A new Serious Single Issue topic

(1004 Posts)
Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 11:17:20

I know I'm usually against topics, and I know revising the Topic List is on Tech's very (x1,000) long list of things to do, but is this a runner?

Everyone posts everything in Chat now (and in aibu, but that's another story [shudder]). And lots of op's seem to get very cross when people "chat" on their chat threads.

So how about a sub-topic in chat for people who want to talk seriously about things, don't want jokes and banter and what other people think of as chat, but want to stay on a single topic for the whole thread.

Woudl that work?

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 11:18:49

Oops, would rather than woudl.

Obviously people who want serious on-topic discussion should post in the relevant topic, but that simply isn't happening confused

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 11:19:04

That is a fantastic idea. I would definitely leave people to it if it was clear they wanted to stay serious and single-issue.

RandallPinkFloyd Mon 30-Sep-13 11:21:04


Does that make it carried?

It is a very good idea

I think I some people default to _Chat because the topics are so complicated that unless it's a very obviously Becoming Parents: Pregnancy or Education: Primary Education (etc) thread one simply can't decide or even find where to put it.

But you mean a "Talk About Anything, But Stay The Fuck On Topic" place?

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 11:23:08

I dunno Randall.

It might just depend on whether mnhq like Hully me enough to go with the idea.

I think it could stop a lot of argy. And posters could ask for their threads to be moved if they posted in "fun chat" and wanted to be in "serious chat", perhaps?

Posting most places the thread just gets lost I think.

Trills Mon 30-Sep-13 11:27:53

"Stay the fuck on topic" sounds like a nice idea, but will people actually do it? smile

RandallPinkFloyd Mon 30-Sep-13 11:28:48

I think a serious chat topic would solve a lot of arguments in fairness.

Not sure what it could be called though. 'Serious chat' sounds rubbish.

'Topical discussions' maybe?

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 11:29:22

I think so Trills, if they were keen enough to start one in that section in the first place.

The more flittery of us could just stay away and not piss them off unintentionally.

ArrowToTheKnee Mon 30-Sep-13 11:30:32

Some of the best threads come from unintentional derailments...

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 11:31:22

I think that's true giraffes.

The trouble is that those of us who are here a lot, or have been here a long time, or both, tend to think of _Chat as chat - a place to chat.

Whereas newer posters think of it as a topic in which to ask questions and look for advice. So can't understand how people can descend on a thread, discuss the topic and move on (like a conversation in a pub).

They think that chatting is intentionally derailing, where it very rarely is.

Trills, the idea would be that all the chatters could hide the thread stay away if it's clearly labelled "serious".

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 11:31:33

They do. But we wouldn't lose those, because not everyone minds derailments or indeed sees them as such.

This would be for people who don't like it and see it as the B word.

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 11:32:32

Yes, Arrow, you are right. But sadly so do many bunfights, as the op wants to be serious and others just want to talk random shite.

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 11:34:15

I can see one potential problem though. I think few people would use it so it would be tumbleweedy. And then when the "banterers" suggest a thread is moved there, it would instantly die and the op would accuse the "banterers" of deliberately sending it off into the dark midsts of unnoticeableness.


ArrowToTheKnee Mon 30-Sep-13 11:36:20

Fair enough. But really shouldn't they just avoid chat? If they get arsey because people are chatting in chat, then surely they're in the wrong place!

Just tell them to bugger off and use the topics properly.

Pagwatch Mon 30-Sep-13 11:41:12

I think it's a very good idea.
What about 'single issue debate'

If people do post in chat then they can get it moved if the more casual level of responses starts to feel like derailment....to them....

Or 'my thread, my rules' might suit some <innocent face>

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 11:41:37

That's the problem Arrow.

Everyone posts in chat. They then get upset when people chat, they want the thread all serious.

That's what has caused all the recent accusations of bullying and worse - people accused of deliberately derailing serious discussion.

And if you tell them to bugger off, you are a hater and a bully and should be banned [bitter]

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 11:42:29

Can you imagine "my thread, my rules" in action.

With the op given editing and deletion rights.

It would be a bloodbath grin and Olivia would have kittens instead of twins.

Pagwatch Mon 30-Sep-13 11:47:06

'My thread my rules' would be great.
I would post 'and don't take that tone with me young lady' and send people to their rooms to think about their behaviour.

RandallPinkFloyd Mon 30-Sep-13 11:49:07

"My thread my rules" would rock very hard. I'm all over that one.

'Single issue debate' is a good topic name. I think MPlural is right though. I think there's a danger that posters more prone to taking offence might see it as labelling them 'humourless'.

It's a tricky one and no mistake.

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 11:59:55

but but but

the complaint is about derailment.

if the complaint is sincere, then a dedicated single issue topic would address that complaint

and we could all talk bollocks about something else...

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 12:04:05

But you see, which is worse? Being derailed or ignored?

I think derailment happens when the topic is not very interesting, so it goes off-topic. The alternative is for it to die.

But the op probably doesn't see that. They think the alternative to 500 off-topic posts is 500 on-topic posts, and the off-topic ones have prevented the on topic ones being posted at all.

If that makes sense?

RandallPinkFloyd Mon 30-Sep-13 12:04:41

Well yes, that's idea, but I can envisage there being a certain type of poster seeing it as them being banished for being dull.

I hope I'm wrong but going on my experience of that personality type it would be my prediction sadly.

It would be good to see some people who don't like derailments on here actually. I'd genuinely like to hear what they think about the idea.

Pagwatch Mon 30-Sep-13 12:07:42

I agree Hully.
If people are finding a meandering and chatty tone akin to bullying and deliberate derailment, then setting up and area where that takes place should satisfy them rather than applying a prescriptive tone to all threads in chat.

I expect some of those who are upset about unwelcome and derailment will be along in a moment to express their views. There may be a reason why it would not work but so many of them were so very excercise about the problem they will, I am sure, wish to engage fully in exploring possible solutions.

Good idea.

And I second "Single Issue Debate or Discussion".

I can't see how someone would be bothered by being sent there if they get arsey don't want their thread derailed.

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 12:10:30

I am trying to be part of the solution rather than the problem

it feels kind of weird


RandallPinkFloyd Mon 30-Sep-13 12:14:35

I really do hope we get some of the posters who are upset by derailment on here soon.

It seems a pretty pointless exercise otherwise because there's no point in HQ even considering it unless people would actually want to use it.

Pagwatch Mon 30-Sep-13 12:16:48

They must Randall, surely.

You can't possibly be so upset that you post for three days and three thousand posts without wanting some kind of solution.

What would have been the point otherwise?

RandallPinkFloyd Mon 30-Sep-13 12:19:09


Let's hope they will see the thread if we keep bumping it.

DameFanny Mon 30-Sep-13 12:20:03

Maybe there should just be a notice on the start thread page to say "if you want this thread to stay on topic say so in your OP", then people can say "I'm only interested in responses on the topic of Peter Andre's love for his kids" and responders will know to swerve?

AtrociouzCuntz Mon 30-Sep-13 12:23:51

That's actually a very good idea DameF. That might be a compromise.

As long as it was ticked at the beginning of a thread, not half way through, so people would know from the start.

AtrociouzCuntz Mon 30-Sep-13 12:24:10

Oops, sorry, I was messing with name-changing blush

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 12:27:22

One of the upset posters popped up earlier so at least one of them is around

FavoriteThings Mon 30-Sep-13 12:28:55

I think it would solve a lot of the problem.

Dont know how easy it is for tech to do. I think there is just one tech for this sort of thing, and he seems to be about 2 years behind on his work [not kidding].

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 12:30:22

Hey favourite things, glad you think it's a good idea.

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 12:31:24

They do manage to get new topics quickly on occasion though. The history topic appeared overnight as did the bullying one (ironically) and the commonwealth games 2014 was added recently. So it is possible.

FavoriteThings Mon 30-Sep-13 12:34:32

Perhaps they can add, but not take away then! grin

Amrapaali Mon 30-Sep-13 12:35:14

There is a Bullying topic? (off to look)

Amrapaali Mon 30-Sep-13 12:36:53

Ok I'm back. Couldn't find it- but I did see a topic called Ford. And its not tumble weedy there at all grin

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 12:39:51

Do you think it's a good idea Amra?

RandallPinkFloyd Mon 30-Sep-13 12:40:09

Is there really a bullying topic? Surely not.

I've just realised though that the fact that I'm truly shit at remembering names means I'm not going to have a clue if the posters who dislike derailment do come on here unless they actually announce themselves.

I'm rubbish at this!

Viviennemary Mon 30-Sep-13 12:44:56

I kind of think I see what you mean. I notice that items posted in news hardly get any replies but ones posted in chat get lots even if they are about a news topic. But I don't think my thread my rules would be a good idea.

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 12:45:54

It's here

Under education, for some reason. It's not exactly busy, having filled fewer than nine pages in five years.

I never remember names either.

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 12:47:33

It's the same with telly addicts, vivienne. I get very cross when there is a tv programme thread in telly addicts, and a thread about the same programme in chat and mumsnet towers make the chat thread the DOTD

It infuriates me - how can they expect posters to use the topics if they don't do so themselves?

[rant over]

Amrapaali Mon 30-Sep-13 12:49:23

Not really, Hully. Its not a good idea. This will be one more topic lost among the others, I think.

A heads-up at the beginning of the thread may help. A SID icon. Or Stay the Fuck on Topic, too. That has a nice ring to it.

Sometimes, a thread on a sensitive topic meanders so much, I feel sorry for the OP. Hasn't happened to me personally, because I haven't been that intense on MN. I tend to mainly graze around the fringes.

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 12:51:13

I don't think many "sensitive" threads meander much, though. I do think general interest threads do.

Fenton Mon 30-Sep-13 12:52:24

I think it's a good idea.

A place which absolutely guarantees not to digress from the subject, because if you're not comfortable about derailment then it would be nice to be confident in it not happening.

Personally I think derailment certainly has its place, it's actually very refreshing and very useful if a thread gets too heavy or shouty or depressing.

A bit like bloke types who suddenly change the subject to talking about The Game if they feeling they're getting too emotional.

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 12:52:42

Maybe the answer is to get rid of _Chat altogether.

That's the way it used to be. Serious threads on serious topics, in the correct topic section.

_Chat was the slippery slope. And now we have AIBU which ish Chat on speed with anger issues.

kotinka Mon 30-Sep-13 12:52:59

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

StarfishTrooper Mon 30-Sep-13 12:53:43

I like DameFs idea.

kotinka Mon 30-Sep-13 12:55:51

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

CatAmongThePigeons Mon 30-Sep-13 12:55:57

I think it's a good idea, if people don't want to chat about their OP, then putting it in a specific topic other than _chat would be an idea.

Or making more known about other boards beyond AIBU and Chat

FavoriteThings Mon 30-Sep-13 12:58:07

The more I think about it, the more I like it.

Amrapaali Mon 30-Sep-13 12:58:56

Maybe MN should highlight each Topic every month or every week, and plan...I dunno... events or something around it.

The Topic of the week is Feminism, this is the Feminism board, have you had a look at the Feminism blogs of our MNers? Oh and there is a web chat with Greer this Wednesday and so on...

Posters might at least KNOW there are these other topics around.

SpookyNameChange13 Mon 30-Sep-13 12:59:09

Wouldn't it be easier for MNers to 'self regulate' and just think before they post 'banter' on a thread someone else has started to discuss something that is important to them ?

I don't think the odd <waves at xxx!> type post is a big deal, but they do tend to go on a bit sometimes

I don't think this has to be a big issue and it could be easily solved if people thought before posting.

I have seen forums where people get really antsy about threads going off topic, it can get ridiculous, so I'm not in favour of that type of thread militancy, but there is a middle ground surely?

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 12:59:16

But kotinka, if it's chat, what happens on threads where the op doesn't actually want random chat, s/he wants reasoned on-topic debate?

It's always going to end in a row.

I do agree it would be PITA to admin, but so are all the bunfights.

Amrapaali Mon 30-Sep-13 12:59:41

Sorry, my post relates to Cat's observation..

SpookyNameChange13 Mon 30-Sep-13 13:01:58

I think there is a place for bantery jokey threads/posts, just probably not on a thread started by another poster. [ie not the ones dong the banter posts]

Pagwatch Mon 30-Sep-13 13:04:41

The situation clearly can't be resolved by people just 'self regulating' because what some people regard as perfectly acceptable, others regard as beyond the pale.
As I said before - 3threads , 3000 thousand posts and no consensus . So 'just be more polite', 'just do x a bit less' does not resolve the problem.

It would be lovely if it did but the ideas of what is reasonable on a thread are far, far too far apart.

Amrapaali Mon 30-Sep-13 13:07:16

And yes, Spooky is right. I don't necessarily think banter is "evil" and bullying.

As I said on the other thread, most of the time its disruptive and not very witty, and eventually tiring.

Maybe a difference of perception. I read posts in a linear fashion. Like a book or a narrative. A dilemma, someone else helps to resolve it etc. Some people think of it as a big group chat, with people going off-topic like we all do in RL conversations.

So maybe a Single Issue Debate corner might not be a bad idea. Not sure if it should be stuck in the middle of Topics, though...

AmandaPandtheNightmareMonsters Mon 30-Sep-13 13:07:56

I think a lot of people post serious stuff in Chat because they want it to disappear after three months but don't want it as hidden as OTBT as they won't get answers. I know I have done that in the past.

I wonder if that is part of the problem?

SpookyNameChange13 Mon 30-Sep-13 13:11:11

The situation clearly can't be resolved by people just 'self regulating' because what some people regard as perfectly acceptable, others regard as beyond the pale

I think half the problem is that those who do do it can't seem to accept that it bothers lots of people?

If I were doing something that I thought ok, but it was then pointed out to me that actually it was offending/upsetting someone, I think I could accept that and consider not doing it anymore.

It seems a little bit like 'well it doesn't bother me so I'll just carry on'?

Tee2072 Mon 30-Sep-13 13:13:32

I think people just wouldn't use it and it would be better for MNHQ to move 'simplify topics' further up 'Tech's never ending to do list.'

Better to encourage people to post in and read all the topics, rather than just _Chat and AIBU.

There's already a load of topics across the boards on all sorts of subjects that just don't get used. People post in Chat as it gets the traffic, but then want to control who can and can't post on the thread and what train of thought the thread takes.

My thought is: Post the thread you don't want banter on into the correct topic and get the several serious replies that you want.

If you post in AIBU you are posting for a ruck and if you post in Chat, you should expect people to chat.

Simple eh?

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 13:15:22

I do think that is the difference, Amrap.

I think of talking on Mumsnet as a conversation, with ebb and flow, new people coming and going, new topics being introduced, old ones coming up again.

That's how I have always used Mumsnet (since the dawn of time). It's why I'm against quoting and like buttons and all the Facebook-y bits; they stop the flow of conversation.

I accept others see Mumsnet differently. If I was them (or if I want a serious discussion) I would start threads in topics, where you get interested like minded people who want serious debate. Not in chat where, generally, people chat.

Do you see where I'm coming from?

FavoriteThings Mon 30-Sep-13 13:15:26

Maryz. I was going to say, put the idea to MNHQ, but this is on Site Stuff, so they will presumably show up at some stage? Do MNHQ always appear on site stuff threads? Though I suppose they always read them?

Pagwatch Mon 30-Sep-13 13:15:31

I'm sorry that it read like that, that was not at all what I was saying.

I was saying that the point of the thread is to try and find a route through the difference in the way these things are viewed.

If I have been on a thread for 300 posts, offered advice to the best of my ability, the discussion has been full some and detailed and a misspelling or something sparks a change in tone I would probably join in joking about that .
Others would clearly regard that as inappropriate .

I don't think either view is wrong but they are clearly incompatible.
To pretend they are not is not going to help I think.

RandallPinkFloyd Mon 30-Sep-13 13:15:35

On the other hand Spooky if saw some people having a conversation which they enjoyed and which they found fun but I didn't, I would consider whether perhaps I should leave them to it and find some people I did enjoy talking to.

Different strokes for different folks innit.

littlemisswise Mon 30-Sep-13 13:15:35

I don't think it is a good idea, tbh.

I think what needs to happen is posters, all posters, need to think before they post. Think is it appropriate to derail with banter, is it right to start snurking and snorting and taking the piss, and most importantly think about your manners just like you would when talking face to face.

If an OP does say please can we keep it on topic, even after it has been derailed, it should be respected and if it can't be then the banterers and derailers should fuck off elsewhere.

