This is a Premium feature
To use this feature subscribe to Mumsnet Premium - get first access to new features see fewer ads, and support Mumsnet.Start using Mumsnet Premium
Civility, reasonableness, and those rules(261 Posts)
So, since I'm most likely on my way out anyway, why not start a conversation about this? I just received a warning/threat for posting a Widow Twanky joke (not directed at any specific person) in a thread. Not sure which one, because the very keen to enforce deference upon women person who sent it forgot to include a link to the thread they were complaining about, maybe Munroe Bergdorf and the silly FB ad? Anyway, apparently this breaks the guidelines, which does rather raise the point of whether those guidelines are in any way fit for purpose. You're trying to ban jokes? On this site? On any British site? You are aware that our pointed humor is somewhat of a national trait and something we're often admired for in other parts of the world?
I think that this is neither reasonable nor constructive, and I do not agree that it in any way helps to facilitate debate. I also do not think it's reasonable or constructive to have moderation that enables the targeting and therefore harassment of specific users with the aim of preventing them from participating in the debate. Numerous longtime commenters have been picked off this way, the most recent one being Lass (a person who I often disagreed with but respected, and who deserved the right to speak). This space is less interesting and less useful as a result of their being removed at the behest of angry TRAs and/or regular old blokes who don't like women critiquing the sex industry (which I assume is what happened to Lass).
Apparently MNHQ recently had a big internal conversation about this (or at least they said they were going to), and what has emerged is a continuance of the special rules that only apply to feminists being applied in a way that censors women's opinions and stifles debate in order to avoid upsetting male people with delicate egos. Do we think this is reasonable?
(If I vanish you know why - suspended for insubordination. If I can peak a few more people on the way out then I'm absolutely fine with that. I am still Spartacus.)
I thought the widow Twanky reference was very apt, and it certainly didn't single out any individual person for ridicule.
Deleting the post and claiming it breaks the special rules for discussing transgenderism is grossly unfair. I agree with all the other previously posting domestic abuse survivors who have pointed out that coercive control from the moderation team is highly abusive and triggering.
It does seem a bit hypocritical to promote the Freedom Program while subjecting your own users to much the same behavior that it teaches women to recognize.
Yup. Spot on. Enough. And, may I add another request for the mods to do the Freedom Programme? Because repeatedly falling for coercive control methods and threatening women with bans for generic panto references is not remotely reasonable and suggests a serious blind spot, to say the least.
Well said kittens. Here for the (inevitable) deletion message.
I'm Spartacus too ✊🏻
Just because I'm going to be (inevitably) suspended doesn't mean I'm going to give up or stop peak transing people in other ways, btw, to stick that in your pipe and smoke it, lurking reporters.
Quite a few people seem to be being deleted for saying things which are deemed to not be "constructive", which seems a very subjective measure.
And also smacks of telling women that they must always, above all, be "nice".
panto references are out now?
<carefully hides bottom half of cow costume behind sofa>
seriously MNHQ - stop pandering to men's hurt feelings at the detriment women's ability to discuss reality. pretty please?
Here for the (inevitable) deletion message.
I hope not. I think the most they can reasonably do is move to site stuff. This is clearly a general discussion of the rules.
I want to be respectful of the rules, I think there is some advantage to rules which limit the obvious transphobe trolls (real or not). But I think it's really wrong insisting women miss-sex predators who are clearly driven by a hatred of women; like Yaniv, White or Hayden. I wish they'd operate a little more judgement.
panto references are out now?
Oh no they aren't.
I’ll reiterate for the cheap seats
The rules are not fair
The rules are not transparent
If the rules aren’t transparent then you are setting people up to fail
Be nice isnt a rule...it isnt even good English (and yeah i note the irony of me not using punctuation)
FWR is held to a much higher standard...bless, yawn, pantomime references
The ‘not following guidelines’ bit is really really unhelpful...not quite as unhelpful as having top secret ruled, but bloody close
And you keep saying you’ll look at the rules but its taking ages...its not really fair to delete people when you are reviewing the secret rules
(It’s possible that someone wrote the secret rules in invisible ink...in which case the delay is probably down to not being able to find the rules)
And if im honest on just about every other board i find the moderation very, erm moderate.
