The MN Mail Column - what we think, and what we plan to do next... part 2(1001 Posts)
Firstly, I am a regular but have created a new name for this.
My thoughts about what I know so far:
1. In a much earlier post there was a discussion about a change in T&Cs and whether they are valid or not. Several years ago I took a company to court for a breach of their T&Cs. Their argument was that they had changed T&Cs and my complaint was therefore no longer valid. However, the judge said that because I had not specifically been asked to accept the new T&Cs, I was entitled to rely on the ones I had accepted and therefore I won my case.
2. I choose to post on MN in the knowledge that the details I give are probably just obscure enough to anyone I may know in RL who also posts, so that what I say still effectively remains private. However, that doesn't mean that the same could be said of, for instance, my mother, who reads the DM (!) There is probably just enough about my circumstances that would enable her to put 2+2 together. I would like the option to choose whether or not I let my Mum ( or anyone else in RL) in on certain areas of my life, and there is a real possibility that this hack, has taken that choice away from me.
3. I have never ( and now will never) post asking for advice, but I will also be very careful about offering advice in the future. I, along with many others, occasionally use examples from my life to explain where I am coming from. If I continue to do that, as I said earlier, it is possible that some people would be able to work out who I am. Now, I am not so big-headed as to believe that any advice I offer is worth taking, however, there are many fantastic posters on here who do give amazing and insightful advice based on their own experiences. It would be a real shame if that was to stop because they, like me, do not want to share some of those experiences with the folk they are close to in RL. It would also be a real tragedy if others were prevented from asking for help for the same reasons.
I am very disappointed that any MNer would feel it is acceptable to violate the trust we place in each other on this forum. I do not know who she is. I do not want to know who she is. But I hope she is hanging her head in shame for breaching the trust that has been placed in her by everyone whose words she has stolen to make a few bucks!
how intersting re point 1
and i agree re point 3.
It seems that some people realised beofre others that our posts are likely to be handled in this way..
I was busy lvivng my life and it kindof passed me by how MN had changed TBH..
but my posts are archived, and though the site and its intentions have changed, my posts remain.
I think you are misplacing your anger. And misunderstanding what MN Talk is.
MN Talk is deemed in the public domain.
MN is run as a board that relies on advertising. Advertisers pay more the more hits a board gets. Therefore Talk is used as a way of generating publicity. MNHQ very obviously are going to want to have links to this board wherever (pretty much) they can get them. Links = hits = ££££
MNHQ may like the byline of it being some sort of advice board but it's not. Netmums run an advice board and pay professionals to go and deliver advice. In the business plan for MN it won't have gone on about the value if advice, it will have talked about numbers willing to talk online and how those numbers can be increased. One way is through publicity gained through these very public chats.
And it has been quoted for years, so it's hardly violating some trust. Along with half the rest of Fleet Street.
If I was going to be pissed off about anything it was MNHQ's removal of the right to opt out of books without telling anyone (although I knew because after a flounce I found I didn't have the choice to opt out anymore).
oops- I honestly don't think it has changed. The only difference is it's so big now that more journos know about it, slebs like David Cameron come on it and there was the whole SWMNBN business and so it is seen as having more weight that before. But the aims and means of getting publicity will almost certainly have been the same all along. It will have just been much harder to get people interested in what was said in here in the old days. Now they don't even need to try as journos come here anyway.
Just to say that it's great Justine said they'd update asap but realistically these things take time. I bet no-one is rushing to return phone calls on this one and she's on holiday. We need to be more patient. I'm sure we can just stop posting contentious stuff whilst this is sorted out.
Can someone link to the copyright thread so I can try and understand what I'm committing to and liable for when I post here please.
That's another reason I don't understand the rush to de-reg either. MNHQ might change the T&Cs or they might not mean what we think they mean.
Fiar enough, mrs t.