BIWIZ Mon 30-Sep-13 13:16:29

But then it goes round in circles again, Spooky. Why should those who don't like it change things for people who do like it?

And how do we define 'it'? It's quite possible to make a jokey aside* on a thread and then get back to discussing the topic, without it being derailed. But some posters don't even like that.

*not on sensitive topics, obviously

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 13:16:43

Spooky, there are many, many people on this site who use it every day who come here for random chat. Are they all wrong? And if so, who says so?

Pagwatch Mon 30-Sep-13 13:17:16

My comment was to SpookyNameChange by the way.

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 13:17:50

littlemiss, is it "derailing with banter" or "letting the conversation flow"

That's the problem.

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 13:18:57

It really boils down to what posters see Chat for.

Many people think it's for Chatting.

Some people seem to think Chatting is wrong and we should always stick to the topic.

I don't think telling people to be nice solves it, as there isn't a middle ground between the two.

BIWIZ Mon 30-Sep-13 13:19:17

I suppose it depends if you think of a thread that you started as 'your' thread. But no-one 'owns' a thread, so it's impossible to start dictating to other posters how to post on it.

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 13:19:24

And people chatting aren't deliberately derailing the thread - the op may think they are, but they aren't, generally.

roadwalker Mon 30-Sep-13 13:19:27

I'd like one where it is unacceptable to be told to FO
I wouldn't post anything meaningful to me anymore after getting abuse

SpookyNameChange13 Mon 30-Sep-13 13:20:30

I'm sorry that it read like that, that was not at all what I was saying

Sorry, I should have clarified that bit, I didn't mean that you specifically was saying that. I meant generally. I meant the posters that post lots of bantery stuff on other peoples threads. Really not jumping on you personally Pagwatch!

Rooners Mon 30-Sep-13 13:21:34

I never start anything in AIBU (well once I think)

I always try and find the right topic for a thread unless I want it to disappear.

That to me is the proper usefulness of chat.

If other topics disappeared I'd not bother with it unless it was a silly thread for no real purpose.

What we need is another topic that disappears. OTBT is great but it's way too hardcore and specialised for most stuff.

BIWIZ Mon 30-Sep-13 13:21:46

It's totally unacceptable to be told to fuck off, roadwalker - that is against Talk Guidelines and MNHQ would delete any post like that

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 13:22:01

It's back to the same problem

That's why there needs to be a separate Serious Single Issue thing

or this will keep happening.

RandallPinkFloyd Mon 30-Sep-13 13:22:01

is it "derailing with banter" or "letting the conversation flow"

That's exactly it there is no right or wrong answer to that! just a different view which we are all just as entitled to have.

That's why I personally think a general chat topic were there is categorically no banter would please both sides.

Tee2072 Mon 30-Sep-13 13:22:01

Actually, I think the biggest problem is that the OP of many threads do think they are in control of the thread, when in reality once it's posted? Anyone can say whatever they like.

And this is not a MN issue. It's an issue I've seen all over the 'net on all sorts of chat boards. "If you can't contribute leave the thread." "No. You don't own the internet." is a common conversation.

I think a lot of people post serious stuff in Chat because they want it to disappear after three months but don't want it as hidden as OTBT as they won't get answers. I know I have done that in the past.

Yes, that sounds very likely.

Maybe there could be a radio button for "Expire after ninety days?" Yes/No with No checked as default. Then people could post in Relationships/Education/Telly Addicts or whatever with the "pfff" benefits of _Chat.

Pagwatch Mon 30-Sep-13 13:22:57

Hmm. Perhaps a better option would be to make chat "Lighthearted Chat"?

It sounds cheesy but it would tell those posting that it isn't single issue and it isn't going to strict rigidly to whatever the op says because it's lighthearted .
Then , if people think 'but I want to really drill down on this one point' they would recognise that chicken keepers or news or somewhere may be more appropriate.

Perhaps a banner could clarify. 'chat on mn is like chat in real life. Sometimes it meanders a bit. Occasionally it's funny. Sometimes people will talk shite.'

WetGrass Mon 30-Sep-13 13:23:00

I post on chat because I don't want to be archived.

I always end up saying more than I'd meant to - especially if it's an important issue for me.

A 'thread self destructs in 30 days' check box would be better for me.

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 13:23:10

But it is unacceptable to be told to Fuck Off.

It's a personal attack and will be deleted if you report it.

Personally I don't mind being told to fuck off - either it's some arse of a wankbadger and I'd like the evidence kept, or it's someone messing around, and doesn't bother me.

Tee2072 Mon 30-Sep-13 13:23:29

That's a really good point Rooners. People do post in Chat because it goes away. The rest of the site is around forever.

So maybe the rest of the site shouldn't be around forever.

RandallPinkFloyd Mon 30-Sep-13 13:23:34

(No idea why that random exclamation mark appeared)

littlemisswise Mon 30-Sep-13 13:24:19

Maryz it is often not hard to work that out on the thread. If one poster makes a comment that is clearly going to derail the thread with banter if other people join in, that is not, in my mind, letting the conversation flow. It could quite easily be ignored so the thread can be kept on topic.

Banter is fun, and I love it as much as the next person, when it is appropriate. But that is the problem, it is not always appropriate. It sometimes turns into a pack mentality, lots of snurking and piss taking and it does not make pleasant reading.

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 13:25:50

Good point Tee

I also think some people genuinely don't understand deviation/rambling/tangents etc and find them really irritating

And lots of people like them

So let's separate them to avoid conflict.

And, for example, if I click on something that looks interesting in Most Active, and it's got a few people I know on it, I am likely to say "Fancy seeing you here" or whatever and a little side chat is likely to ensue...just like real life. It's not rude, it's just human.

If there was a SSI topic, I'd stay away.

The only other alternative is that everyone on here pretends to be complete strangers on every thread which would be frankly weird and not why the majority of us are here...

RandallPinkFloyd Mon 30-Sep-13 13:26:29

But if there was a specific topic there wouldn't need to be any 'interpretation' as to whether it's appropriate or not. You take away the difference of opinion and everyone is clear on where they stand.

SpookyNameChange13 Mon 30-Sep-13 13:26:38

On the other hand Spooky if saw some people having a conversation which they enjoyed and which they found fun but I didn't, I would consider whether perhaps I should leave them to it and find some people I did enjoy talking to

Well, yes. But I think there is a difference between for example me reading a thread seeing banter and deciding 'this one isnt for me' and a poster starting a thread about something important to them, which then is filled with banter from other posters. Is it right to expect them to leave their own thread? I don't think so really.

Spooky, there are many, many people on this site who use it every day who come here for random chat. Are they all wrong? And if so, who says so?

Maryz No of course not.

I said upthread that there is a place for banter/random chat, just possibly not on a thread started by someone else about something important to them.

Nothing wrong with random chat at all IMO.

Tbf, if something is sensitive enough to require disappearance, MNHQ will delete the thread for you.

The only reason I can think of to want a thread to disappear is recognition.

RandallPinkFloyd Mon 30-Sep-13 13:27:19

I keep x-posting with Hully. I'll shit up. grin

Tee2072 Mon 30-Sep-13 13:28:01

The thing is, just because a topic is called something, i.e. SSI, doesn't mean there won't be thread drift. Thread drift happens. Like shit. grin

How many times has someone on Chat been told YABU, because the poster didn't actually look at the topic?

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 13:28:22

Yeah SHIT UP Randall

See? Is that a deviation/derailment or friendly acknowledgment?

It's different strokes for different etc

RandallPinkFloyd Mon 30-Sep-13 13:28:43


But surely everyone uses this site differently?

So as people simply will not agree that is is derailing or it is just having a conversation then something needs to be done because quite honestly it's infuriating.

If you dare to venture off the topic even slightly there are pages of accusations about royalty and friendships and excluding people and bullying.

Obviously people have enough common sense not to joke away on a sensitive thread but it's bloody restrictive to be told, on a thread in chat, that you cannot actually chat.

SpookyNameChange13 Mon 30-Sep-13 13:29:42

Maybe there could be a radio button for "Expire after ninety days?" Yes/No with No checked as default. Then people could post in Relationships/Education/Telly Addicts or whatever with the "pfff" benefits of _Chat

That is a good idea and I agree that the expiring after 90 days is what draws some posters to post 'serious' things in chat.

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 13:30:35

But you can't control people Spooky.

To start a thread isn't to own it.

Imagine you were out with a group of friends and you said, "I might move house" and ten mins later someone said, Hey, guess what? etc Would you tell them the conversation was about houses and hadn't finished?

No, because you'd look mad.

But if you do only want to talk about one thing, then let's have the blood SSI topic.

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 13:30:58


Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 13:31:33

The difficulty is where the line is drawn, and who by, and whether it moves, between lighthearted banter and deliberate derailing.

I have never been remotely upset by any derailing, asides or banter on any thread I have started, ever.

Because I enjoy the chat, the randomness of it.

Some people obviously don't want any divergence from the topic at all.

I can't (or can I) be expect to know what type of op it is, what is acceptable, what isn't.

Historically, chat has been chat. Other specific topics have been serious. It's only recently that people have posted about serious topics in chat and got upset when they are chatted about.

Yes, I do think another section deleted after 90 days would be good. Which is another reason for having "Serious chat" and "Lighthearted Chat", both to disappear.

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 13:32:16

Hully, I know people irl who do say "hey, the conversation was about my house move".

I avoid them grin

WetGrass Mon 30-Sep-13 13:32:32

walter MNHQ don't like to delete. They think it is unfair in people who have contributed & got engaged - and it buggers up searches. You have to convince them of serious harm/skulduggery.

SoupDragon Mon 30-Sep-13 13:32:51

Given you think everyone pots everything in chat/AIBU, how do you think an extra topic will help? confused There are already many neglected topics to choose from.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 13:34:25

I don't actually think it will help, Soup. Because people probably won't post in it.

But anything to stop the rows [sigh]

RandallPinkFloyd Mon 30-Sep-13 13:34:32

The expires after 30 days button is a good idea, but I'm not sure if HQ would go for that as wouldn't most people always tick it just incase and then there'd be no new library of threads for people to stumble across when googling. Iyswim.

<ignores earlier typo related issues>

In all honestly though I don't think I've ever personally seen a properly serious thread derailed. Chatty ones yes, all the time, but not genuinely serious ones.

BIWIZ Mon 30-Sep-13 13:36:36

Perhaps we could have a third button underneath the box where we write our message. Currently there are two - Preview Message and Post Message. Perhaps the third box would say 'You are posting this in _Chat - is the most appropriate place for your post?' Or something like that. Make people think before they post.

Then hopefully they will post in the right bloody place to start with!

BIWIZ Mon 30-Sep-13 13:37:14

... is this the most appropriate place ...

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 13:37:33

Nobody ever posts in the right bloody place.

<grabs Trills and rocks in corner>

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 13:37:56

And Yes it Bloody Is.

It's Site Stuff.

SpookyNameChange13 Mon 30-Sep-13 13:38:11

But you can't control people Spooky

Of course not. But I don't think expecting adults to think before they post is trying to control people TBH. It's just asking for decency and thought.

To start a thread isn't to own it

No it isn't. But can you really not see why a person might feel peeved at 'their' thread being taken over by jokey stuff?

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 13:38:22

Oh, sorry blush - I thought you were saying this wasn't the right place for this.


WetGrass Mon 30-Sep-13 13:39:12

Does it matter if Chat is a dustbin?

StarfishTrooper Mon 30-Sep-13 13:39:31

I don't think you can stop people posting in a board that's called 'Chat' even if the topic is something serious.

I also think it's confusing when one rule applies to certain boards (e.g. FWR) where derailing away from the topic is taken seriously and then Chat where (from this thread) I take it you can chat about pretty much anything on any thread.

Unless you are posting on the site all the time, these differences can easily be missed or misinterpreted.

If a poster wants a thread to stay on topic, and asks that it be so, wherever in the thread, surely it's the polite thing to do to abide by that? And if you don't like the topic, post elsewhere?

RandallPinkFloyd Mon 30-Sep-13 13:39:51

But if I started a conversation in a pub I wouldn't see it as my conversation.

BIWIZ Mon 30-Sep-13 13:40:08

Sorry, Maryz!

WetGrass - yes, it obviously matters to a lot of posters. And not a jot to others. Which is what we're trying to resolve!

LtEveDallas Mon 30-Sep-13 13:45:13

Why is this such an issue all of a sudden? How often is this "bullying and derailing of serious threads" actually happening? Once an hour? Once a day? Once a week?

Or are you like me, in that you have NEVER seen a serious thread derailed by banter/bullying. Not once in nearly 10 years. I've seen threads wend and weave through different topics and conversation, and laughed at the randomness of it all - but surely that isn't what people are objecting to?

and why, after 3 threads and 3000 posts, when a sensible, workable solution is proffered up, is that wrong too? Why, it's almost as if people WANT to cause trouble, as if they WANT to be unhappy about the way this site is run.

A SSI topic/thread is a bloody great idea - it would keep serious threads on track - and isn't THAT what you want?

WetGrass Mon 30-Sep-13 13:46:39

As I understand it - the point is there are misunderstandings about whether it's ok to go off topic in chat/elsewhere.

But it doesn't much matter per se if 'chat had a million threads and 'bee keeping' has 2 threads. I don't see it as a big deal if people 'mis-file' their threads.

Tee2072 Mon 30-Sep-13 13:46:43

That's an excellent question LtEve.

ok, I have a question. What if someone starts a thread, all posts stay on topic, the OPs problem is solved, she/he is happy, is it then acceptable to move on? What if there is literally nothing left to say about the topic but you would quite like a little chat?

Because I need to know just when it is ok to go slightly off topic and just how you are supposed to know when it is ok?

The thought of never discussing anything other than the title of the thread on every.single.thread is quite depressing tbh

WetGrass Mon 30-Sep-13 13:48:38

... OK - I'll modify my earlier post to a definitive position

" it doesn't much matter if Chat_Light and Chat_Serious were widely used as MN catch-all dustbins"

SpookyNameChange13 Mon 30-Sep-13 13:52:00

So everyone isn't like you LtEveDallas. Some people have seen that which is why some people are posting about it.

I don't think people are objecting to the natural 'flow' that lots of threads take. I'm certainly not anyway. Nothing wrong with that kind of thing.

SpookyNameChange13 Mon 30-Sep-13 13:54:16

and why, after 3 threads and 3000 posts, when a sensible, workable solution is proffered up, is that wrong too? Why, it's almost as if people WANT to cause trouble, as if they WANT to be unhappy about the way this site is run

Or maybe they just have a different view point and are having a sensible discussion about it here on this thread?

Some good ideas have come up already in fact, particularly the opt in/out for threads to stay or go pfft.

but thats what they are objecting to.
Thats the point, isnt it?
People do not like it when a post on their thread goes off topic.

RandallPinkFloyd Mon 30-Sep-13 13:55:16

The crux of the problem is always going to be that people are different. Always have been, always will be. Certain personality types will just never get on and unlike in RL, where people presumably surround themselves with people they like, the Internet is full of randoms that in RL you would avoid likes the plague.

If my friends an I are having even the most serious of discussions there would guaranteed be some banter in there too. It's just the way we are.

Some people obviously would hate that.

If having a separate topic will solve this one specific issue then why not just do it?

Pagwatch Mon 30-Sep-13 13:57:25

I am with Beer and LtEveDallas btw.
I am not really sure how many people actually are upset. I think a few people are making it sound as if this is a massive problem.

I still think a solution would be good but I am coming to the conclusion that no solution will ever be good enough.

SpookyNameChange13 Mon 30-Sep-13 14:00:28

If having a separate topic will solve this one specific issue then why not just do it?

I suppose the answer to that depends on who you think should change their posting behavior/style.

I also think there is a big difference between banter in a RL conversation where you are able to convey tone through facial expression and body language to banter in the faceless written form as it is on a forum like this.

I love banter in RL, but I think I would be cautious of my audience when doing it on here.

ExitPursuedByADragon Mon 30-Sep-13 14:03:39

Have I missed something?

Is this a carry on from the thread about being bullied?

StickEmUp Mon 30-Sep-13 14:04:14

I think it's catch 22 because people who need a thread to not de rail also need the massive mn collective to see and hopefully post.

I see a few AIBU threads that take off and half way through OP is no where to be seen.
I think when something is popular it's hard to keep up.

that said I've never seen a serious thread on chat derail.
DH beat me up

that kind of thing.

I wish there was a link to a serious thread that got re railed.

Therefore, I dont think it's a serious board that's needed, a single issue topic sounds good though.

