Justine said

(168 Posts)
GretaGip Sat 17-Nov-12 21:28:34

that deletions were going to be a bit more reasonable.

I have just seen 2 deletions on a thread that totally weren;t against Talk Guidelines.

What the heck is going no?

I happen to still have a window opem, and can quote them.

It's really annoying and actually unacceptable, as it makes sane poaters look like Vipers when they're not. I thought this was going to be eradicated.

I am really saddened.

HQ?

MmeLindor Sun 18-Nov-12 15:59:39

Thank, LadyM. Didn't think so, but wondered.

Trills Sun 18-Nov-12 14:02:26

You can tell it's not MaryZ by the lack of a Zed smile

LadyMaryChristmas Sun 18-Nov-12 13:30:19

No, MmeLindor. I used to be LadySybildeChocolate before her sad demise. sad I was BelledeChocolate before (I kept the Chocolate so I wouldn't confuse people too much).

OatyBeatie Sun 18-Nov-12 13:21:19

When I say I haven't pulled punches, I don't mean that I am a tough speak-as-I-see-it person (yuk and double- yuk), I just mean that I haven't ever felt that the deletion policy gets in the way of saying what I want to say (apart from having to bite tongue in the face of trolls, but that seems a sensible prohibition).

MmeLindor Sun 18-Nov-12 13:02:56

LadyMary
you are not MaryZ, are you?

OatyBeatie Sun 18-Nov-12 12:39:55

I feel mean for being snarky on this thread last night. It always seems to me that MNHQ does a pretty good job with regard both to deletes and refusal-to-deletes. There has to be a chunk of discretion left to them -- you can only codify rules up to a point, and the catch-all "not in the spirit of the site" seems like a good cover for just letting the staff use common sense, which they seem to do pretty well.

It isn't hard to avoid being deleted. I don't think I've ever pulled any punches, but I've never been deleted afaik.

Pinot Sun 18-Nov-12 12:39:35

Wow.

<wafts stench of arrogance away from thread>

LadyMaryChristmas Sun 18-Nov-12 10:18:40

grin Ds has gone all mushy! <^..^>

he says you all need this!

Trills Sun 18-Nov-12 10:14:22

Are you feeling a bit stressed?

look at the kittens instead

LadyMaryChristmas Sun 18-Nov-12 10:04:27

It depends upon why you use mumsnet then. I don't come on here to argue or wind people up. I have experiences and knowledge to share and the TV is rubbish so I need something to do.

Plyushka Sun 18-Nov-12 01:13:14

I agree with your first two sentences, but as to the third, I'd say it can achieve hegemony, and that is the aim.

LadyMaryChristmas Sun 18-Nov-12 00:43:13

There's no need for any personal attacks though, just don't post. I don't like some of the things that people say, I just get off the thread. There's no need to insult someone, it achieves nothing.

MmeLindor Sun 18-Nov-12 00:37:29

I think we all understand the difference between 'you are being naughty' and 'your behaviour is naughty', but deluded / delusional are words that are often used in a similar way.

When I think about it, I'd use 'deluded' but would assume a person meant similar if they used 'delusional'.

And I agree - what matters is how the words are used - a personal attack is a PA regardless of the words used.

LadyMaryChristmas Sun 18-Nov-12 00:32:42

Just assume that everyone is at the same level, and there's no problem. smile

Plyushka Sun 18-Nov-12 00:30:46

I know, but then you end up with a dialogue of the deaf, don't you?

LadyMaryChristmas Sun 18-Nov-12 00:23:05

You're assuming that everyone on here understands what you mean though, Plyuska. Any web site has a wide variety of users, you can't assume they all know the difference.

Plyushka Sun 18-Nov-12 00:21:36

Also, as an adjective, "delusional" couldn't be applied to something inanimate, like an opinion, whereas clearly "deluded" could be.

It would be interesting if people's posts started having delusions.

Plyushka Sun 18-Nov-12 00:17:30

Yes, indeed; not sure why that point is not clear?

HelenMumsnet (MNHQ) Sun 18-Nov-12 00:16:14

Plyushka

I think the confusion is (partly) between "deluded" and "delusional". If someone is deluded, then they are mistaken, often partly through fooling themselves. If they are delusional, they have delusions.

But the KEY point is that the word was applied to the poster, not the posts.

We can argue about definitions till the cows come home but the intent was to attack another poster personally. Which breaks our rules - however mild or vile the attack.

Plyushka Sun 18-Nov-12 00:14:25

I think the confusion is (partly) between "deluded" and "delusional". If someone is deluded, then they are mistaken, often partly through fooling themselves. If they are delusional, they have delusions.

HelenMumsnet (MNHQ) Sun 18-Nov-12 00:12:24

ChippingInLovesAutumn

Helen - I didn't see that on any of the sites I looked it up on & have never intended it as anything other than a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary as in - 'you are delusional if you think your teenager doesn't swear when you are not around'. It's getting hard to know what you can actually say without unwittingly offending someone sad

No that's fine. We do understand - and we're always happy to explain our thinking behind a deletion in situations like this.

MmeLindor Sun 18-Nov-12 00:08:25

Bad comparison, Garlic.

'Delusional' is used in a 'omg, what on earth are you talking about' kind of way. You may not like it, but it is. It wouldn't occur to me that someone was seriously questioning my MH.

Calling someone anorexic is different because its only used to speak of someone with an eating disorder.

Plyushka Sun 18-Nov-12 00:04:25

Allagory, maybe your dh could do a webchat.

ChippingInLovesAutumn Sun 18-Nov-12 00:03:59

Garlic - and you think SHOUTING and < > comments help how? I find that far less tolerable than being called a twat.

Plyushka - How rude. Of course people wont 'get it' unless someone (like Helen just has) finds a way of explaining it that makes some sense. Simply repeating 'it's offensive' does not help in any way. Nor do sarky comments surprisingly enough.

Helen - I didn't see that on any of the sites I looked it up on & have never intended it as anything other than a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary as in - 'you are delusional if you think your teenager doesn't swear when you are not around'. It's getting hard to know what you can actually say without unwittingly offending someone sad

HelenMumsnet (MNHQ) Sun 18-Nov-12 00:03:50

Portofino

I am all agog because I "started' all this with no more than an autocorrect. To me, this should be about what the poster wrote, which was rude, defensive etc. The responses WERE fair in the context.

Think it might be useful if I repost my earlier post here..

We do get it.

Someone is vile. You say something chippy in return.

Both posts get deleted.

It feels unfair as chippy isn't as bad as vile.

But we don't do gradations of personal attack, we're afraid. Our heads really would explode then!

Perhaps it's best just to say something acidly nice instead of chippy in future? I dunno, maybe, "What a charming/intelligent/awesomely articulate post"? Point is made but it's not personal...

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now