Why have you deleted a thread for being 'banal'

(104 Posts)
GhastlyMoiraKroesig Tue 15-Oct-13 11:51:35

The thread about Colleen Nolan being a dim bulb.

It was a stupid chatty thread about terrible day time TV and presenters and ended up being a reminiscence about children's telly.

Is it because of the CLEARLY tongue in cheek comment in the OP which got people a-froth?

And as it reported by some tiresome dullard because of that?

ZippityDoodahday Tue 15-Oct-13 11:52:50

It was a personal attack though, was it not?

GhastlyMoiraKroesig Tue 15-Oct-13 11:52:55

Deletion message: Message from MNHQ: Apologies we've deleted this for being possibly the world's most banal thread? (are you bored OP?)

If you are going to delete on that basis the whole website is fucked, frankly.

GhastlyMoiraKroesig Tue 15-Oct-13 11:53:41

A personal attack on whom?

The only personal attacks on there were against the OP. And I am pretty certain she wouldn't have reported it.

GhastlyMoiraKroesig Tue 15-Oct-13 11:54:31

And if you mean a personal attack on Colleen Nolan then every single thread which says 'David Cameron is a twat' should be deleted on that basis I.e. Completely unworkable

LadyBeagleEyes Tue 15-Oct-13 12:24:42

I'm puzzled about that too.
What on earth is banal about discussing a bit of telly?
Is this a banned subject now?

LeGavrOrf Tue 15-Oct-13 12:29:23

I would be very interested in knowing the basis of the deletion.

(I am the OP btw, not sock puppeting myself.

TEErickOrTEEreat Tue 15-Oct-13 12:30:16

I missed that. Interesting deletion message.

LadyBeagleEyes Tue 15-Oct-13 12:32:00

And I resent being called banal.
It's vairy rude.

WonderWomanInAOnesie Tue 15-Oct-13 12:33:35

It was goady. I know it was a bit of fun but you can't delete people who deliberately stir up trouble by saying "Actually I think Michael Gove is brilliant", and leave ones who do the same by saying "Daytime TV is for poor people". Even if it was very obviously tongue in cheek.

LeGavrOrf Tue 15-Oct-13 12:33:36

And the OP was not trolling.

KnittingAndCleaning Tue 15-Oct-13 12:33:58

Banal, wow!

LeGavrOrf Tue 15-Oct-13 12:36:07

It was on obviously tongue in cheek. And quite frankly the OP had a load of personal attacks.

I would understand if the thread had descended into anarchy and a row but frankly after about 80 posts or so the thread mood changed and it was just chat about telly programmes. And usually MNHQ decide to let threads like that stay.

There was absolutely no need to delete it.

SaskiaRembrandtVampireHunter Tue 15-Oct-13 12:41:07

I resent being called banal too - I think my contributions were extremely profound. Particularly my observations about Hartley Hare.

WonderWomanInAOnesie Tue 15-Oct-13 12:45:22

But how is a comment deliberately meant to wind people up, NOT trolling? Is it because OP is a regular poster? Genuine question. Because I strongly suspect that had a newbie come along and written "ugh I hate Jeremy Kyle it's for poor uneducated people" there would have been an uproar, especially if it was allowed to stand.

What people have to remember is that (especially at the moment) there are a lot of new people on the site. They're not all going to realise the OP meant it as a joke. It took me a while to realise tbh and I've been here ages. So they see that thread allowed to stand, but another similar one is deleted for goading/trolling/banality. Then come the accusations of "Royalty" <<yawn>> and NOBODY wants that.

SoupDragon Tue 15-Oct-13 12:48:53

I thought the OP of that was rude and goady [shrug]

LeGavrOrf Tue 15-Oct-13 12:50:46

Yes but nobody was aerated about that any more.

We were being 'banal' apparently. Just talking nonsense about terrible telly from the 80s. And putting a knitting needle up a Play School doll's bottom.

That's pretty much 99% of my contribution to mumsnet classified as banal.

And if we do have a load of new people or lurkers which have found mumsnet due to the dubious penis beaker publicity, they should get used to the place as it stands. Not pander to them.

LeGavrOrf Tue 15-Oct-13 12:52:24

I really wish there was a [shrug] emoticon.

A Gallic shrug one [tant pis]

SoupDragon Tue 15-Oct-13 12:54:45

I don't think an emoticon would convey it as well as [shrug] without [horror] moving

WonderWomanInAOnesie Tue 15-Oct-13 12:57:24

Well tbf I think it was deleted for the OP, not for the ensuing discussion, which I agree was enjoyable! But that doesn't make the OP any less goady, therefore it had to go.

We do need a shrug emoticon. And a proper <<vom>> one so we don't have to use the one that actually denotes envy. Could you have a <<vom>> that isn't graphic though..?

WonderWomanInAOnesie Tue 15-Oct-13 12:59:08

That exclamation mark after enjoyable made me look vaguely unhinged, I hate that.

I accidentally did a PA smiley the other day as well. It's a bloody minefield.

schwertz Tue 15-Oct-13 12:59:44

Didnt see the whole thread, just the first pages.

MNHQ seem to have declared a pa against many posters and the op.

I have realised though that different MNHQ moderators moderate differently from each other.
Some, like Olivia will sit surrounded by pas and do nothing while others are much hotter.

Calling posters banal seems very odd behaviour.

LeGavrOrf Tue 15-Oct-13 13:00:10

Oh no. We can't have moving emoticons, then we would have that one which actually rolls and laughs.

I have been asking for a twat emoticon for years. A two fingers salute one would be good as well.

Never gonna happen.

LeGavrOrf Tue 15-Oct-13 13:02:11

Lol at the exclamation mark. I am always accidentally doing those (how?)

There is no way to use a smile without it looking passive aggressive tbh.

I am a bit pissed off at being called banal. Rude Sods.

HereComesHoneyBooBooDragon Tue 15-Oct-13 13:02:12

My EDL op was goady as Hell. That didn't get reported <<proud>>

I do think the deletion message was a wee bit off on that one though.

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