Can we have a ruling on TAATs please?

[scarevola]

Because if none are allowed, that's clear and fine. Or if all are allowed, it's clear and fine.

But when some are and some aren't it's easy to get confused quickly.

So it seems that starting a TAAT in a topic about an AIBU thread is OK. Does that mean that it's now OK to start AIBUs about threads in topics?

[BuckskinnedAstronaut]

The guidelines don't say you can't have TAAT. They say that threads about deleted threads are likely to end up rehashing the arguments that led to the original thread's being deleted and that if that looks like happening then the new thread will be deleted too. Also there's the "no personal attacks" rule; under some circumstances a TAAT can be construed as a PA and those will probably be deleted. Also the general principle of "don't be a goady fucker" which I'm not sure is spelt out that way in the guidelines but is heavily implied - some TAAT are definitely goady.

So, essentially, no point reporting something for being a TAAT. Report it for personal attacks or degenerating into a bunfight or being goady or whatever, and if you like mention that it's ALSO a TAAT. But just the TAATness on its own shouldn't get a thread zapped - it just means it's given less benefit of the doubt than other threads.

[KateSMumsnet]

BuckskinnedAstronaut has it pretty much bang on. TAAT aren't against our talk guidelines, as we don't really mind people starting threads tangentially related to other threads. However, we will deleted threads that seems like they're rehashing deleted threads etc. And as always, a lot these things depend on context, so if you're ever unsure please do report to us and we'll take a look.