Not even the most die hard banterer would say 'hello love long time no hear!' to a replyer on a thread about, say miscarriage on chat.

EstelleGetty Mon 30-Sep-13 14:04:27

I was on the bullying threads. I love banter. I love chat (and stay off AIBU for my blood pressure). I enjoy a good, crazy derail.

My only beef was that I felt the piss was being taken and there was mocking going on. I hated getting into arguments with posters I've always thought of as very nice (and still do). Nowt to do with derailing or humour, both of which are grand in the right circumstances.

Sorry, I'm an emotional wuss right now. Trying to get my bloody PhD finished. sad

LtEveDallas Mon 30-Sep-13 14:05:10

Who has seen it Spookynamechange?

People started posting about bullying, then amended their posts to include derailing of a bullying nature.

People were asked for examples of a SERIOUS thread that was derailed by banter or bullying behaviour. NOT ONE example appeared.

I don't think people are objecting to the natural 'flow' that lots of threads take

But they are, thats exactly what they are complaining about.

I think it's a good idea in theory but realistically do we need another topic?

Nearly every subject under the sun is covered on MN so post in the one most suited to your OP.

If you post to get the traffic in Chat then you can't really complain if the thread goes off on a tangent because that is what chatting is!

If you post something serious in AIBU then you are braver than me!

Amrapaali Mon 30-Sep-13 14:14:34

Awww, Estelle can I stroke your hair? Chin up!

I hate confrontations as well.

I honestly think that there is no way that anyone has ever derailed a sensitive thread and the reason that no one can give an example is because it doesn't exist.

The problem is, if people think they own a thread and that they can somehow control what replies they get, they are never going to win that one.

And it pisses me off no end that as soon as that person gets pissed off that people are daring to discuss other things, rather than sticking to their conversation format, the accusations of bullying comes out.

Honestly, if you think it's bullying because someone dares to write something that veers away from your guidelines of what you want to talk about, and other people dare to join it, no amount of new topics are going to help.

Because, quite honestly a thread in chat is not going to stick so rigidly to a topic. People share their thoughts, experiences, other people respond to that, the conversation moves on
I'd say you would be better off just talking to yourself in that case

SpookyNameChange13 Mon 30-Sep-13 14:18:42

If people were going on to post about derailment, then I suppose they are the ones who have seen it, also those who didn't post on those threads [me for example]

Not linking to a thread where it has allegedly happened doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I can think of some threads, but I wouldn't be able to remember what they were called to dig them up. That doesn't mean I'm making it up. TBH I think it could have got even messier if people had started linking threads, so not surprised no body did.

But they are, thats exactly what they are complaining about

No it isn't.

I think the idea of MN promoting the quieter topics is a great idea.

Sorry I can't find who suggested it but it's there somewhere.

StarfishTrooper Mon 30-Sep-13 14:21:05

Chat deletes after 90 days so a lot of examples will have disappeared. Or offending posts deleted.

EstelleGetty Mon 30-Sep-13 14:21:28

Stroke away, please, Amrapaali smile but I warn you it hasn't been washed today!

Seriously, though, I'd like to offer an olive branch to everyone I was arguing with. We have different views and that's OK. And at the end of the day, we're all smart, compassionate women (or men) with feelings, not just words on a screen (as a now absent great one regularly said).

SpookyNameChange13 Mon 30-Sep-13 14:22:46

I honestly think that there is no way that anyone has ever derailed a sensitive thread

Do you mean on topics like MC and bereavement? I'd agree with that, Ive never seen a thread in those topics go that way. But people post sensitive stuff all over the place don't they? I think it possibly boils down to what people consider sensitive?

IMO if it appears to be something important to the OP, then I'd think twice before I posted anything flippant.

SpookyNameChange13 Mon 30-Sep-13 14:24:33

I think posters should take the OPs lead on whether jokes are appropriate.

I think when it gets all jokey, but it isn't coming from or joined in by the OP, then that is when it can appear a bit piss takey even if that is not the intention [which it probably isn't 98% of the time]

RandallPinkFloyd Mon 30-Sep-13 14:24:49

But if there were two separate chat topics then no one would have to moderate their behaviour. That's the whole point.

LtEveDallas Mon 30-Sep-13 14:26:04

Chat is for chatting. People who get pissed off when posters do what is says on the tin need to use the correct topic.

I generally just chat on MN - but on the odd occasion where I have needed a serious answer to a serious question, then I've gone to the correct topic and got the answer I needed - I've even NC'd to do it so that the question didn't get associated with my regular name. It's not hard.

IMHO People have spent the last few days getting riled up about something that doesn't even exist, started by someone with an agenda.

Amrapaali Mon 30-Sep-13 14:29:51

What is this belligerent attitude of "Show me, show me examples, huh? Huh? You can't, can you?"

Why is the default attitude one of mistrust? Don't you trust me when I say I have seen derailed threads? Or at least give me the benefit of doubt?

I have seen quite a few. Off the top of my head, the one that sticks was, someone complaining about her nanny and asking for a solution. The onslaught of replies was "OOh, I should be lucky to have a nanny". For pages. The OP tried to jokingly bring it back to the topic on hand, and she was completely ignored. I really did feel sorry for her then.

But please don't treat this as an excuse that I'm picking on people. Well, I can't really because I can't recall the names of the posters, if my life depended on it. Fairly new to MN and I am just about getting my head around the idea of "royalty, regs" etc...

Tee2072 Mon 30-Sep-13 14:33:39

You know what? It doesn't matter if there are 2 chat topics or a thousand.

Someone is always going to go on about 'royalty and regulars' and all the fucking bullshit.

StarfishTrooper Mon 30-Sep-13 14:33:48

Of course chat is for chatting. But is unreasonable to expect the chat to centre around the topic of the OP on a particular thread? If it drifts so be it, but deliberately trashing in on a thread with the purpose of getting it to 1000 posts as quick as possible so it will go away, by posting random numbers, lines or in-jokes is weird and unpleasant.

People who want to chat and post weird numbers and lines at each other can surely start another thread in chat for that purpose?

I know threads are derailed. I was thinking of threads on a sensitive subject where it would not be appropriate. Because anything else is surely just conversation.

Pagwatch Mon 30-Sep-13 14:35:42

It's unresolvable.
People don't want to sort it out. Thy want to do something else.

RandallPinkFloyd Mon 30-Sep-13 14:40:18

But that's a perfect example Amra. That's exactly what people were asking for, I genuinely don't see the problem.

If that OP's thread was so derailed that she didn't get the support she genuinely needed then that's wrong. I don't think anyone would argue with that.

I honestly can't recall seeing that happen so either I don't notice it or it isn't happening, having specific examples cuts out the ambiguity and allows us all to form our own opinions on things rather than just presume one opinion is the correct one.

So thank you for giving that example. I'll have a search for it and see what my take on it is.

SpookyNameChange13 Mon 30-Sep-13 14:40:50

I think it will continue to be unresolvable while some posters don't accept how rude it can be.

If you don't think you are doing anything 'wrong' then of course you won't change your behavior.

*general you BTW.

StarfishTrooper Mon 30-Sep-13 14:41:59

It's perfectly resolvable. MNHQ could make it clear that deliberate derailing of a thread is unacceptable.

It could be added to the Ps and Qs section that the tone of a thread is set by the OP and posters who don't agree can either respectfully disagree with the OP, or not post on the thread.

And a basic premise of 'think before you post, we are all more than just words on a screen'.

Tee2072 Mon 30-Sep-13 14:43:33

"It's perfectly resolvable. MNHQ could make it clear that deliberate derailing of a thread is unacceptable."

Sure. Now define derailment in a way that everyone will agree on.

SpookyNameChange13 Mon 30-Sep-13 14:43:46

Yes, I agree with that StarfishTrooper.

LtEveDallas Mon 30-Sep-13 14:43:55

What is this belligerent attitude of "Show me, show me examples, huh? Huh? You can't, can you?

Because those of us who have been here for years, who post every day (and some all bloody day!) don't see what you are suggesting happens.

How would you feel if I posted "See that Amrapaali, she said something so disgusting, so hurtful to me that I am sat here in tears wanting to kill myself"

You'd come along, protesting your innocence, and eventually probably snap and say "Well prove it then"

At which point I'd say "Well it was in Chat, so it's gone now, or been deleted because it was so hurtful, but it happened"

How exactly would you feel then? - Because THAT is how people are feeling now.

SpookyNameChange13 Mon 30-Sep-13 14:46:23

Because those of us who have been here for years, who post every day (and some all bloody day!) don't see what you are suggesting happens

Ive been here years and post/lurk far too much! I have seen it though.

I really don't think you can resolve this.

Lots of threads get derailed in AIBU as its full of arse nuggets. Other threads get derailed because people get snippy at things like Nannies (using the above example).

But lets be honest here, this isn't about people being arsenuggets or having a chip on their shoulders about nannies. This is about a few posters who have a massive beef with anyone who they see as being well known on this site and that will never be resolved.

Even if every single person with a 'known' username name changed or turned off the PC, sooner or later other posters who are on MN a lot would become 'known' and if they went the same would happen again and again and again.

I've been doing forums for YEARS - the first one being joined in 94 when the internet was a baby.

This conversation isn't new, it isn't cutting edge, it isn't even worth the energy. Every single sodding site has had people who are part of the fabric, people who become part of the fabric and people who whinge about the first two groups - + a cast of 1000's.

You can't fix it. You may as well just get on with it!

Tee2072 Mon 30-Sep-13 14:48:52

What Keema said. Word for word.

Pagwatch Mon 30-Sep-13 14:48:54

Forgive me. Perhaps you mean 'how rude it can seem'. Because if I start a thread and it evolves I am perfectly happy. So you are talking about a matter of perception. I am not deliberately being rude if someone is talking about Jamie Oliver and I say he is less ugly than the irritating bloke on x-programme and the chat turns to tv cooks. To me that is natural conversation on line.

I think it will be unresolvable as long as some see chat as an organic conversation whilst others see their thread as a topic from which deviation is rude.
Neither is wrong. Just different.

The problem for me is when one group want to see the other as derailing and rude or po faced and rigid

SpookyNameChange13 Mon 30-Sep-13 14:49:52

This conversation isn't new because this pattern of behavior isn't either TBH. So it always puzzles me why people try to deny it happens?

RandallPinkFloyd Mon 30-Sep-13 14:49:57

Does no one see that both sides are equally steadfast in their opinions?

So having 2 separate chat threads would avoid all confusion. I really don't see the problem.

SpookyNameChange13 Mon 30-Sep-13 14:51:12

I think there is a middle ground though Pagwatch.

I also think [as I said before] that posters should maybe take their lead from the OP?

LtEveDallas Mon 30-Sep-13 14:51:24

I don't see the problem either Randall. I find the issue bewildering tbh.

StarfishTrooper Mon 30-Sep-13 14:52:22

Derailing a thread = throwing a thread so off topic the original conversation becomes impossible

Lots of us have been here and in other forums for years and have witnessed and partaken in all sorts of conversations. Doesn't mean we can't make it more pleasant for everyone.

Pagwatch Mon 30-Sep-13 14:53:07

I am going to leave now.
This is getting on to grimly familiar territory and I think DH would leave me

I would say though that some of the 'can you just think before you post' 'it's not just words on a screen' is getting a bit ironic.

It works both ways. It really does.

Amrapaali Mon 30-Sep-13 14:53:14

If you couldn't prove I hurt you, LtEve I would still apologise. And not the fauxpology either- "I'm sorry you felt that way" bullshit. I would grovel on my feet and re-iterate that I meant no harm.

And the next time- well, I'll bloody well make sure there is no next time that it happens and check my behaviour appropriately. Yes, people are different and will react differently. I cannot dictate their reactions.

The only thing I can dictate or control is my outlook.

SpookyNameChange13 Mon 30-Sep-13 14:53:51

....and yes, it can 'seem' rude is a fair way to put it.

Personally I wouldn't want to seem rude anymore than I would want to be rude. Unless that was my intention [which for example ODFOD, is sometimes the case]

If I was doing somethng that seemed rude but I didn't intend it to be, then I would stop. Wouldn't most people?

LtEveDallas Mon 30-Sep-13 14:56:01

Agreed Starfish - and the easiest way to make it more pleasant is for posters who DON'T like threads being thrown off topic have their own topic, and posters that DO like, or DON'T CARE ABOUT threads being thrown off topic have their own topic.

Then everyone is happy.

Amrapaali Mon 30-Sep-13 14:56:40

Keema why have you suddenly dredged up stuff about regulars? None of the posters in either of the "camps" have even hinted at something like that....

But what middle ground is there?

Are we going to have to ask the OP if it is acceptable to move on?
How will you know unless you do it?

And let's just be clear, we are talking about conversation.
A normal way of communicating.
We all do it. If someone tells a funny story about one of their DCs, I might share a story about mine. And someone else might have had a similar experience, or a different one they want to talk about so the discussion goes on
Someone might have a question about my story, do I have to check with the OP of a thread before I answer?

It's ridiculous

StarfishTrooper Mon 30-Sep-13 14:57:53

In principle I think I agree Eve but having seen what happens when new topics get set up on MN (they don't get used) and everyone gravitates to Chat as a kind of catch all, I don't know how that might work in practice.

It would be great, IMO, if we could all post anywhere without fear.

LtEveDallas Mon 30-Sep-13 14:58:47

If you couldn't prove I hurt you, LtEve I would still apologise

and that is very gracious of you Amrapaali. But what if I was LYING about you. What if I decided I didn't like you, because you were too well known on MN and I wasn't, and I wanted other people to dislike you too... what then?

Pagwatch Mon 30-Sep-13 14:59:00


So if i say to you Spooky that I think it is rude for you to address in any way whatsoever anyone else on the thread except the op - because that is my standard for non-rude interaction on a thread - then you would stop.
Even if there was no way in the world that you could see it as rude and it interfered with the way you used the site.

You would do that. Because if someone thinks you are rude, you must be and must change.

SpookyNameChange13 Mon 30-Sep-13 14:59:49

But what middle ground is there?

I meant there is a middle ground between Pagwatchs example of organic conversation and any deviation being deemed rude.

ExitPursuedByADragon Mon 30-Sep-13 15:01:41

Anyway. What are we all having for supper?

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 15:01:48

I can't do this any more

my solution ^^ is the answer

the end

Spooky that makes no sense.

There are millions of users. Every one with a different opinion. If x thinks it's rude to veer off topic and y thinks it's rude to just address the OP and not interact with anyone else-what would you do?

Come on, we are all grown up people, we need to be able to decide for ourselves don't we?
I don't intend to spend my life trying to please everybody on mumsnet because it is impossible. Totally impossible.

SpookyNameChange13 Mon 30-Sep-13 15:02:44

Well, do you think anything other than addressing the OP is rude?

If anyone thought that the way to go, they would be better off just emailing a mate TBH.

In the context of forum discussion I find that impossible to answer, because that is what people do on forums. The content of that interaction is more open to debate IMO.

FavoriteThings Mon 30-Sep-13 15:02:52

Perhaps MNHQ is too busy to come on right now. Would like to find out their opinion on it.
It could be trialled at least?

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 15:06:11

LtEve, I think I love you.

This was NOT meant to be a slagging off of anyone. Or a continuation of the bullying threads. It really wasn't.

It's just a bit difficult for those of us who use mn to chat (and in my case have done so for many years) to suddenly be told it's not a place to chat, that I have to stick rigidly to the subject matter of every thread unless specifically told I can wander off.

It's as though my favourite pub has suddenly banned random chatting to strangers and some patrons are now dictating that all communication has to be in the form of a debate on a specific, named topic.

If that's the way it's going, then the whole point of mumsnet has gone.

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 15:09:11

Amrap, what would you do if you knew for absolute certain that you had not been rude to LtEve?

Would you still apologise and grovel and change your behaviour?

And if we all did that - apologised and grovelled and changed our behaviour even when we don't agree that our behaviour has been bad just because someone is upset, this site will implode. Because in however many thousands of posters, there is always going to be one who gets upset at any topic. Especially if the topics discussed are as wide ranging and sensitive as many are here.

If there is no intention to offend, isn't it a good idea for the offended to occasionally wonder whether their taking of offence is intentional or not.

RebeccaMumsnet (MNHQ) Mon 30-Sep-13 15:10:08


We don't think that a serious single issue topic would work as it's nigh on impossible to stop people from meandering off-topic on threads.

Although we do rather like STFOT as an acronym wink

However, we do have plans to make Talk more workable and we are currently discussing a redesign of the talk homepage - we will also be looking at the topics list and making them easier to navigate.

