to think MNHQ should not be deleting posts in this way? WARNING: Ranty

[doublestandard]

So, having a post deleted is a MN rite of passage and all that, but I think MNHQ have got a bit trigger happy with the delete button of late but not in a good way. And yes this is a bit thread about a thread but I think it's a general problem and worth discussing.

As an example, I have recently had a post from AIBU deleted because I said the manner in which a poster had disregarded others opinions was "flaming arrogant" and that "You have come across on this thread as a self-important, judgey know-it-all". Apparently this constitutes a personal attack?? Since when have we not been allowed to say that a specific post on a thread suggests arrogance? Or that a poster is coming across in a certain way? It is not saying the poster is arrogant or a self-important, judgey know-it-all but that is how they are being perceived.

Now ordinarily I'd shrug this off but I'm seeing more and more posters crying "personal attack!" when disagreed with and then having posts that seem to me to be quite reasonable deleted. I am also baffled that MNHQ have decided that it is not a personal attack to leave up comments by another poster stating that I condone child abuse (I mean what the actual fuck?!) when I have said nothing of the kind and because my post above is deleted people can't make up their own minds. Either delete both or delete neither surely?

I think most people on MN employ an attack the posts, not the poster as a rule. Yes, it is a bit more blunt on AIBU than relationships or behaviour and development for example, and I think that's right, but I find the nannying attitude and selective decisions not to be in the spirit of MN.

-----

Disclaimers

I have namechanged because I don't want to draw any more attention to the thread where MNHQ sees fit to allow a post to stand that falsely states I support the abuse of children. I suspect a few people may recognise me and/or the thread so I'd prefer not to be outed thanks.

In the interests of fairness there was another part of my post that MNHQ felt could be interpreted as "giving the finger". It was actually nothing of the kind - it was a reference to being part of a particular organisation and then a flounce - but I can see how someone might have interpreted it as that even if I don't agree. Fair enough to decide to take it down, but why leave up a libellous post stating a poster condones child abuse when the orginal post is not there to be judged?

I have raised this with MNHQ and the second paragraph draws on their email response.

[GypsyMoth]

Link?

[pigletmania]

YANBU I have noticed that MNHQ has been deleting quite a lot recently

[doublestandard]

No link for reason given. If both posts aren't there to judge it's not fair.

[HecateQueenOfWitches]

I agree. If we can't say what we think about a post, then what's the point?They should actually READ a post before deleting it - I don't think they do a lot of the time and that's wrong.

A personal attack is saying that someone is a bitch, a cow or wishing horrible things on them. If they've decided that we are too delicate to cope with that, then fair enough. (I disagree, but never mind) Delete it and let's all be 5 and play 'takebacks' and pretend it was never said.

But we are slowly slipping into Must Agree At All Times territory and that's a bad thing. Next they'll be deleting you if you disagree with an opinion. Saying you think someone's talking rubbish will be a personal attack. How can you have a discussion board if you can't discuss, you can only agree? If you have to spend 20 minutes ensuring you have worded your post so correctly that it cannot possibly be interpreted as a criticism in any way, shape or form, then what's the point?

I really really really think MNHQ need to sit down and think this through. They are losing what made mumsnet - mumsnet.

There are loads of fluffy bunny let's all be sweet to each other's faces and bitch in pm sites around for those who want them. What made mn different is that you can disagree. You can argue. You can say actually, I think that's a load of bollocks.

I really wouldn't want to lose that, but I can see it going that way.

[doublestandard]

Thanks piglet feel a bit better it's not just me! I was when I got the reply from MNHQ.

If we can't tell it how it is what's the point of MN?

[Georgimama]

MNHQ are very trigger happy with the delete button of late. Too much so.

[doublestandard]

x-posted with Hecate who has said it so well.

[Georgimama]

Hecate is right (TM).

[doublestandard]

Georgimama.

[HoneyPablo]

I have issues with all the trigger-happy deleting at the moment. I think MN is far, too moderated.
I think all it needs to get a post deleted is someone hitting the report button and the post gets deleted, whether it warrants it or not.
I would like to see a quote facility, where we could quote posts. That way it would be much harder for posts to be deleted. But, they are not going to do that, are they?
I wonder if they are worried about being sued, or held liable in some way.

