Please explain your deletion

[EhricLovesTheBhrothers]

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/2284010-Just-got-married-how-do-I-legally-change-my-name?msgid=51959653#51959653

On this thread. User marionhaste posted warning the op to be careful about changing Her name bcause it can be hard to change back if you get divorced. OP didn't like this but there was no personal attack in it, no offensive language, it did NOT break talk guidelines yet it has been deleted. Op says because it was hurtful. Is this your policy now? To delete different points of view when the OP finds th em hurtful? I'm furious!

[EhricLovesTheBhrothers]

Any response? I see you've posted on the thread and told everyone to be nice to the op. Since when has mumsnet functioned like this? Deleting a post for offering an alternative perspective? Is marriage suddenly sacrosanct and above debate? Is this actually you and your wedding dot com where the only response allowed is 'hugs Hun aren't you a lucky bride'? You don't agree that mumsnet has become sanitised and anodyne then you delete a post that broke no talk guidelines just because it upset a bride's feelings

[WhoKnowsWhereTheTimeGoes]

I was following that thread and agree.

[EhricLovesTheBhrothers]

Thanks who I'm glad im not the only one.

[TheOnlyOliviaMumsnet]

Hi there
We will have a look into this and get back to you

[CaptainJamesTKirk]

It's not been deleted on my phone. I can still see it all. Are you sure it's been deleted OP and you've not just lost track of it?

[CaptainJamesTKirk]

here.

[CaptainJamesTKirk]

Oh I see... sorry you mean a poster's post got deleted. Not the whole thread.

[Methe]

How ridiculous

[GraysAnalogy]

Captain she meant a post.

[GraysAnalogy]

Sorry x posts.

Seems very silly, especially considering we've been speaking about things like this happening

[Gumnast2014]

Totally agree Op

[Iggi999]

I read this thread but didn't see it pre-deletion - I assumed the poster must have called her a bitch or something to get deleted.

[Koalafications]

Completley agree, OP.

[AuntieStella]

Is it really now the case that we can only post on exactly the question the OP has asked - ie no thread can wander, no-one can post anything relevant but only tangentially relevant?

I didn't see the deleted post. If it was genuinely rude/insulting (ie a personal attack) then of course it should go. But if simply raising another angle of the whole name changing question, then I don't see why it needs to go. Because that's not a breach of talk guidelines.

I don't think being newlywed is any grounds for special consideration.

And if posts widening debate are to be deleted on one thread, then they should be on all (and there are oodles of them).

Does MNHQ have 'taste' guidelines on what we are free to say (short of personal attack)?

[Koalafications]

I seen the post.

It was something along the lines of "if you do change your name don't start a thread on here complaining that the school refer to you as Mrs John Smith because you didn't realise you were taking your husbands full name"

[EhricLovesTheBhrothers]

No personal attacks
No posts that break the law
No trolling, misleading or deliberately inflammatory behaviour
No trollhunting
No spamming

Talk guidelines ^ this post didn't break them, but the OP found it "hurtful"

[GraysAnalogy]

It'll probably be the whole 'spirit of mumsnet' thing that seems to be being used a lot more now, the one which is quite subjective!

[EhricLovesTheBhrothers]

Indeed!
The spirit of mumsnet to me is all about offering alternative points of view and not toeing the line in terms of cultural and social expectations of gendered behaviour. The spirit of mumsnet is intelligent women questioning behaviour and choices.
Apparently not?

[GraysAnalogy]

I thought so too, but I'm swaying towards us having to be nice huns

[KatieKaye]

that deletion seems more than a bit precious.
I don't see why the OP being newly wed warrants the deletion of a post giving factual information (even if she was black-affronted by it) and then a "warning" from MN to be nice.

[emotionsecho]

Ehric the post you referenced in your OP is showing on the thread when I look at it, I'm on the mobile site if that makes any difference. One post has been deleted, from comments I think it is one that called the author of the post you reference a bitch.

[EhricLovesTheBhrothers]

Looks as though it has been reinstated. The post was definitely deleted yesterday - you can see Marion and the OP referencing the fact.

HQ, thanks for making the right call, any response on here?

[WhoKnowsWhereTheTimeGoes]

It has been reinstated, I would have described it as "raining on someone's parade" at worst.

[GraysAnalogy]

Yes it's been reinstated. A shame it had to be questioned in the first place though.

[TheOnlyOliviaMumsnet]

Sorry for the delay - too many windows open on my 'puter today!

Right, can see we've got a few things to clear up here.
To clarify, the guidelines listed are correct.

The "spirit of the site" is indeed subjective on some levels.
There are a few of us here at MNHQ and we try and apply the guidelines as we see them on a case by case basis and yes we read every single report that comes in .

In this instance, the post was perhaps hastily deleted - and we’ve reinstated. We are only human.

The overall guideline is that Mumsnet's raison d'être is to make lives easier, so it's often that a thread is deleted and the spirit of the site is the reason given, based on the fact that the thread or post is clearly not making lives easier.

@AuntieStella

Is it really now the case that we can only post on exactly the question the OP has asked - ie no thread can wander, no-one can post anything relevant but only tangentially relevant?

Absolutely not - we love a good deviation us. But not a derailing iykwwm.

@AuntieStella

Does MNHQ have 'taste' guidelines on what we are free to say (short of personal attack)?

In terms of taste guidelines, we certainly don't have a list (!) no but if needed we would bring this back to the spirit of the site.


HTH - as ever, do let us know if not.
MNHQ