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 15:14:12

If that is the case Rebecca, how do you propose to stop people complaining about wandering off topic?

Because it needs addressing.

FavoriteThings Mon 30-Sep-13 15:15:24

Could it be trialled? Say for 2 weeks. That wouldnt be difficult to do would it? See if it works from our end and from your end?

Pagwatch Mon 30-Sep-13 15:15:53

But that is the point.
I don't see a conversation meandering as rude. Just as you would see a requirement to only address the op as unreasonable, I see strict adherence to the thread subject as unreaonable.

Your reaction is 'well why not just email a mate' . Mine would be 'well why not just post in the specific topic'

Changing to avoid the possibility of seeming rude to someone who believes things which you firmly don't seems rather over egging the selflessness.

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 15:16:06

Hello Rebecca <waves>

Does that mean we are allowed to wander off topic? Because it would be nice if you could confirm that wandering off topic isn't akin to drowning puppies bullying or against mumsnet rules.

Though I will fully understand if you want to stick your head in the oven sand until Olivia comes back on duty grin

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 15:17:43

Maybe a suggestion at the top of chat, similar to the aibu warning:

This is Chat, which is a place mumsnetters come to chat. Threads may not stay on topic. If you have a serious matter you would like to discuss, you might like to post it in the appropriate Topic

With a link to the Topic list?

Would that help?

Amrapaali Mon 30-Sep-13 15:29:07

Maryz and LtEve- I think I would still apologise. I may not have been intentionally rude, but someone thinks I have come across like that. So yes I would apologise and if I see that poster snivelling constantly, I would just think PO and avoid.

Isn't that what happens in RL anyway? I would cross the street to avoid moany whingers.

To be fair, there aren't very many posters who go around accusing others of rudeness. If someone calls you up on a thread, its easier to step back and say sorry. But if it ends in veiled insinuations, then I honestly don't know what to do.

And as I said up there, I can only control my behaviour.

Absy Mon 30-Sep-13 15:29:36

how about, people who want to post a serious discussion on a particular topic, find that general topic area which closest matchers their current moan, and post there? E.g., I don't like turnips - post in food!

And then, chat will be a haven a random er, chat (and therefore is fulfilling its special purpose)

I've only just realised that Chat is in Fun and Games!

That's surely a clue to how serious it is.

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 15:34:40

The difficulty is Amrap (and I do see your point because, believe it or not I am generally a nice person), you might apologise the first time, or the first few hundred times.

But if there was another thread complaining about you the next week, and then another, and all you were doing was chatting on the site in the way you have done for the last 12 years. And then they repeatedly told you that you were rude, and doing something wrong when you had been doing it and enjoying it for 12 years, would you continue to apologise or would you eventually just say "fuck it, I give up, I can't keep everyone happy all the time, so I'm just going back to using the site the way I always have"?

This site has always been for chat. Since it started. The topics are there for serious stuff, but chat has always been fun.

Surely instead of saying "all you lot, stop having fun" it might be a good idea to say "new people, if you want to be serious, post in the topics, that's what they are there for".

Absy Mon 30-Sep-13 15:35:32

Oh wait, I just repeated what maryz said more eloquently. Soz

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 15:36:27

Exactly Pete.

When it began, it was started specifically as a fun space where people could chat to each other, (banter if you will), and not take things too seriously. To keep the fun and chat off the serious topics.

That's why it's here.

But people keep trying to change it, and use it to discuss serious stuff, and then get cross when others use it for the purpose for which it was designed.

It's baffling.

ExitPursuedByADragon Mon 30-Sep-13 15:36:53

Agree with Absy. There must be a topic for virtually ever subject.

LtEveDallas Mon 30-Sep-13 15:38:46

Thank you MaryZ, I love you too grin

I know you didn't start this thread for that reason btw, I know yours was a sensible suggestion, a sensible answer - I just don't think that was actually wanted or needed - it was just another way to dig at the 'regs', another stick to beat them with.

I'm just pissed off with it all I think. Seeing people that I actually think of as friends (despite not meeting any of them) being accused and getting upset has riled me.

I seriously think this whole debacle was started by someone with an agenda. I don't think there was ever an issue, not on the scale that it has been built up to be - and I'm getting more and more pissed off with posters that are ignoring the many helpful posts, and the suggested solutions, and the actual asking of pertinent questions, to post what essentially is "Wah Wah Wah I'm not listening, you are all a bunch of bjullying bjitches no matter what you say"

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 15:41:05

I do as well, but sadly I think some newbies believe it and think that we are unwelcoming. That when we banter we only want to banter with people we "know".

Which is an awful shame. I love newbies and setting them challenges and getting to talk to new people. I'll chat with anyone.

I do resent being called names for it though sad

Amrapaali Mon 30-Sep-13 15:41:54

Has this happened, Maryz? Has someone accused you or someone else of being rude and wrong? Repeatedly?

If they have, then all I can say is they are moany whingers.

I can't see a workable solution at all. It's a bloody minefield!

But I agree that Chat should be just that and not serious stuff.

Maybe MNHQ should try to encourage posters to go to WWYD. A middle ground between chat and AIBU but still asking for opinions.

If they want opinions of course. wink

Absy Mon 30-Sep-13 15:45:31

This "issue" has been coming up for YEARS. Why, I recall this being wanged on about back in c. 2008.

then you also get people complaining that there's too many topics


RebeccaMumsnet (MNHQ) Mon 30-Sep-13 15:46:26


Hello Rebecca <waves>

Does that mean we are allowed to wander off topic? Because it would be nice if you could confirm that wandering off topic isn't akin to drowning puppies bullying or against mumsnet rules.

Though I will fully understand if you want to stick your head in the oven sand until Olivia comes back on duty grin

It is absolutely fine to wander off topic, some of the best threads happen that way - contrary to popular belief, we are not the fun police.

Chat is for, well, chat about anything and everything. If someone wants to start a serious thread about a specific issue then we have many, many topics to chose from and if we don't have a topic that the discussion naturally falls into, then by all means use chat and specify in the OP or use Other Subjects etc.

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 15:47:34

Yes, I have been followed around, sent pm's and named on lots of threads. So have Hully, Pag and numerous others.

Not to mention the millions of "mn royalty" and "the regs are bitches" threads.

Interestingly, not once has anyone ever linked to a thread that I have actually been a bitch on. I'm sure they are there (I'm not always in a good mood), but no-one has ever linked them. If there was a specific I would (and have when called on thread) apologise

There's at least one biggie a month. With lots of smaller ones in between.

mistlethrush Mon 30-Sep-13 15:48:40

I know of an interesting thread dealing with a sensitive subject that regularly derailed. However, it derailed specifically because the OP said that she found it really helpful and enjoyed the ebb and flow of the conversation. However, other posters objected to the 'chat' because it wasn't on subject - even though the OP specifically found it helpful.

I can understand why they said this - because if someone else was coming to the thread to see how someone else dealt with a situation they would have to wade through reams of messages that were off-topic. But it was fully supportive of the OP - which was what the posters on the thread were trying to be.

I don't know how you deal with situations like that.

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 15:48:40

Thank you Rebecca.

Have you considered my

This is Chat, which is a place mumsnetters come to chat. Threads may not stay on topic. If you have a serious matter you would like to discuss, you might like to post it in the appropriate Topic


Then we could refer to it.

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 15:49:35


I want it here so I can link to Rebecca's post grin

Absy Mon 30-Sep-13 15:49:41

MN could put that as a disclaimer like the "this is not a bunfight" disclaimer in AIBU?

alreadytaken Mon 30-Sep-13 15:53:19

"That is a fantastic idea. I would definitely leave people to it if it was clear they wanted to stay serious and single-issue." - sadly that didn't happen and that's why there is a problem. No solution will work unless those using mumsnet want it to work. It's not about people with known usernames, it is about trying to stifle discussion of something you don't like.

What happens is that a group try to have an adult conversation about something that worries them. Along comes a group of children saying look at me, I'm being funny. They are politely asked to stay on topic and tell the others to fuck off and start a separate thread. Then they come along again doing the same thing but rather more cleverly.

It's unfair to children to call that juvenile, it's infantile. There are solutions to this - a far stronger message from mumsnet than sometimes "humour" is not as funny as you think and a wider readiness to say No that isn't funny.

LtEveDallas Mon 30-Sep-13 15:56:12

Amrapaali, I may not have been intentionally rude, but someone thinks I have come across like that thats not what I asked, and not what I meant (in case I am at fault for not being clear). What if you KNEW that poster was lying? Not that they thought you were rude, or that they misunderstood you, or that you came across like that.

What if you KNEW?

What if I was just jealous of you being well known? What if I was a PBP that wanted to shit stir? What if I just wanted to cause trouble on MN so it would hit the news again? What if I held a grudge against you for saying YABU when I thought I wasn't?

I accuse you of bullying, or saying something disgusting, but refuse to prove it - what then? How would you feel?

That is how some of the 'Regulars' are feeling today.

Since I was the first to mention "Stay The Fuck On Topic" and I still can't ever find a suitable home for my not-quite-fitting-in-a-single-topic threads, I shall entitle them eg "Any advice about lipreading problem at PTA pissup? [STFOT]"

I agree that the multiplicity of topics paradoxically leads to a concentration of threads in _Chat or AIBU. There's one running today that could go in Relationships or Legal or Renting, but because it's all three it's in AIBU.

EstelleGetty Mon 30-Sep-13 15:57:50

May I just, gently, ask a question? Where did the notion that derailing or banter was the cause of the last few days' arguments come from? I can speak only for myself, but my first post on any of these threads went as follows:

*I don't think anyone's bullying on this thread, but I reckon it might have been better not to start a second thread when the topic of the original had pretty much been lost and had become an exchange of 'banter' between perfectly lovely posters who clearly have no wish to exclude or alienate anyone.

Yes, there might well have been some posters reading who thought, "OK, it's a private conversation between friends about something else now, so I won't post." Of course there is nothing wrong with conversations between friends, but I think this thread either shouldn't have been started or should have been drawn back swiftly to the purpose of the original one, which was undoubtedly to allow posters to air their experiences of or questions about bullying on MN. A kind of support thread, in other words.*

And I did get upset because it seemed to me that I was mocked for this and my concerns dismissed. That was where my objection came from - not derailing, not banter, but just (and I'm really sorry to be overly simplistic) people not being terribly nice in response to my suggestions/questions. And I normally wouldn't give two hoots, but the subject of bullying is very close to my heart (as I know it is for many of us).

I hope that doesn't come across as insulting and genuinely don't want to argue with people whom I am certain are reasonable, thoughtful women. But I reckon boiling this down to issues of derailment/being serious/creating new topics isn't helping the issue. By all means, arguing, debating, humour, conflict, meandering are fine. But it is just important to me to know when you've taken it a bit too far. I don't agree with the naming-and-shaming practice that went on. Those of you who were subjected to that, it must have been hurtful. But it was also hurtful to me and some others that our concerns were made the subject of mockery.

I'm still holding out that olive branch if anyone wants it. And if you're not into olives, I'll hang a bottle of gin from it instead. Heston's Early Gray from Waitrose, nonetheless.

Pagwatch Mon 30-Sep-13 15:58:17

"It is absolutely fine to wander off topic, some of the best threads happen that way - contrary to popular belief, we are not the fun police"

Thank you Rebecca.

StarfishTrooper Mon 30-Sep-13 15:59:30

"I'm getting more and more pissed off with posters that are ignoring the many helpful posts, and the suggested solutions, and the actual asking of pertinent questions, to post what essentially is "Wah Wah Wah I'm not listening, you are all a bunch of bjullying bjitches no matter what you say"

Who is doing this?

Interested to see what the new look Talk will be like. It's easy to see why people post in Chat. It gets plenty of traffic. If people think topics are dead they're unlikely to post there.

I keep reading mentions of agendas which sounds like there is history I perhaps don't know about. What agenda do you think Already had? I'm interested because I've seen her elsewhere on the board and she didn't strike me as someone likely to be unreasonable.

For full disclosure my agenda is that I would like to see a kinder, more tolerant world. MN included. I can't think of any posters here that I dislike. There is behaviour I have seen that I consider to be unpleasant but that has been discussed on the other thread so no need to bring it up again here.

Disclaimers as suggested by Maryz sound great. Additional topics not so.

Amrapaali Mon 30-Sep-13 16:00:20

I was basing my observations purely on the bullying threads, where someone called your posting style blunt. I was surprised to see you were reacting to it so strongly.

Hmmm.... with a history of PMs, following you around on threads, I can see why you are getting het up, Maryz

Will sit back and watch out for the MN Royalty threads....

Fenton Mon 30-Sep-13 16:01:46

And we're back to asking for examples again.

What Rebecca said.

<salutes to Maryz> Yes MA'AM.

I've stayed on the periphery of all the bullying/derailing stuff recently (for various reasons... blood pressure, lack of time, would rather piss about aimlessly on MN rather than get too serious, etc) but the suggestion to point OPs from _Chat to the more serious topics is a good one I think.

It seems to me that we have 200 topics (no idea if this is even close to the right number) on which to post serious stuff, and only one on which to have fun, meandering, down-the-pub conversations, so why would we need one more serious topic?

Happy to be convinced otherwise, of course.

Amrapaali Mon 30-Sep-13 16:04:00

I would like to know that as well LtEve. About hidden agendas.

I have no idea. That is why I honestly cannot answer your questions about grudges, shit stirring and jealousy.

Maybe more of the "regulars" who are feeling victimised can shine a light on this...

Fenton Mon 30-Sep-13 16:05:26

What happens is that a group try to have an adult conversation about something that worries them. Along comes a group of children saying look at me, I'm being funny. They are politely asked to stay on topic and tell the others to fuck off and start a separate thread. Then they come along again doing the same thing but rather more cleverly.

I have never seen that specific chain of events happen, ever, let alone is it commonplace.

StarfishTrooper Mon 30-Sep-13 16:06:41

It happened on the thread about bullying started by already.

Fenton Mon 30-Sep-13 16:07:26

No it didn't.

Fenton Mon 30-Sep-13 16:09:35

Again we're back to perception I guess.

already 's thread stayed on topic, wasn't that the idea?

usualsuspect Mon 30-Sep-13 16:09:43

There are loads of topics for serious stuff.

MN either allows off topic chat or it doesn't.

As far as I can see its not against talk guidelines to go off topic.

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 16:10:14

No it didn't

What happened was that the thread started by already morphed into bullying=derailment by regs and then quick as youlike into regs are a bit pooey. Which made regs cross.

And if you want a serious serious talk about bullying, or indeed anything else, don't put it in CHAT


ExitPursuedByADragon Mon 30-Sep-13 16:10:42

I used to love Topics.

usualsuspect Mon 30-Sep-13 16:10:56

The bullying threads should be started in site stuff.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

I've just had a lovely time hiding lots of topics, thanks to this thread.

StarfishTrooper Mon 30-Sep-13 16:11:16

We must have a totally different view on what happened on that thread then Fenton! To me, the last 4 or 5 pages were just nonsense and deliberately trying to get the thread to fill up so the discussion could end.

mistlethrush Mon 30-Sep-13 16:12:01

The 2nd bullying thread did go off topic and was taken their because all it was doing was going round in the same circles which had already been rehearsed in the first thread...

usualsuspect Mon 30-Sep-13 16:12:14

Topics are too small,Snickers are much bigger.

valiumredhead Mon 30-Sep-13 16:12:32

If people just post under the correct topic it wouldn't happen so much

No good posting in chat and then complain when people chat.

But then some people like complaining ime smile

alreadytaken Mon 30-Sep-13 16:12:38

and again an attempt to dictate who can talk and where they can choose to talk about it.

Maybe we should report serious threads that are in Chat so MNHQ can move them to the correct place.

Didn't they say they welcomed reports?


usualsuspect Mon 30-Sep-13 16:13:32

The discussion needed to end.

It was going nowhere.

I don't think they were trying to fill the thread up in the last 4 or 5 pages, Starfish. Maybe the last 4 or 5 posts.....

The problem is that was the 3rd(?) thread about the same subject and it was going round and round in circles. The other alternative was for no one to carry on posting.

alreadytaken Mon 30-Sep-13 16:14:11

I do agree that perhaps I should have started the thread in site stuff - but I do not believe the outcome would have been any different.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Fenton Mon 30-Sep-13 16:16:30

It was 40 odd pages long over 1000 posts, the op only made a handful of posts - so if it did wander once or twice that would hardly be surprising, not derailing, not being told to fuck off elsewhere.