[HecateQueenOfWitches]

Actually, thinking about it, I wonder if could possibly be a business decision?

MN gets its income from advertisers. Perhaps they are dictating the style of the site starting to exert a certain pressure? The big companies want to associate with a certain image, iyswim.

Probably not I am cynical to the point of insanity

[FredBare]

i find it hilarious that you are allowed to use the foulest language - ok, each to their own - but by the same token you arent allowed to say your opinion is different to the masses on certain topics. Surely we are all adults, we can cope with a bit of free speech. On the other hand though, lots of these trendy wendy liberals bleat about free speech (as long as its their free speech and doesnt go against their opinion)

LOL Hilarious!

[piratecat]

i haven't seen the threads you all seem to know of. Yet is do feel that the mumsnet mindset is getting a bit like a massive shoal of fish, whereby you ALL have to go one way, together and you are not allowed to deviate.

boring.

[Tee2072]

Hecate is, as always, right.

Any response, MNHQ?

[Georgimama]

Yes, I have seen MNHQ come on threads and pretty much say that if a post has offended/upset someone then it gets deleted. There doesn't seem to be any consideration of whether the comments that have been deleted were in fact deserved. I was reported and deleted for quoting the OP back at them - it was the along the lines of "ludicrous wedding scenario blah blah blah, am I being unreasonable and a precious silly cow?" and I replied "yes YABU and a precious silly cow". I got deleted.

[FredBare]

The big companies want to associate with a certain image, iyswim.

if thats the case, why allow the foulest of language - that isnt cultivating a nice image is it

[Georgimama]

Hecate is right again.

[FabbyChic]

It gets pulled if reported. Some people have trigger fingers

[FredBare]

Yes, I have seen MNHQ come on threads and pretty much say that if a post has offended/upset someone then it gets deleted

blimey, i would be reporting all day long, if i could be arsed

but then i am tolerant that other people have different opinions - they might be completely ludicrous but thats their opinion LOL

[HecateQueenOfWitches]

Give them time, Fred. They are already editing thread titles to remove obscenities - something that never used to happen (many a thread complaining about this!) I predict that language inside threads will also be addressed shortly.

Not that I care about that, I find bad language shows a lack of imagination

[Georgimama]

Not that I care about that, I find bad language shows a lack of imagination

Too fucking right Hecate.

[AlpinePony]

Yanbu at all, particularly in your salient point that wicked accusations against you are upheld.

I have no idea what goes on at trigger happy hq. I got stuff deleted the other week for pointing out that a well-known mner was 'fudging the facts'. Indeed, what the actual fuck?

[piratecat]

we're falling prey to the money makers :(

[doublestandard]

YY "There doesn't seem to be any consideration of whether the comments that have been deleted were in fact deserved. I was reported and deleted for quoting the OP back at them - it was the along the lines of "ludicrous wedding scenario blah blah blah, am I being unreasonable and a precious silly cow?" and I replied "yes YABU and a precious silly cow". I got deleted." that's the sort of thing exactly.

I was all set to be told I was just sour grapes about my post but now I feel much better. Probably mainly the result of having Hecate nestled in my bosom

Incidentally I told MNHQ it upset me to be associated with child abuse (after politely asking for my post to be reinstated or for the false comments attributed to me to be removed). They told me to respond on the thread. Which is not very fair when my original post is deleted. There are always the "no smoke without fire types".

[Psammead]

I don't think YABU or NU. I think you are being naive as to what it takes to moderate a site of this size and with such traffic.

They would need hundreds of moderators to read every post on every thread to moderate it fairly - and even then it would be a case of individual interpretation and degrees of 'attack'. To one moderator, being called one name might be worse than being called another, and to the next it might be completely different. It's really not easily done and it would lead to a stricter board which would not be welcomed by the community.

They rely on post reports. If it's not reported then it wont be deleted. If it's reported with a legitimate reason, it will be, but others around it might not be because they may not be read. Some posters are more trigger happy than others with post report.

It's really boils down to 'you cannot please all of the people all of the time.'