I just don't think about it so deeply on a day to day basis TBH.
obviously, i am now!
and it seems that the actual DM column in the way that it went took MN by surprise so i'm not 100% alone in that...
and i've bene away for while- it's the posts from 5-6 yrs ago that I am interested in.
Life WAS differnt on here then.
<retreats to cloud cuckoo land>
Stripey, there is no rush to de-reg, most of us are sitting it out here waiting to see how it works out. I think about 3 or 4 people have de-regged so far - hardly a rush.
<also marks spot on thread>
Oops, I agree about that, it is posts from 5/6 years ago I want most sorting out too and yes things here were different then - I don't know if it was naivety or not but I didn't see where this would end up.
I used to read the whole of active conversations. Infact I think I used to read EVERY thread. So to say it was the same is being sadly deluded
Just letting you know I'm going to sticky this thread now and take the other one down, so everyone knows where to post.
Thank you all for your patience with us. We know it must be frustrating to wait so long for updates for us but, as StripeySuit has said here, these things do take time to sort out.
I can assure you that everyone at MNHQ is beavering away behind the scenes to sort this out. So please don't take our silence as a lack of concern or a lack of activity on our behalf.
And please do continue to post - we are following the thread and taking all your points on board.
Thanks Fio, I meant I thought there was a thread discussing the interpretation of the new T&Cs. I know where the 'Terms of' bit is even though it doesn't fit on the page.
Re: rush, I meant why anyone would de-reg now before all this is 'final'.
Sorry, got a newborn, have 10 secs here and there with two hands free to type.
I am gutted that I will no longer be able to ask for advice about my family in case the situation turns up in the DM.
Will you answer my question about deleting posts on request, please?
in a nutshell, Nigella
i am bookmarking
When I first came on here back in January I answered some questions about myself which would identify me. Stupid and naive of me, I know. So if I, or anyone else, ask for those or any other posts to be deleted, will you do it?
I just put this on another thread and as I think it is a good idea will c&p here:
Perhaps, rather than giving MN all of the work to do regarding deletions, Tech could create an option if someone actually deregisters along the lines of 'delete all posts'.
Not that many people actually deregister from MN as opposed to just reducing their posting so as a function it probably wouldnt be used much. If they do de-reg then there is normally a reason and deleting their entire history may be valid.
Normal individual posts to be deleted could continue as they currently do.
FWIW I dont imagine many people would choose to delete their entire history but this would be a way to legitimately address those concerned with their back histories. They would lose thier nickname by de-reging so if it meant a lot to them they'd need to weigh up their actions.
so now that everyone understands that if you post on an open forum anyone can see your posts, whether they are 2 continents away, your next door neighbour or reading your quote in the press and that this of itself is not strange or unusual, is the only question left the issue of the changing ts and cs and whether/how they are backdated?
lets all just get a life eh?
My opinion on it all after much cogitating at 3am in the morning with a newborn with reflux: it'd be a shame if we've lost the opportunity to work with LH on this. This could have worked out well and brought some 'balance' to those on both sides of various debates and the political divide. Just because it got off to a bad start doesn't mean it shouldn't be pursued if there is any chance of it going ahead.
Take out the identifying detail and what you're looking at is a supportive article on employment rights for pg women in The Mail. Look at the comments under the origianl article, all supportive.
On the T&Cs - more explanation, discussion and consultation is needed (awards nil point to self for stating the obvious). It'd be useful to know MNHQ's strategy/business plan too just for info really. I'd like to see usage/membership stats too, again just because I like to know these things.
Ultimately though MNHQ are free to go in whatever direction they choose, hopefully that will be with the understanding and support of the majority though.
I'd like to understand more about why the archive is considered so valuable any more. It's all too big now. You can keep the stuff needed for books and start getting rid of the personal stuff for people.
Have a great life thanks, but am interested to see what the ishoos have boiled down to.
I have a life, Badger's Arse. I just want MN to treat its membership with respect.
This thread is not accepting new messages.
Please login first.