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 16:16:36


If you look upthread you'll see that Rebecca MN has said chat will go off-topic. I don't know if you mean she is "dictating" where you should post?

alreadytaken Mon 30-Sep-13 16:17:41

not carrying on posting is on fact what is often suggested if you don't like the discussion on a thread. As was said earlier people were told to fuck off and start another thread, only for the same tactics to be employed again. It's a persistent attempt to dictate what is talked about on the site.

As for the claims that the discussion was going nowhere - some people wished to continue it but because others didn't they were not allowed to do so.

Fenton Mon 30-Sep-13 16:17:51

I preferred when Snickers were Marathons

valiumredhead Mon 30-Sep-13 16:17:57

While we're at I think there should be no name changes unless you email HQ first and they give you a specific name to post under just for that thread.

THAT would make interesting reading.

oops I've gone off topic ...again.

mistlethrush Mon 30-Sep-13 16:18:13

Already - can you not see that, by suggesting that people cannot stray off the original topic of the thread, you are stopping people chatting about what they want to, where they want to? It goes against the advice given below too:

"It is absolutely fine to wander off topic, some of the best threads happen that way - contrary to popular belief, we are not the fun police.

Chat is for, well, chat about anything and everything. If someone wants to start a serious thread about a specific issue then we have many, many topics to chose from and if we don't have a topic that the discussion naturally falls into, then by all means use chat and specify in the OP or use Other Subjects etc."

valiumredhead Mon 30-Sep-13 16:18:37

When I rule the world MN will be a different place I can tell you grin

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 16:19:38

Rebecca, I wonder if you would be kind enough to clarify to alreadytaken before the wall gets even more dented by collective heads?

Fenton Mon 30-Sep-13 16:19:55

I agree about the nsmechanging Val.

Amrapaali Mon 30-Sep-13 16:20:10

Wouldn't that have been better Pete? Just let the thread die on its own? Instead of actively trying to "murder" the thread?

Anyway, all this talk of agendas and regs is becoming a snore fest. yawn!

Amrapaali, over and out.

Pagwatch Mon 30-Sep-13 16:21:29

I can't believe no one wanted my 'my thread, my rules' option.

alreadytaken Mon 30-Sep-13 16:21:33

on come hully you posted it "And if you want a serious serious talk about bullying, or indeed anything else, don't put it in CHAT


mistlethrush I am not suggesting that people cannot go off topic - I am saying that in this case it was deliberately intended to prevent discussion. A number of people made comemnts about wishing to continue the original conversation. They were told to fuck off and start another thread. Then there was a great deal of abuse and more piss taking. The behaviour was infantile.

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 16:21:55

I agree about the n/c too. Should need "permission" from MN to avoid malicious intent

Fenton Mon 30-Sep-13 16:22:22

Anyway, I'm not going to go around this mulberry bush again, I'm quite satisfied with Rebecca's very clear post at 15.46, and since she's from MNHQ she no doubt is clear on how the site should be operated.

How were posters not allowed to continue the conversation? If there is more than 1 person, you can have a conversation about whatever you like on a thread.

I could post absolute bollocks in between your posts but you could just ignore me and carry on your conversation. That is what you would do in real life isn't it?

Pagwatch Mon 30-Sep-13 16:23:30

I think permission to name change is a great idea.

LtEveDallas Mon 30-Sep-13 16:23:48

This is all IMHO. This is how I see what has happened over the last few days. All my own opinion and feeling on the subject.

The very first 'bullying' thread had a very large number of newbies/NCers with no posting history. Who then proceeded to do exactly what I was complaining about earlier. When other posters tried to defend themselves, those posters then threw around accusations about MNHQ. MNHQ posted lots of times, but those posters just wouldn't let it drop. Then we had lots of vague suggestions that people were PMing behind the scenes that left a lot of MNers feeling got-at and paranoid.

In the second thread it got more personal and quickly became derailment is bullying (which it isn't), Regs always derail (which they don't) and Regs derail serious subjects (which they don't).

The third thread STAYED on topic. Almost 1000 posts about bullying/perceptions/what could be done about it. But now someone has posted here (very rudely) that it didn't.

and ALL the fucking threads were in chat - WHICH IS FOR CHATTING.

CatAmongThePigeons Mon 30-Sep-13 16:24:14

If you see a thread being derailed in a way which you don't see fit, steer it back, I like the chatter, it's an interesting read

alreadytaken Mon 30-Sep-13 16:24:29

carrying on a conversation when people are posting just numbers to fill up a thread and make it difficult to access other posts is not easier. As I said deliberate attempts to prevent discussion, That is not the same a conversation either naturally moving on.

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 16:24:43


yes I did, because that was what had been clarified earlier

Believe it or not I would like a solution nd an end to all this.

I am sorry you clearly feel hard done by, but I do think it's mostly in your head rather than on this site.

littlemisswise Mon 30-Sep-13 16:25:01

Does anyone suggesting the ridiculous ideas about name changing have any idea why people do actually name change?

Some of us have real valid reasons why we do it regularly!

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 16:25:16




middleclassdystopia Mon 30-Sep-13 16:25:45

There is misunderstanding here I think.

It's not going off topic, chat or banter per se. It's deliberate piss taking and joking at a poster's exspense. It's dominating a thread with your particular in jokes and humour and excluding others.

There is a difference.

Pagwatch Mon 30-Sep-13 16:25:50

I stayed on topic for about 2,000 posts.

Didn't get me very far. Didn't actually get me a straight answer either.

That was the 2nd thread wasn't it? I'm talking about the one yesterday.

That stayed on topic. Even though it was in the wrong topic.

Pagwatch Mon 30-Sep-13 16:27:31

Yes. I know why people name change. There are lots of valid reasons for which I am sure mnhqs permission would be instantaneous.

StarfishTrooper Mon 30-Sep-13 16:27:37

With respect, Pete, I beg to differ. The closing down of the thread began on page 37 of 41 with posts like this one:

expatinscotland Sun 29-Sep-13 22:32:42
Oh, look, we are getting up there.

So here, I will put my neck on the line here.


valiumredhead Mon 30-Sep-13 16:28:08

Littlemiss-it was a joke <sigh> and seeing as I won't be ruling the world anytime soon I think you'll be safe.

Fenton Mon 30-Sep-13 16:28:27

I like a seasonal namechange.

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 16:28:54


BIWIZ Mon 30-Sep-13 16:29:06

"As for the claims that the discussion was going nowhere - some people wished to continue it but because others didn't they were not allowed to do so."

Why on earth would you state this?
In what way were they were not allowed to do so?

I'm sorry but this is just errant nonsense. Nobody stops anybody posting on a thread except themselves.

And Hully was pointing out to you that the post was in _Chat - a place which is for the purpose of chatting - which (as has been pointed out) is in a section of the site called Fun and Games.

There is a whole section about bullying where the other posts could have been made. A serious section for serious conversations. So why not post there instead of the evidently more trivial and lighthearted place called _Chat. Which is for chatting.

alreadytaken Mon 30-Sep-13 16:29:54

no it didn't stay on topic. It was asking about experiences of bullying and how to change that. Instead it became yet another complaint from a small group of people that people don't like me. They seem to find it impossible to distinguish between a distaste for bullying behaviour and a dislike of individuals.

middleclassdystopia Mon 30-Sep-13 16:30:06

And yes I did flounce earlier but i'm pregnant and hormonal smile

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 16:30:28

It's dominating a thread with your particular in jokes and humour and excluding others.

Who does this?

No one I know.

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 16:30:51


Fenton Mon 30-Sep-13 16:30:57

I have now got "here we go round the mulberry bush, aaaaalll ddaayyy lonnnngggg.." going round in my head.



Pagwatch Mon 30-Sep-13 16:30:57

Spent last night reading a different thread i think.
Ho hum.

littlemisswise Mon 30-Sep-13 16:31:13

I contacted MNHQ about something last night Pag, I haven't had a reply. If I had to wait while they approved my name change that could mean hours too. That could potentially be hours to a poster who wanted to N/C because she was suffering DV, or had MH issues or any other serious matter.

It is silly and unworkable and could leave someone really vulnerable!

Cheddars Mon 30-Sep-13 16:31:20

I don't think there is a straight answer. I think people found it helpful to have acknowledgement that bullying (whether real or perceived) does happen on mn. A lot of people felt (wrongly imo) very defensive about it.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 16:31:49

It would really really really really help if MNHQ could do a ruling on this a la Judgement Day or summat before we all go insane.

HaroldLloyd Mon 30-Sep-13 16:31:52

I don't see why anyone couldn't have posted on the thread to be honest.

An imaginary black line wouldn't have stopped me.

Everyone who posted on the first thread got listened too but the second one turned very sour and I can't blame some of the regular posters for getting annoyed.

If I was named on a bullying thread as a bully I would be really pissed off.

middleclassdystopia Mon 30-Sep-13 16:32:11

But Hully if I post links I would be accused of dragging up old threads and being a bully confused

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 16:32:49

That's handy then.

alreadytaken Mon 30-Sep-13 16:32:49

Chatting should be for chat - I agree. But it is not chatting to prevent other people talking. It's quite possible to stop debate - go and look and you'll see how quickly you can fill a thread once you decide you want to stop discussion.

NomDeClavier Mon 30-Sep-13 16:33:48

Some of the topics have got a bit splitty and specialist and chat and AIBU are good catchall, busy places so it would be interesting to see whether a topic redesign helps.

As for the staying on topic vs wandering off I think when OPs ask for it to be brought back a) people need to respect that and b) the OP needs to reflect on whether it would be best moved elsewhere. For example the nanny thread could easily have been moved to the CMs, nannies etc topic if it was in AIBU or chat and serious opinions are needed. But there will probably always be people who don't want the OP to do that so you can't really please everyone.

Chat does derail because it's, well, chat, but you only realise that after you've been around a while and realise that the other topics aren't like that. However some people have other motivations for posting in chat like the pfft factor, so maybe that needs to be addressed.

I haven't really added anything new, have I? But I can see why people get upset even if it doesn't bother me personally. It's fundamentally different expectations.

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 16:34:13

People don't WANT to stop a discussion, they just say stuff that comes in their heads and ramble on, or get taken on a tangent. Noone sits there and thinks hmmm people are talking about what's for dinner, I'm going to STOP that by mentioning my aunt's caff.


So there was one poster who posted about filling up the thread?

I wouldn't say that was a deliberate attempt to fill up a thread. A deliberate attempt would have been for them to have posted that 150 times.

CatAmongThePigeons Mon 30-Sep-13 16:34:57

If you think there's deliberate attempts to destroy another poster report it

I'm not in the allegeed 'in crowd' and they certainly don't dominate all the threads. Ironically, you're derailing this thread alreadytaken

LtEveDallas Mon 30-Sep-13 16:35:45

thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks

Highlighted so it stands out - and because I love RebeccaMN.

It is absolutely fine to wander off topic, some of the best threads happen that way - contrary to popular belief, we are not the fun police.

Chat is for, well, chat about anything and everything. If someone wants to start a serious thread about a specific issue then we have many, many topics to chose from and if we don't have a topic that the discussion naturally falls into, then by all means use chat and specify in the OP or use Other Subjects etc

thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks

EstelleGetty Mon 30-Sep-13 16:36:10

This is getting us nowhere and eating up everyone's energy. The major issue here is:

Hurt Feelings

It sounds like we've all had some of those the past few days. Isn't it time for an amnesty? Let's all hand over these threads and promise to be nice to each other? I'm over and out. My thesis isn't going to write itself.

Fenton Mon 30-Sep-13 16:36:19

I quite often type what's in my head.

StarfishTrooper Mon 30-Sep-13 16:36:31

I didn't post on the first or second thread about bullying. I didn't see them. The third one seemed like it was going to be a sensible discussion which would have been really useful because there are people who perceive there is bullying and disagreeable behaviour on MN that sometimes makes it an unpleasant place to be.

I don't know if there are posters who have a particular dislike for any other posters, frequent, infrequent, old or new. It seems like there are some frequent posters who think others don't like them. Pagwatch I'm thinking of you as an example because clearly the thread in question (and others, I don't know) was upsetting for you. If there are agendas I would find it useful to know what people think they are, because I don't know. It would be useful, for context.

I thought the third bullying thread got pretty ugly. There's quite a few deleted posts on it now, for example.

BIWIZ Mon 30-Sep-13 16:36:34

Nobody was trying to prevent anyone from talking.

Why do you persist in saying this alreadytaken?

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 16:36:55

I'm orf before I implode

may everyone find whatever peace they can

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 16:37:53

BIWI see if you can get MNHQ to say something definitive...

alreadytaken Mon 30-Sep-13 16:38:30

on the contrary, CAtAmongthePigeons, I'm trying to get back to what was claimed to be a desire to move forward by pointing out the real stumbling block.

valiumredhead Mon 30-Sep-13 16:38:41

You talk like people were stopping you post something already-why does someone posting a line mean you stop? Seriously I'd have just carried on if I'd had something to say. It was right at the end of the thread not the beginning, now that would have been a bit off.

mistlethrush Mon 30-Sep-13 16:40:41

Already - your thread stayed on-topic. Over 1000 posts if I remember correctly. Now you seem to be keen to derail this thread where someone has been trying to address the problem that you suggested that there was and make it about three previous threads. Ironic?

I would prefer to talk about chocolate... or the ironic fact that I am no longer able to eat many of the carob bars that I used to have as a poor substitute for chocolate as someone has decided that it would be a good idea to put in cocoa butter - which I can't have because I'm allergic to chocolate.

StarfishTrooper Mon 30-Sep-13 16:41:05

Posting a line was an example of posts designed specifically to fill the thread quickly and bring the thread to a close. You can see it escalating if you look at the thread. By the time you reach the last two pages it's almost exclusively people posting things like:

'the thread has to die'
'I'm going to...'
'nix this thread...'
'byeeee thread'

alreadytaken Mon 30-Sep-13 16:41:22

because it is what happened, BIWI.

And I would also point out that although it was in chat the thread specifically - in the title - asked for a sensible discussion, not a fun one. Didn't happen and shows that the purpose of this thread is just to say look mumsnet HQ will support us in doing anything we like. I wonder if that is true?

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 16:42:28

Oh good have a pop at MNHQ


Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean we're not all out to get you


mistlethrush Mon 30-Sep-13 16:42:32

Where is the guidance that you have to stick to the topic title and discussion in chat Already?

valiumredhead Mon 30-Sep-13 16:43:09

Starfish-if you'd read the first 2 threads you world know why pag got upset. I'd have been a gibbering wreck personally.

FavoriteThings Mon 30-Sep-13 16:43:51

Joins in with Hully.

For goodness sake, it was the end of the thread. It got to 1009 posts!

I'm all bullied out.

Good luck MNHQ.

valiumredhead Mon 30-Sep-13 16:44:19

My battery is about to die...

alreadytaken Mon 30-Sep-13 16:44:22

valiumredhead I did carry on - on another thread since the original had been filled up. Got a load of abuse for daring to try and talk seriously about what is clearly upsetting some people. They name change to try and avoid the sort of abuse that was directed at me. Incidentally I was told I had started the other two thread and had name changed - total lie.

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 16:44:31

I've asked them for some sort of definitive comment because this is just BERSERK

BIWIZ Mon 30-Sep-13 16:45:35

But who is stopping people posting?! You have asserted that posters were 'not allowed' or were 'prevented' from posting. By whom? And how?

Do other posters have powers that I'm not aware of?

It's silly to say that people aren't allowed to post. They can post anywhere they want and - as long as it doesn't break Talk Guidelines - they can post what they like.

StarfishTrooper Mon 30-Sep-13 16:45:43

Perhaps we could do with some refreshed Ps and Qs?

Things like:
- If there is a relevant topic, use it
- Think before you post
- 'Post and run' doesn't go down well. Wait until you have time to reply, before you start a thread.

Don't know, just some ideas.

valiumredhead Mon 30-Sep-13 16:45:55

Already- imo you got a load of abuse as you were deliberately goady and knew exactly what you were doing when you started the thread.

CatAmongThePigeons Mon 30-Sep-13 16:46:33

Oh for fucks sake. There's no vendetta here.

MNHQ, get out of the gin stores and please spell it out s l o w l y, so everyone knows what's to happen from now on.

FavoriteThings Mon 30-Sep-13 16:46:43

Personally I dont believe that to be true for one second, already.

alreadytaken Mon 30-Sep-13 16:46:52

mistlethrush where are the site principles? This site is supposed to be about supporting parents.

