fake threads using those words Nansnann

Just asking....what have onesies got to do with anything? Sorry not down with the lingo!!

BTW has there ever been a serious con job perpetrated through GN? Something like a fraud or a vulnerable person taken in somehow?

Otherwise, some of us are in danger of making fools of ourselves by chasing ghosts!

There is a lot of symbolism in the more "high church" denominations, and the C of E is just reall the RC without a pope. The non-conformists mostly go for either plain black or no uniform at all.

Not entirely a serious question. The whole vestment thing is far more significant in R C and Anglican traditions than in e.g. C of S although there is of course a certain symbolism in the robes worn by ministers.

(Oh, dear. Better luck next time GG!)

Well, I might have had a short sermon delivered by GNHQ but it fell short of de-frocking.
I live to fight another day...hip hip hooray

I think it must be rather like a soldier geting a dishonourable discharge and having his insignia publicly ripped from his uniform in front of ranks of his fellows.

It's rather odd, as the opposite should be de-ordained, surely?

Any relation to Jinglebellfrocks?
I wouldn't think so Atqui