Ps...is reporting still open to randoms on the internet?
panto references are out now?
Oh no they aren't
Oh yes they are
And i do get that the mods are between a rock and a hard place
Virtually all my interactions with them have been lovely
Its just that this, this isn’t fair
Ooh look an apostrophe!
I bet we could fill a thread with panto references
Even just the ‘oh no it isn’t’ bit
Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.
Topics to discuss include...
Why do we need a different set of rules for talking about trans stuff?
Why are trans people entitled to an extra level of deference that no other group receives?
Why is even the mildest suggestion that a particular trans person isn't the Stunning part of Stunning and Brave unacceptable, when female celebrities are ripped to shreds all over Mumsnet over their looks?
Why is "misgendering" against the rules? Does Mumsnet consider it reasonable and constructive to force its users to lie? (If this was a court we'd call that perjury.)
Why are non users allowed to report comments? Is that reasonable? How do we think that might contribute to a constructive atmosphere, given that we already know that this board is obsessively monitored by individuals such as Hayden, Prior, etc?
Why are the people who comment here (ie. the actual content providers, the reason why MN makes money from advertisers) expected to adhere to a strict and often contradictory house style in terms of how they're expected to say things? Those people do not work for MN - if they're to be expected to follow a MN style guide perhaps MN should pay them to do so, as that's an expectation normally reserved for employees?
Has anyone on the mod team every done the Freedom Program that MN constantly promotes? If not, why not?
There are more, please feel free to add. On another thread if necessary, since I'm sure both the thread and I will be vanished as soon as the main mod team comes online in the morning?
(Still Spartacus, but also Magdalen, since apparently we can identify as anything we want and as Pip Bunce has informed us, it can change from one day to the next.)
I'm fucking fed up with being told I'm one of the Ugly Sisters by.... [self censor].
There. Another fucking panto joke.
(I'm too fed up with making sensible posts about this only for them to go unacknowledged. So panto jokes it is. It's either that or plain speaking about material reality. Pick one, mods, pick one.)
i'll be slapping my thigh soon......
and yes Rufus, if the rules aren't clear and seem to change from day to day......well how can posters know what's going on?
if people make themselves look ridiculous, they will attract ridicule. while it may not be kind, it's human nature
and taking the piss out of people who've made themselves look like twerps is a MN tradition. except under certain circumstances it seems
PS Jack of beanstalk fame is a girl, at least in panto, even if he's strapped his breasts down.
(We're usually allowed to say that, though, because who cares if girls complain? Certainly not the people in charge of writing and enforcing the special rules.)
I would like to ask HQ something on the back of this:
Can you explain what it is you are worried about happening?
Or if you genuinely think this is fair?
Justine Roberts is on record saying she supports free speech. Can you explain why this appears to apply to everyone, generally, apart from people talking about trans issues?
Is it the concern over litigation? And if so, can you clarify what legislation you think you might be in danger of violating?
I'm struggling to come up with a reason why you can't say, publicly, what is happening behind-the-scenes. If you are being targeted, surely acknowledging that, can't possibly count against you?
I know this is an ongoing issue. As if you can't explain, is it possible to explain why you can't explain?
If you genuinely think you're being fair, can you clarify why, in reality, the women here get sanctions for things they don't get elsewhere on the site.
OP sorry if I'm being dense but you said you'd received a warning/threat - from a random person or from MNHQ with the threat presumably being to ban your good self?
From MNHQ. Unsigned and with the template they used not properly filled in (they forgot to link the thread they were complaining about), which is interesting. Perhaps if you're going to be unreasonable it feels better not to sign your name to it.
Please login first.