BIWIZ Mon 30-Sep-13 16:47:27

"Got a load of abuse for daring to try and talk seriously about what is clearly upsetting some people."

Do you really think that you were the only one talking seriously about the topic? There were lots and lots of posters taking the whole thing seriously.

In fact, that's actually the problem. You have goaded us all into taking you and your agenda seriously again.

Fenton Mon 30-Sep-13 16:47:31

I am Praying that my battery will die and someone will bury it and when digging the hole will damage the broadband connection and then I'll have no Internet for a few days.

I avoided the bullying threads so this initially sensible thread makes no fucking sense whatsoever now.

Oh the irony that on a Site Stuff thread about STFOT people didn't STFOT sad angry

alreadytaken Mon 30-Sep-13 16:49:16

your opinion, valiumredhead, as mine is that your post is just that - goady - and I don't intend to rise to the bait.

SpookyNameChange13 Mon 30-Sep-13 16:49:55

This isn't about people chatting and normal banter. It really isn't.

Acting like it is, despite various people posting many times that it isn't about that, is just trying to shut down the debate about the real issue of the kind of 'banter' that is done to silence someone.

If people here aren't the sorts who do that sort of thing, why are so many being so defensive? If you don't do that, what is the problem?

Making out it is some unreasonable request to silence any form of chatting is just ridiculous and glossing over the occasional more spiteful sort.

BIWIZ Mon 30-Sep-13 16:50:36

You could, perhaps, answer my question then, alreadytaken.

Please tell me how posters were 'not allowed' or were 'prevented' from posting?

CatAmongThePigeons Mon 30-Sep-13 16:51:08

In fact, that's actually the problem. You have goaded us all into taking you and your agenda seriously again.

I think that's true. sad

SpookyNameChange13 Mon 30-Sep-13 16:51:27

*glossing over the issue of the occasional more spiteful sort.

mistlethrush Mon 30-Sep-13 16:51:32

"mistlethrush where are the site principles? This site is supposed to be about supporting parents."

There are plenty of 'support' topics. You used chat. MN has said that chat threads can go off topic - and clearly there is nothing to indicate that they should stay on-topic.

However, you have managed to disrail this one by making it about three previous ones, whereas I'm sure that it was started to try to resolve the issue that you are clearly concerned about.

alreadytaken Mon 30-Sep-13 16:52:20

an example of not liking to be on the receiving end of what you dish out, hullygully.

FavoriteThings I imagine mumsnet could confirm it for you, but it really doesn't matter much does it.

RebeccaMumsnet (MNHQ) Mon 30-Sep-13 16:53:06

Okay - give us a clear question and we will attempt a clear answer...

resists the urge to call Hully Mum following her comment about being old enough to be my mother

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 16:53:34

What do I "dish out" alreadytaken?

Do spell it out

alreadytaken Mon 30-Sep-13 16:53:36

so you think Chat is somehow exempt from the general site principles, mistlethrush - where does it say that?

HaroldLloyd Mon 30-Sep-13 16:55:05

Starfish the thread had already just delved into the insane at that point.

I actually read the first thread and thought I can't believe a thread on bullying went so well.

If people follow a particular poster around mocking and derailing several of their threads that's shit. I haven't seen that.

It's impossible to talk about this without naming names or linking threads which is really just naming names.

I don't see why it can't be agreed to post fairly lightheartedly in chat and go with the flow of conversation, and use the appropriate topic for a serious thread that you want to stay on topic?

That seems the best solution to me.

valiumredhead Mon 30-Sep-13 16:55:52

I wasn't bring goady,I commented on your post and the way you perceived your thread, which was the total opposite to how I read it.

alreadytaken Mon 30-Sep-13 16:56:06

Clear question mumsnet - some of see the type of behaviour that went on as something that shouldn't be permitted on mumsnet, other don't. So are you happy that threads are filled up solely to prevent discussion or not?

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 16:56:11

The issues on this thread Rebecca...

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 16:56:39

Except that threads aren't filled up to prevent discussion of course...

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 16:57:13

I think, Rebecca, you should read this thread to get an idea and then pronounce.

BIWIZ Mon 30-Sep-13 16:58:07


This - posted by RebeccaMumsnet:

It is absolutely fine to wander off topic, some of the best threads happen that way - contrary to popular belief, we are not the fun police.

Chat is for, well, chat about anything and everything. If someone wants to start a serious thread about a specific issue then we have many, many topics to chose from and if we don't have a topic that the discussion naturally falls into, then by all means use chat and specify in the OP or use Other Subjects etc.

alreadytaken Mon 30-Sep-13 16:58:37

which thread, hullygully - because this thread is not being filled with random posts

CatAmongThePigeons Mon 30-Sep-13 16:58:48

What Hully said, there's no quick summary of the thread tbh.

Fenton Mon 30-Sep-13 16:59:00

Discussion wasn't prevented already. Discussion had been taking place for thousands of threads on topic.

You keep portraying it one way, it didn't actually play out that way.

littlemisswise Mon 30-Sep-13 16:59:11

Rebecca is it appropriate for posters to come on to a thread, be it in chat or where ever, that is running a long nicely and them start <snurking> and <snorting> and joining in (sometimes in a pack mentality) with piss taking banter?

Only that is the banter that I think that can be seen as bullying and unpleasant behaviour.

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 16:59:12

*It is absolutely fine to wander off topic, some of the best threads happen that way - contrary to popular belief, we are not the fun police.

Chat is for, well, chat about anything and everything. If someone wants to start a serious thread about a specific issue then we have many, many topics to chose from and if we don't have a topic that the discussion naturally falls into, then by all means use chat and specify in the OP or use Other Subjects etc.*

People are having trouble with this, could you help them to grasp it?

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 16:59:19

*It is absolutely fine to wander off topic, some of the best threads happen that way - contrary to popular belief, we are not the fun police.

Chat is for, well, chat about anything and everything. If someone wants to start a serious thread about a specific issue then we have many, many topics to chose from and if we don't have a topic that the discussion naturally falls into, then by all means use chat and specify in the OP or use Other Subjects etc.*

People are having trouble with this, could you help them to grasp it?

alreadytaken Mon 30-Sep-13 17:00:11

and if I may a second question - do you think Chat is exempt from normal site rules or do you also expect it to be supportive?

Fenton Mon 30-Sep-13 17:00:11

1000's of posts not threads obvs, although it did feel like it at times.

StarfishTrooper Mon 30-Sep-13 17:00:12

chat about anything and everything

How are new posters and less frequent posters, or anyone for that matter, supposed to know not to post in Chat then? And shouldn't, for the sake of courtesy, an OP be able to expect a thread they start to not be deliberately derailed or shut down?

FavoriteThings Mon 30-Sep-13 17:00:31

RebeccaMumsnet. Maryz has put forward 2 clear suggestions. One is in her op, and one is upthread somewhere. I will go find the exact time of her second suggestion.

SpookyNameChange13 Mon 30-Sep-13 17:01:11

Hully that is not the sort of 'banter' people take issue with.

RebeccaMumsnet (MNHQ) Mon 30-Sep-13 17:01:20


Clear question mumsnet - some of see the type of behaviour that went on as something that shouldn't be permitted on mumsnet, other don't. So are you happy that threads are filled up solely to prevent discussion or not?

Preventing discussion and going off topic are two very different things. If you feel that people are preventing you from having a discussion then please do report and we will take a look.

alreadytaken Mon 30-Sep-13 17:01:30

thank you littlemisswise, your name is appropriate smile

SpookyNameChange13 Mon 30-Sep-13 17:02:13

Yes littlemisswise exactly that.

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 17:02:25

I don't know what this other "banter" is.

I have never ever seen someone post something serious and be sneered at.

FavoriteThings Mon 30-Sep-13 17:02:40

And I have suggested it is trialled for 1 week or 2 weeks, if that helps things your end.

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 17:03:06

People are obsessed with this "piss-taking banter" WHERE THE HELL IS IT?

alreadytaken Mon 30-Sep-13 17:03:14

this is what I'm talking about - Olivia was on it and the complaint has been made www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/1867110-Is-it-possible-to-have-a-serious-thread-about-bullying

HaroldLloyd Mon 30-Sep-13 17:03:19

Already, its in fun and games.

Plus I'm sure people who post serious things will still get support, and I've seen a fair few threads in AIBU where a poster has said to the OP you will get more support in X or y topic, not wanting them to get eaten alive.

AIBU is a billion times more hairy than some derailment in chat!

SpookyNameChange13 Mon 30-Sep-13 17:03:27

You answered alreadytakens question like a politician Rebecca!

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 17:04:21




DameDeepRedBetty Mon 30-Sep-13 17:04:21

Right made it through thread (deserve medal and more brew)

Chat seems to have two main practical purposes - (a) to have faintly silly chats in - like the Drunk Threads.

(b) - to talk about stuff, sometimes very shitty stuff indeed, that OP needs help with right now but wants to make disappear in the future.

I don't think anyone's got any problem with type (a), it's type (b) where issues are arising. Chat and AIBU do get more traffic than anywhere else, so totally understandable that people will start threads there.

Threads can be moved from Chat to a more suitable topic when they've developed, I have had one of mine moved in such a way as I felt I had such good advice that I wanted to keep it.

If there's an issue of a poster wanting it to be disassociated from her regular MN persona, perhaps the thread could be lightly edited - changing name of OP and any replies by name - so the thread will survive in the archive, but nobody ten years down the line will find it and use it as a stick to beat the OP with.

StarfishTrooper Mon 30-Sep-13 17:05:48

Seconding the question by littlemisswise

As well as doing it on thread, which I have seen, do others think it's fine to start separate threads to snurk and sneer at people? As per the 'Spoofs & Trolls' thread I linked to on the bullying thread?

RebeccaMumsnet I'd value your view on my suggestions upthread, reposted below, which are directly linked to the topic of this thread started by the OP, some other options perhaps than setting up separate topics:

Perhaps we could do with some refreshed Ps and Qs?

Things like:
- If there is a relevant topic, use it
- Think before you post
- 'Post and run' doesn't go down well. Wait until you have time to reply, before you start a thread.

Don't know, just some ideas.

FavoriteThings Mon 30-Sep-13 17:06:04

RebeccaMumsnet. Would it be an idea for you to shut the site down for one hour [while we have dinner!] , so that MNHQ can catch up?

Fenton Mon 30-Sep-13 17:06:14

Right that's it I'm pulling the plug on my router, I simply cannot understand why people want to stay in a site that they feel is full of shit and being badly run.

I happen to think it's pretty wonderful,

Wake me up when it's all over.

RebeccaMumsnet (MNHQ) Mon 30-Sep-13 17:06:26


You answered alreadytakens question like a politician Rebecca!

Take that back wink

DameDeepRedBetty Mon 30-Sep-13 17:07:07

And as usual the thread's charged on while I carefully and thoughtfully typed my idea!

alreadytaken Mon 30-Sep-13 17:07:14

HaroldLloyd we are not talking about simple derailment - we are talking about piss-taking designed to prevent discusssion by filling up a thread, telling posters to fuck off and to start another thread - although that post will now have been deleted - and then continuing the pisstaking on another thread.

As I keep saying - infantile.

HaroldLloyd Mon 30-Sep-13 17:07:28

The spoofs and trolls thread caused a big old hoo hah at the time so I'm not sure it's fair to use that as an example.

In fact a thread was started to say hang about some of those comments were a bit close to the bone - so I think it's an example if anything on how MN can be self regulating.

alreadytaken Mon 30-Sep-13 17:07:41

and Rebbeca I think I should have linked to this first www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/1864845-Have-you-ever-felt-bullied-on-MN-continues

NomDeClavier Mon 30-Sep-13 17:07:45

Clear questions:

What is chat for according to MNHQ?
Can there be a STFOT tick box?
Can there be a way to make a thread go pfft in other sections so serious stuff stays out of chat?

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 17:07:52

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

RebeccaMumsnet (MNHQ) Mon 30-Sep-13 17:08:25


RebeccaMumsnet. Would it be an idea for you to shut the site down for one hour [while we have dinner!] , so that MNHQ can catch up?

Erm no, perhaps not - but thanks for the suggestion <channels inner politician>

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 17:08:38

haha I meant UNpleasant

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 17:09:39

Is there a way to block threads started by certain names so you don't inadvertently post on them?

alreadytaken Mon 30-Sep-13 17:11:57

I imagine mumsnet would like discussions about bullying to self-destruct after 30 days, though, Starfish trooper - if not sooner.

StarfishTrooper Mon 30-Sep-13 17:12:14

Could you explain why, Hully?

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

FavoriteThings Mon 30-Sep-13 17:13:29

Maryz 15.17pm is her second suggestion.

BIWIZ 13.36pm put forward a suggestion too.

littlemisswise Mon 30-Sep-13 17:13:40

Why do you want to stay way from threads started by me Hully? I haven't accused anyone of anything. I am as sick of this as the next person, I am on neither side. I just want a line drawn and to move on.

Not this thread as well. sad

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 17:14:18

It will make my life more pleasant and jolly not to cause inadvertent offence to people that don't like me, Starfish.

win win

StarfishTrooper Mon 30-Sep-13 17:15:11

I don't dislike you Hully.

alreadytaken Mon 30-Sep-13 17:16:53

HaroldLloyd I wish that was true. Quite obviously people who felt disturbed about bullying did not get support. Polite requests to stop the piss-taking didn't work either.

Perhaps Chat needs to be renamed Rapid response, or something and then a Fun and Games topic under that.

I think it's quite something that so many posters feel passionately enough about MN that they spend this much time and energy trying to set things right and improve things for themselves and other posters.

If posters didn't care about Mumsnet, and something here upset them or pissed them off, I expect they would simply take their "internet chat room business" elsewhere rather than passionately trying to fix it.

This is all getting ridiculous now.

alreadytaken Mon 30-Sep-13 17:18:52

I don't know you, Hullygully - as far as I know we haven't been on the same threads. If we have it must have been years ago. I simply dislike your behaviour recently.

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 17:19:40

Blimey Starfish...I'd hate to see how you treat people you don't like then!

Seriously, I'll avoid threads by those on the list and it will keep life smoother. I'm not going to behave in the way you think people should behave: single issue, no jokes, no chat, so it's best.

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 17:20:05

that's fine already

we need never communicate again.

I still think a radio button for automatic expiry after <dropdown> 30 days/90 days/never which defaults to never would encourage people to use the right topics in the first place, and if titles included "STFOT please" or a radio button "Do you want posters to stay strictly on topic?" which would trigger a line "The OP has requested that all replies stay on topic" people would go elsewhere for their tangents.

I realise that's a lot to ask, but the code must already exist for "expire after n days" because of _Chat and OTBT so that would be a relatively small job, particularly compared with reclassifying all the Topics ::shudder:: or moving individual threads all the damn time.

usualsuspect Mon 30-Sep-13 17:20:19

This is madness.

And it's making MN an unpleasant place to be at the minute.

I agree usual.

Pagwatch Mon 30-Sep-13 17:21:56

I agree with Usual and I agree with Sparkling. Although Sparkling, I think it became ridiculous a while ago.
It's just a car wreck now.

StarfishTrooper Mon 30-Sep-13 17:22:24

OK Hully, I'd really appreciate you letting me know what I have said that has upset you. PM me if you'd rather not say it publicly or it will derail the thread further.

Hearts has it spot on. There are lots of people who care about this site and want to see it do well. To be welcoming to all, enjoyable and informative. We may not always agree on how to get there but if people flounce out of conversations or refuse to engage then it does become difficult to reach a middle ground.

Amrapaali Mon 30-Sep-13 17:22:40

What's happening? Is it safe to come out now?

alreadytaken Mon 30-Sep-13 17:22:54

oh and mumsnet is there a way please for you to check and confirm for the doubters that I was not on the first bullying thread and most certainly did not start either of the first two threads. Apart from my dislike of being called a liar I do think it important for those going on about name changers to realise there are more people concerned about this.

SoupDragon Mon 30-Sep-13 17:23:03

Does "stay on topic" aid discussion or stifle it?

usualsuspect Mon 30-Sep-13 17:23:10

I'm going to carry on posting the same as I always do.

I won't be told by anyone other than MNHQ where and what I can post.

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 17:24:23

I'm gone

HaroldLloyd Mon 30-Sep-13 17:25:11

I think this site is very good at self moderating. I've been on numerous threads where someone has stepped in to stop people laying into an OP.

Few of the posters on this thread as well.

FavoriteThings Mon 30-Sep-13 17:26:05

Good point Hearts.
Meant to say that you made another good point upthread too.

If MNHQ wont do the suggestions for whatever reason, and I truly dont know why, then we I suppose are going to have to do it. Keep pointing out to people that chat is chat, and will meander all over the place. So if you wish to start a thread in Chat, the talking on the thread at any point and any moment can go elsewhere.

Trouble is, some people choose chat for the 90 day rule.

alreadytaken Mon 30-Sep-13 17:27:08

"I'm not going to behave in the way you think people should behave: single issue, no jokes, no chat, so it's best."

No-one has suggested that, hullygully. You are attempting to distract from has been said repeatedly - that what is being complained about is the sort of piss taking deliberately undertaken to stiffle discussion, followed by trying to tell posters where they can post. Then if they persist you fill up the thread with infantile behaviour.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

EstelleGetty Mon 30-Sep-13 17:27:34

OK Hully, I'd really appreciate you letting me know what I have said that has upset you. PM me if you'd rather not say it publicly or it will derail the thread further

What Starfish said. I'd like to know why you felt it necessary to name me. I have no ill will towards you. I felt you were making fun of me and my concerns on previous threads. I requested politely that you stop and you didn't. I reported to MNHQ and one of the threads in question was deleted.

I am genuinely sorry if I've upset you, as you've upset me.

SoupDragon Mon 30-Sep-13 17:27:42

That's my view too Beer.

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 17:28:15

well already, there will be no risk of that happening in future so I hope that that will be an end to our unhappy little fracas.

LtEveDallas Mon 30-Sep-13 17:28:42

Alreadytaken. Who said that to you and when?

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 17:31:26

Nope Estelle, I wasn't making fun of you. I don't make fun of people. Unless they are complete arses. Were you being a complete arse? I can't remember.

Starfish, I can't be bothered to go and look, I'm old so just retain big picture rather than detail.

I named the people who complained about derailing and banter as obviously it's them I must offend. I don't want to offend. I want to have love and chuckles on MN, that's why I come here.

So we shall go our separate ways and all be happy differently.

Won't that be better confused

alreadytaken Mon 30-Sep-13 17:33:01

Quite right, Hearts. I really dislike this site being taken away from its claimed purpose.

HaroldLloyd Mon 30-Sep-13 17:33:08

Estelle (on this thread I didn't see the last one) is coming over very reasonably to me although I don't necessarily agree with her point.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Absy Mon 30-Sep-13 17:37:13

My take on this (and I've missed the last few days fracas) is that this comes up all the time. I've been posting here since 2005, with degrees of regularity and people always get sniffy when they think they're being excluded/there's cliques/there's too much unfocused chatting.

But, here's my thoughts:
- if you want to discuss a particular topic, seriously, don't go in chat. It is called CHAT because it is for CHATTING. It's like if you went into the doghouse and everyone was posting about dogs, you'd look mighty weird to go "why aren't you talking about cockatiels? BITCHES". Instead, there's dozens and dozens of topics that MNHQ have specially set up so people can discuss Xmas in March without upsetting everyone, or Anne Boleyn, or the world cup 2010. Maybe try there first
- don't be mean. MN is a lovely lovely place (which is why I've spaffed away EIGHT YEARS of my life on these boards) and a funny place, but not if people dig into each other with a vendetta
- some of the best threads have come derailing. E.g this bad boy started as a rant about uninvited groping, and veered into weirdness involving sheep and wife swapping. None of this would have happened if everyone had stayed on topic.

I am bored and upset by it Beer. All this is distracting from the site's 'claimed purpose' IMO. It has been a horrible couple of days, and it doesn't seem to be drawing to a conclusion any time soon.

valiumredhead Mon 30-Sep-13 17:40:22

As my good friend Jody on real housewives says 'if you always portray yourself as victim then the other person will always be a bully.'

EstelleGetty Mon 30-Sep-13 17:40:53

Thanks Harold. I did try.

alreadytaken Mon 30-Sep-13 17:42:15

Absy as the message is still not getting through - this is about deliberate attempts to stop people discussing a subject by piss-taking and posting things things like a line count and then telling anyone who wanted to continue the original conversation to fuck off and start another thread. Not exactly light-hearted chat or fun and games.

member Mon 30-Sep-13 17:42:59

Haven't read all the thread - guessing there's a bunfight somewhere because of the amount of posts.

Those who post on chat should be prepared for the conversation to meander. If you want focused/succint replies then look for the relevant topic.

It isn't rocket science; doesn't sub-divide the topics further which may require additional navigational skills & a line about not whinging if you post in chat & the conversation deviates in the info for newbies would suffice imo.

middleclassdystopia Mon 30-Sep-13 17:43:15

Hully wasn't one of your threads deleted, because it was solely started to take the piss?

The lets laugh about the bullying threads mwa ha ha type thing.

expatinscotland Mon 30-Sep-13 17:44:20


'I don't like it on MN when people don't respond and behave how I like! Waaaaa! I'm going to start loads of threads about it and pitch fits.'

Find another site then!

PedlarsSpanner Mon 30-Sep-13 17:45:07

Omg this is v v reminiscent of the Christmas of Ten Thousand burnt turkeys, capisce?

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LtEveDallas Mon 30-Sep-13 17:46:56

Hide poster.

We've been asking for Hide poster for years

PLEASE can we have Hide Poster. Pretty please.

member Mon 30-Sep-13 17:47:04

And looking upthread, I've obviously missed/been oblivious to any fracas over the past couple of days.

Absy Mon 30-Sep-13 17:47:48

Yah Peddlars, also very reminiscent of "THE SHINEYS ARE OUT TO GET ME" of, erm, that year when everyone was complaining about them and Off The Beaten Track had to be set up.

Amrapaali Mon 30-Sep-13 17:48:02

Caught up! And now, I wish I hadn't... grin

Hully, is that MY name on your list? Why would I dislike you? I don't know you from Adam.

Ha, ha ha .... I knew MN would be entertaining, but this is priceless!

[wipes tear from eye] aaah....

Yes Beer let's find another thread, this subject is well past it's use by date.

usualsuspect Mon 30-Sep-13 17:48:18


All this wah wah wahing is dull as fuck.

alreadytaken Mon 30-Sep-13 17:50:31

expatinscotland - exactly what is going on on this thread and why it was started. Some people didn't like others having a chat about a subject they didn't wish to discuss then when the others don't give up start threads all over the place pretending to be victims. How brave of you to tell them to leave.

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 17:54:25


I started that threat to highlight the insanity of two full threads that had got nowhere, as I said repeatedly on the thread.

I imagine I was deleted as the easier path, frankly.

EstelleGetty Mon 30-Sep-13 17:55:18

Sometimes a simple 'no offence meant' when someone is clearly upset, rather than 'can't you take a joke' would do. Would you encourage your child to pin up a list of names of people in his/her class who can't take a joke?

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 17:56:15



whoops I've gone all infantile again

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 17:57:08


really I don't want to have trubs with people, that's why I'm promising to stay off the threads of people who don't like my humour.

How can I possibly be any fairer?

expatinscotland Mon 30-Sep-13 17:59:22

I wish all dull, moany people would leave, already. But, since they won't, I'll borrow a leaf out of Hully's book.

Exactly, Lt, and NO MORE namechanging unless approved by HQ first.

Amrapaali Mon 30-Sep-13 17:59:51

Hully, you've reduced this whole thread into some kind of personal vendetta against you. It really is not, you know....

usualsuspect Mon 30-Sep-13 18:00:20

I liked your thread Hully ,it made me laugh.

I can't be doing with all the navel gazing about MN.

alreadytaken Mon 30-Sep-13 18:00:34

if you had a thread deleted, hullygully I didn't see it. I don't normally spend this long on mumsnet but I was hoping for HQ's reply. I think you're replying to someone else.

And btw a quick search shows we may have been on some threads as you post in education sometimes and so do I. If so I have no memory of what was said and I can't be bothered to look. I do not take a dislike to a person I don't know, I may dislike some of their behaviour.

EstelleGetty Mon 30-Sep-13 18:01:36

Hully, you could keep it to yourself rather than singling out posters for the world to see.

I don't want trubs either. I spent the entirety of this thread (until a wee bit ago) offering olive branches (and gin), suggesting we all make peace, apologising for being overly emotional, posting freaking Flight of the Conchords videos. And that's what I get from you. It sucks.

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 18:02:57


I don't care

I don't know how to make it clear. All the last few days have taught me is that you can't please all of the people.

So the sensible thing is to stop trying and hang out with those you do please and let the others get on with it. For the love of little baby jesus, can you not see the sense in that?

LtEveDallas Mon 30-Sep-13 18:03:36

Add message | Report | Message poster Amrapaali Mon 30-Sep-13 17:59:51
Hully, you've reduced this whole thread into some kind of personal vendetta against you. It really is not, you know....

Please refer to my previous postings Amrapaali - THIS is what has happened here, and why Hully is taking the frankly sensible route of staying away from certain posters. I note you never did try what I asked, maybe others have too.

StarfishTrooper Mon 30-Sep-13 18:03:46

What happens if you encounter one another on other threads though hully? Or if you or others start a thread specifically to piss take about other posters or posting styles you don't like?

This site is full of people who might be vulnerable in all sorts of ways. We are all people with feelings, and some with complicated lives.

Surely instead of deliberately avoiding some posters, it would be better just for everyone to be polite to each other.

Since my suggested list of Ps and Qs went down like a lead balloon how about a simple 'If in doubt, be polite'

A bit like those 'Slow down' flashing road signs in 30s. They're simple, not as draconian as a speed camera, but effective.

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 18:04:00

All th eworld has seen them Estelle

they all posted their thoughts over two full threads. They all made what they thought clear and I am trying to respond to it ina manner that will actually make a difference.


No other agenda

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 18:04:32

No Starfish

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 18:06:25

Starfish, try to understand, you simply cannot tell me how to behave.

That being the case, I'm going to keep away from you and would like you to keep away from me. That way, no one gets upset.

expatinscotland Mon 30-Sep-13 18:08:13

'Surely instead of deliberately avoiding some posters, it would be better just for everyone to be polite to each other.'

Why on Earth not, especially because some peoples' idea of 'polite' is another one's idea of ridiculous?

People avoid one another in real life all the time, and this is a website, all the easier to just avoid and move on.

Amrapaali Mon 30-Sep-13 18:08:40

LtEve not once have I named a poster. I was even open to the idea that regulars may be targeted, after Maryz's post.

But Hully has named me. On her to AVOID list. Shall I cry foul? Shall I cry I am being picked upon? You see how ludicrous this is?

erm this does feel like Hully bashing to be honest, and its not nice.

You cant dictate peoples personalities, what one doesnt like another will, if you dont feel comfortable with the way someone posts report them, I did today and said goader has been evicted, its really easy.

expatinscotland Mon 30-Sep-13 18:10:56

'Starfish, try to understand, you simply cannot tell me how to behave.'

This. Because this site has millions of users, and so MN set up guidelines. Sorry they didn't adopt your 'Ps and Qs', but well, it's not our site, it's theirs.

LtEveDallas Mon 30-Sep-13 18:11:44

Amrapaali, never said you did, but if you go back to the start of our conversation, when I tried to explain why people were asking for 'proof' you'll see why I posted what I did.

expatinscotland Mon 30-Sep-13 18:12:00

Wish they'd adopt no namechanging, that would solve a lot of issues, IMO. But again, not my site. If it bothered me that much, I'd leave.

StarfishTrooper Mon 30-Sep-13 18:15:20

I'm not telling you or anyone else how to behave hully. I'm making suggestions in response to the op while also asking how the 'avoiding certain posters' tactic is workable. Offensive or piss taking posts don't have to be on a particular post to cause upset. They can be on a special dedicated piss-taking thread and still cause upset.

Just reading that 'Spoofs & Trolls' thread, for example, was really ugly reading. I hadn't seen it before and came across it while all those bullying threads were floating around. In that context it was upsetting. To anyone new or nor familiar with certain posters it could be deeply offputting and upsetting.

I guess we probably won't agree on this. I'm sorry if I have upset you in any way, as I said on the other thread. I hope we can just all rub along together really, because I'm sure we're all pretty lovely people behind the screen.

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 18:16:20

<bites tongue>


ElleMcFearsome Mon 30-Sep-13 18:16:33

Ok, I've read all the threads and stayed away thus far, but I'm getting increasingly boggled that people feel that they can post on forum boards saying 'you must post like this and not like that.'

It's the internet you are not going to be able to regulate it!

MN has sides that are blunt and sides that are fluffy and supportive.

Whenever a thread comes up asking what people like about MN I always read 'AIBU tells you what you need to hear, as opposed to what you want to hear'. Chat is for chat, Topics are just that. Hide the ones you don't like! Whilst I support the idea mentioned in Maryz's initial post it really saddens me that this is a step that 'needs' to be taken.

And the whole naming names of this thread is unpleasant and even though Hully and my paths have rarely, if ever, crossed she needs wine and cake right now.


expatinscotland Mon 30-Sep-13 18:17:13

'I'm making suggestions in response to the op while also asking how the 'avoiding certain posters' tactic is workable'

It works quite well, until the poster goes and NCs. But, well, you said you've been here for 6 years, and these threads are old hat to anyone who has been here that long, and plenty of people avoid others both here and in real life and it works just fine.

littlemisswise Mon 30-Sep-13 18:18:38

This isn't Hully bashing at all. No one has named her, yet she has singled out some posters and named them, me included.

I like banter on MN, I like the laughter, the joking and the fun. However, it is not that sort of banter some people have a problem with and it has been said over and over again. If that can not be seen well <shrugs> I don't know what the answer is.

But do you know what? It's not just the "regs" who are upset, there are a lot of us who are upset. I'm not leaving because someone who thinks they might have been here longer than me tells me I should. I will continue to N/C when I see fit for my own valid reasons and I will to post on any thread that I want!

StarfishTrooper Mon 30-Sep-13 18:19:12

If they're old hat, that means it's a recurring issue. I'd like to try to help solve it.

Pagwatch Mon 30-Sep-13 18:19:53

I agree with what Expat said, especially

' some peoples' idea of 'polite' is another one's idea of ridiculous'

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 18:20:48

The end of the second thread was a good old Hully (and others bashing). And it was all the same posters, so I think it's a fair assumption that they haven' had a radical afternoon change of heart.

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 18:21:53


Ok, really am out now.

littlemisswise Mon 30-Sep-13 18:23:51

It wasn't fucking me at the end the second thread Hully. I didn't even post until yesterday afternoon!

expatinscotland Mon 30-Sep-13 18:26:23

'If they're old hat, that means it's a recurring issue. I'd like to try to help solve it.'

Great! Approach the owners with an offer to buy them all out, assuming they want to sell, then you can dictate to others how they post on your site.

expatinscotland Mon 30-Sep-13 18:28:09

It's a recurring issue because the site has expanded exponentially.

BIWIZ Mon 30-Sep-13 18:31:38

Why is it so difficult to accept that what was being offered in the OP here was a chance for all the posters who don't want banter/derailing to have their own space on MN?

What's wrong with that?

Some people like banter and see derailing as a good/interesting development (with the obvious caveat that it's not done on sensitive threads), and some don't.

If you don't like it, then use bits of the site where that is more likely not to happen.

If you won't use the relevant topics, which MN so carefully and kindly create for us all, then avoid chat which is - to quote RebeccaMumsnet again:

"It is absolutely fine to wander off topic, some of the best threads happen that way - contrary to popular belief, we are not the fun police.

Chat is for, well, chat about anything and everything. If someone wants to start a serious thread about a specific issue then we have many, many topics to chose from and if we don't have a topic that the discussion naturally falls into, then by all means use chat and specify in the OP or use Other Subjects etc."

EstelleGetty Mon 30-Sep-13 18:34:13

I actually can't stand this. I've done nothing for most of this thread but try to make peace and extend the hand of friendship to those I'd clashed with. Then I get publicly put on the shitlist for a giggle.

I hope you can see how upsetting that is. Bye.

JustineMumsnet (MNHQ) Mon 30-Sep-13 18:35:43

Hello all,
Just whizzed through this thread and herewith some thoughts:

1. I can't see us ever having an off-topic/ topic divergence rule on MN - as I put in a forward of one of a MN book once and as RebeccaMN said, the batty serendipity of a turn in a thread can sometimes be one of the greatest joys of MN.

2. Deliberately derailing - ie acting in such a way as to make the original conversation of a topic impossible - eg by posting continuously to fill up a thread because you simply don't like/ approve of a conversation is NOT on. We are FOR freedom of speech and this is effectively just a web version of shouting folks down.

3. Going onto a thread with sole purpose of snurking and piss taking is also not on. For reasons as above.

If posters repeatedly engage in 2&3 we would have to conclude that they don't accept the site's main purpose - to make parents' lives easier and will suspend their reg. However, banter and off topic is not necessarily a sign of the above and we would, as always, take each case as it comes and do our best to be fair.

4. If people are posting in _chat about serious subjects simply because of the 30 day rule then we need to look at finding a solution or solutions for that, because clearly chat and banter are acceptable and even to be encouraged in the Chat topic and we would be loathe to make complicated rules about when you can and can't banter.

We will also look at how we can encourage posters to us all available topics as that's why we have them and it may help with some of these issues. There may well be a tech solution to this. Promise to come back to you with thoughts over the next few days.

Thanks for all the constructive suggestions here - if you have any more, or know of something that works well on other forums, please feel free to add.

A reminder as ever that we're here to make eachothers' lives easier so if we can show a bit of restraint/kindness/tolerance/peace and/or love I'm sure we'll find it's not as tricky a sitch as we thought.

Thanking y'all.

middleclassdystopia Mon 30-Sep-13 18:35:47

Estelle sad

Come back!

usualsuspect Mon 30-Sep-13 18:36:32

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

middleclassdystopia Mon 30-Sep-13 18:38:43

Brilliant post by MNHQ.

It is precisely two and three which I see as if not bullying then rude and inappropiate.

I think it highlighted the difference between harmless banter and change of topic and the kind of posting which upsets people.

usualsuspect Mon 30-Sep-13 18:39:46

Ok I'm out.

middleclassdystopia Mon 30-Sep-13 18:41:33

I'm happy with that. That MNHQ have stated clearly what isn't on and to report if you see it.

But harmless chat, banter, wandering off topic is of course fine.

What do others think?

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 18:43:31

No one has ever disagreed with what Justine has posted, Middle

The essential difficulty remains

You see it everywhere, where it doesn't exist

plus ca change

alreadytaken Mon 30-Sep-13 18:43:43

onestepcloser as has been said this wasn't about hully, she chose to portray it that way. I think someone said on one thread they keep a spreadsheet of people they don't like. I don't and I don't remember either who first started being an arse or everyone who posted. If people persist in being an arse then I do remember them.

Could have been resolved very simply with a sorry it got out of hand.

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 18:44:48

could have been resolved very simply with a "let me do as you dictate"

not going to fly, middle

Amrapaali Mon 30-Sep-13 18:45:07

I am more than happy with that. Thanks, Justine.

I am very happy the MNHQ can clearly point out the difference between deliberate derailing and thread drift.

middleclassdystopia Mon 30-Sep-13 18:45:09

'going onto a thread with sole purpose of snurking or piss taking is NOT on'

Great! That is what I have meant and wanted acknowledged.

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 18:45:51

anyway I'm out too

I'll stick to my policy

float, float on

No one really keeps a spreadsheet.


expatinscotland Mon 30-Sep-13 18:47:06

Wait for me, Hully!

littlemisswise Mon 30-Sep-13 18:49:46


I can't stand it either. I haven't accused anyone. I have not been on either side. I tried to explain yesterday why people are not always confident to speak up on threads when the snurking and piss taking is going on. But I too have been publicly named on the shit list when I wasn't even on the fucking thread Hully was bashed on!

I am actually in tears here, so fuck the lot of you, you've won!

middleclassdystopia Mon 30-Sep-13 18:50:45

Yes and difference between natural off topic chat and laughs and deliberate derailment.

There is a difference.

I am happy to leave it at that. I am confident now that MNHQ knows the difference and I can report if I see these things. Of course they can correct me if o've got it wrong.

And no one needs to worry about banter, wit, natural off topic chat being banned because that is fine and not deliberate derailment.

What is there left to argue about?

alreadytaken Mon 30-Sep-13 18:51:47

thanks Justine - sorry to be a pain but I don't like being called a liar. Is it possible to confirm I didn't start either of the other two threads and wasn't on the first one under another name? I don't know if that is technically feasible.

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 18:53:11




Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 18:53:20


Pagwatch Mon 30-Sep-13 18:54:22

There is no spreadsheet.

I am sorry you are upset Littlemisswise.
Hopefully, as I did,you will soon realise it is not worth getting upset about. But I know it is tough atthe time.

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 18:54:27


Didn't notice Justine.

Sorry miss blush

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 18:54:33

don't be upset littlemiss, it's not a "shit list"

I was simply trying to identify and alert those posters who seemed to take exception to me. That's all. It was supposed to be a positive solution!

usualsuspect Mon 30-Sep-13 18:55:16

I did fuck off, I only came back to see who was shouting.

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 18:55:40

We all knew and still know the rules middle

<hopeless sigh>

It's your interpretation that's the problem

oh well

on it goes

middleclassdystopia Mon 30-Sep-13 18:55:48

What did you think of MNHQ last post Maryz?

I thought it highlighted very well difference between rude or bullying behaviour and natural chat and banter.

Can't we all accept that and try to move on. I'm happy to now.

Pagwatch Mon 30-Sep-13 18:55:52

Come have a caprinihahahahaha .
PhilTaylor is by the pool. It's all going well.

FavoriteThings Mon 30-Sep-13 18:55:59

I think, though I will need some more thought, is that people will have to be often reminded that chat is for chat. And my post of 17.26pm will need to happen.

Chat is 90 days, isnt it?

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 18:56:14

And since I have never, ever bantered deliberately to stop anyone talking about a topic (apart from a couple of wanking, hairy handed truckers called Dave) or snurked on a serious thread, I presume that my version of chat and banter is ok.

As is that of 90% of the people on the site.

So next time someone tells me to stay on topic, I'm going to inform them that we don't have to, that conversation moves on, and that Justine said so.

That's all I wanted.

Though I still think a "warning" at the top of Chat would be useful.

expatinscotland Mon 30-Sep-13 18:56:29

For some people, it really is All About Themselves.

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 18:56:31

<runs after mary and pag>

glad you are happy middle

long may it last

Tigerbomb Mon 30-Sep-13 18:56:34

WTH is snurking? I've googled it and it says inappropriate flirting?

Surely banter is all subjective as well. Some would say banter, others would say piss taking. In my neck of the woods pisstaling is usually friendsly as well

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 18:56:48

middle, I'm glad to see you back - I hope you can now see what we were getting at in the first place. If everyone did, then this wouldn't even be a discussion.

littlemisswise Mon 30-Sep-13 18:57:25

Well you have upset me Hully because you named me. I wasn't even on the thread where you were bashed. I have no agenda with anyone.

middleclassdystopia Mon 30-Sep-13 18:57:30

Hully I interpret it just as it was worded in that post.

In fact it worded it better than i've been trying to.

But I do havd pregnancy brain!

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 18:58:52

x-posted - middle class, I thought Justine's post was exactly what I have been saying all the time.

The trouble is, some people (goaders) aren't happy with that. They want all of us banned from going off topic at all. And call it bullying if the conversation meanders and we all start chatting.

That was the problem in the first place.

And if you and others can't see that we will be having the same conversation next week [sigh]

Maryz Mon 30-Sep-13 18:59:37

And if people are upset by this, I'm really sorry, and I know how you feel because I spent most of yesterday feeling shit.

I have a real life full of misery, I don't need to come here to get more.

BIWIZ Mon 30-Sep-13 18:59:43

Good post from Justine. Hopefully that will make things more transparent for everyone.

And it goes back to what was being said throughout all the other posts/threads - if you have a problem with a thread/post or poster, report it to MNHQ.

littlemiss - sorry you're upset. It's shit sometimes when you feel it's too personal.

Viviennemary Mon 30-Sep-13 19:00:13

What's this thread about. I'm lost.

middleclassdystopia Mon 30-Sep-13 19:01:45

Nah I never said, or meant to say that all off topic chat is rude or bullying.

As Justine said it is deliberate derailment abd deliberate piss taking.

Really that is what i've meant all along. And I have seen those behaviours from time to time and yes they should be reported.

Viviennemary Mon 30-Sep-13 19:02:06

What I meant was how do I know if I'm on topic or not if I don't know what the topic is. Oh go back to sleep. I'm now talking to myself.

middleclassdystopia Mon 30-Sep-13 19:05:15

However I also think posters have off days. We all have real life shit as well.

LtEveDallas Mon 30-Sep-13 19:05:48

I think what Justine has just said is what we have been saying ALL ALONG.

FFS. 3 bastards threads about bullying (which wasn't) and the near ruination of Maryz's thread.


Bloody ridiculous.

And since I have never, ever bantered deliberately to stop anyone talking about a topic (apart from a couple of wanking, hairy handed truckers called Dave) or snurked on a serious thread, I presume that my version of chat and banter is ok

Me too - and EVERYONE ELSE.

(How long before the first "wah wah wah, that just proves that MNHQ favour the regulars")

littlemisswise Mon 30-Sep-13 19:09:06

No, BIWI it is shit when you are named!

Amrapaali Mon 30-Sep-13 19:15:18

Agree littlemiss it IS SHIT. And all the other posters bleating on about how THEY were targeted and ganged up on. Ironic, really.

But lets not have another bun fight. Justine shared some wise words. I think we should draw a line now and move on.

BIWIZ Mon 30-Sep-13 19:15:21

I know, littlemiss, I was named on the bullying thread.

LtEveDallas Mon 30-Sep-13 19:19:31

As was Hully, so you know what, now you know how she felt.

Pagwatch Mon 30-Sep-13 19:20:30

I was identified rather than named. It is shit
That's why I commiserated upthread.

FellatioNelson Mon 30-Sep-13 19:22:03

It is absolutely fine to wander off topic, some of the best threads happen that way - contrary to popular belief, we are not the fun police.

Chat is for, well, chat about anything and everything. If someone wants to start a serious thread about a specific issue then we have many, many topics to chose from and if we don't have a topic that the discussion naturally falls into, then by all means use chat and specify in the OP or use Other Subjects etc.

Yes!! Bingo!!! Straight from the horse's mouth.

What else is there to say? confused

Pagwatch Mon 30-Sep-13 19:22:12



Ok . I think the irony for me is no one who named me or targeted me - these champions of the upset - offered a word when I was upset.
funny that.

Cheddars Mon 30-Sep-13 19:23:02

Justine's rule no 2, Fellatio, is what was being discussed.

HoneyDragon Mon 30-Sep-13 19:23:24

I see I have been deliberately misquoted on here. Yet another example of shit being dragged across threads. Nice.

Think I might fuck off for a bit too. Congratulations

littlemisswise Mon 30-Sep-13 19:23:45

sad BIWI

LtEveDallas Mon 30-Sep-13 19:25:49


(I didn't when you said the same to me....so DON'T YOU BLOODY DARE smile)

Amrapaali Mon 30-Sep-13 19:26:02

Pag- sorry, I wasn't talking about you. Hully felt she was hard done by on this thread. There was actually nothing of the sort. And then she goes and names people to avoid... I found that ironic.

littlemisswise Mon 30-Sep-13 19:26:17

I didn't name her, LtEve, I was even on that fucking thread, so why name me? I have no agenda with Hully, I have no agenda with anyone. So Hully can make me cry just because another poster made her upset last week?

littlemisswise Mon 30-Sep-13 19:27:40

I wasn't even on the thread

Bloody ipad

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 19:28:20

Still crying?


I think me trying t avoid hurting your feelings in future hardly warrants quite such a long cry.

I was named and had threads linked and everything. But hey, who gives a shit about that?

Pagwatch Mon 30-Sep-13 19:30:37

Erm Littlemiss
It sucks. I had no issue with anyone until that thread. I still don't know who they are or what their problem is.
As difficult as it is - we are actually in the same boat.

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 19:31:49

Do you mean the sinking ship pag?

valiumredhead Mon 30-Sep-13 19:33:15

Littlemiss so report then, do it now if you feel unfairly treated. MNHQ encouraged people to do so earlier, repeatedly.

amrap that's out of context, she named posters who she thought SHE would be best to avoid so as to not upset them further, not for others to avoid.

Unless I have the wrong end of the stick...

valiumredhead Mon 30-Sep-13 19:34:43

Urghh actually Im confused now, I give up!

LtEveDallas Mon 30-Sep-13 19:34:46

Littlemiss, my understanding of what Hully posted is that those she named do not like banter or going off topic. They also believe that threads have been purposely derailed by banter and going off topic and comments were made earlier about <snurking> and <snorking> on threads.

Hully does not want to upset anyone, so will avoid threads started by the named posters so that she is not tempted to derail, banter, snurk or snort on them - as those posters do NOT like it and there are plenty other threads she can do that one if she wishes.

(Ok, it's probably not the nicest thing to have done, but frankly I can understand why she did it. I was tempted myself)

SnakeyMcBadass Mon 30-Sep-13 19:35:11


<breathes hard through flaring nostrils>

Now, calm the fuck down you bunch of bastrads <ambiguous, and deliberately misspelled/spelt? Arse knows>

littlemisswise Mon 30-Sep-13 19:35:50

No I am not still crying Hully. You didn't hurt my feelings until you publicly named me. I wasn't on that thread you were named on so I don't understand your problem! You have griped and moaned about being named, yet turned round and done exactly the same thing!

No-one should have been named, not you, not Pagwatch, not BIWI, not me not anyone!

LtEveDallas Mon 30-Sep-13 19:35:52

Oh sorry Hully, thought you were gone blush

Pagwatch Mon 30-Sep-13 19:36:09

Well it certainly hasn't helped has it.
I actually think people are far more entrenched.

All of which could have been avoided if a few of the determined champions of the underdog had actually reported when they saw things rather than saving it for a nudge nudge extravaganza.

I still don't know why they don't report.
All the yehawing over Justine confirming that the rules are exactly as they have always been and they just need to report.

But I am sad Littlemiss is upset. I am sad that so many people have Ben upset while I few asshats have their little moment.

StarfishTrooper Mon 30-Sep-13 19:36:15

I was named too as someone who hully thinks doesn't like her. I don't know why. I wasn't on that thread.

Great to see a post from MNHQ at last, thank you Justine.

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 19:37:13

will no one think of Ben? <wrings hands>

ChestyNut Mon 30-Sep-13 19:37:31

Oh my

Please, enough sad

All this shite is making MN a miserable place to be.

People are adults and can post where and how they like. If they break the rules.....REPORT.

Internet Is just like life, some people are nice, some people are not.

mistlethrush Mon 30-Sep-13 19:37:42

Generally speaking, I think that people should post on threads where they like - but if they don't like the tone of a thread they should either report it or go and find a thread that does have the tone they want. This is what I have been doing for the last 7 years, and apart from on one occasion, it has worked well - and on that occasion I used the report button.

Clearly some people don't like other people's tone. But why on earth stay on the same threads as them - go and find ones that you want to hang around on instead.

This is a small bit of 'real life' - you won't like everyone, not everyone has the same ideas as you, and not everyone will agree with you.

middleclassdystopia Mon 30-Sep-13 19:38:18

Look can't we try to resolve this now.

Those who post regularly under the same name have inevitably built up friendships. They want to be able to chat freely, have a laugh, share humour etc. Fine of course, and as long as they don't break rules two and three of Justine's post they have nothing to worry about. Just no deliberate derailment and no piss taking that is designed to hurt or undermine anyone.

Those who feel concerned by a bullying culture or have been hurt by bullying behaviour, at least Justine has acknowledged it is put of order and will take reports seriously

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 19:38:40

No, it was a good summary, thank you Lt.

I can't believe posters who filled two threads moaning about not liking derailment, banter blah blah, amongst which I was named hinted at etc, don't like me promising to stay away form them!!!


You just want me to lie under a truck, don't you?

ChestyNut Mon 30-Sep-13 19:40:02

Hully! Stay away from trucks thanks

littlemisswise Mon 30-Sep-13 19:42:09

Valium it was reported hence the post has gone.

LtEve, look back at the thread. You will see Hully has upset more than me by that post. I don't dislike banter <wonders just how many more times I am going to have to say that> I dislike the piss taking banter. I

middleclassdystopia Mon 30-Sep-13 19:42:27

You see i'm genuinely trying to offer an olive branch here and make peace.

But being told we're 'asshats having a little moment' makes it hard.

Hullygully Mon 30-Sep-13 19:43:49

you've really pissed everyone off middle

perhaps that's why

middleclassdystopia Mon 30-Sep-13 19:44:17

Stay away from trains. In case they derail...

littlemisswise Mon 30-Sep-13 19:45:29



Pagwatch Mon 30-Sep-13 19:45:58

Poor Ben grin