When all this has calmed down, can we have a proper chat about what MNHQ, actually want please?

Might start a Bring Back Hulababy as Mod campaign.

The advertisers want will spend money and sometimes they want quotable - I dnon't think fluffy comes into it.

Well, Hulababy and cod are still here. So they can slot straight back in. Seriously, think it's a great idea.

They can also explain the Talk Guidelines on threads, cf in the OP "I'm buggered if I know what I can and can't say anymore".

I remember too sunbathe and really feel that returning to that sort of system that helps to resolve conflict as well as bridging the gap between mnhq and members. Moderators that can move/close threads etc (edit/delete posts, at least take action unroll someone from mnhq can take a look), help new members to find their feet, trouble shoot, do peace keeping, engage members when clearly they are having a bad hair day (and have acted out on a thread, due to external stresses) etc, is a really good idea. I feel it would help with the nurturing side to mn. Mods can keep abreast through mod channels and I think this would give more consistent care to the site itself.

Off to think of a new name

At the risk of annoying people, I've been here since 2004 (under various guises) and remember the volunteer peer modding we had.

It worked really well, imo. And having respected regulars who did it, really did seem to pour oil on troubled waters.

It would be great if we could return to that.

I think you have summed it up well Honey.

It can't, it seems, be fluffy and robust.

ought just to add, i think all the campaigning stuff mn does is genuinely motivated as a service to users too, like the moderation, its just that it also unavoidably functions in a shaping commercial context.

God, its terrible trying to type thoughtfully on a tablet. Makes me feel like a neanderthal articulating with my fists.

Second sentence should be 'I dont think the advertisers do want fluffy'

I really don't think the moderation issues are to do with sanitising mn for the advertisers. I don't think advertisers dont want fluffy, in that sense. I think 'straight talking', 'robustness' etc is something that they want to piggyback on: they come out of their ads on the side of the screen into sponsored threads in order to parasitise that air of authenticity in conversation , which is precisely what old style adverts lack.

For example, MNHQ is STILL hammering the decidedly non-fluffy penisbeaker stuff (by starting a thread on that idiotic Telegraph story about sex on mn). That doesn't sanitise mn for advertisers, unless its ann summers hq wants to court. It does seem degenerate, though, as if mnhq realise they've got all the publicity they can from campaigning and from women-as-political and now have to scrape around from a sleazier barrel. (Still, at least that means that we are less exposed to the morally challenging spectacle of mn political campaigning functioning as a front window promotion of mn to advertisers -- I'm much happier with penis beakers taking on that role.)

I think the way they tackle the moderation issues is largely to do with making the site work as a conversation space -- work for its users. But I think that the problems are just going to get worse, largely because of the mission for constant expansion that presumably motivates all the publicity. That's the point at which the dependence on advertisers corrupts things.

Now thay

Cannot be from

This is not navel gazing

I think ultimately it's not us it's Them

I think up in HQ Mumsnet are at at odds.

They want to keep the media going with their wimmin are clever too, look at our campaigns, look at what mnetters do for each other spiel.

But

That is at odds with what they want to present to advertisers, who want fluffy. So then comes in the sanitisation, and telling off on threads of being girls.

I just think the natural bland of no bullshit, strong opinions and viper fluffiness is now being picked apart, they are trying to turn it into a marketing formula, when it was something very organic.

This is why now I think you get two lots of disgruntled newbies. Which trot out the following phrases with, I think, concerning regularity.

I just came here as I was told this was a nice place for support and you are all horrible.

And

I came here because you are all supposed to be clever, I thought this was a place for robust debate and opinions why are you all running off to the mods reporting me.

Now. Justine's been very quick to say of late that they have never presented Mnet as a safe place yada, yada, yada. And it's not its on the Internet and a forum.

But if you need to talk wouldn't do it at the forum that has very public campaigns against the abuse of women?

This is navel gazing, I'm not obsessing over it, it's just casual observation.

And moderation doesn't have to be consistent, it rarely is. And if you get deleted, and people go "eh why?" A post can be reinstated. But moderation has to be consistent in the sense that, it can just be from 8am to 9:30pm, if the site is used for 24 hours.

Nope, I didn't mean it that way at all. I don't think my opinion is worth more than anyone else. But I do get pissed off that these days being here for a few years seems to make a poster either a target for varying accusations, or a sad person with no life. Or both.

Well put Annie.

It does seem to me these days that any argument between a "regular" and a "newbie" ends up with the reg getting a tap on the wrist or more.

We have to be nice to the newbies. That's fine, I'm happy to do that. But surely the newbies should at least be asked to be nice to us too. And that's the bit that seems to be missing atm

I like that post, Mildred.

I'm not sure why the night modder idea has turned so sour- afaik, we actually asked for it, after the site was brought to its knees by spam like "Watch Borussia Dortmund online free" etc, and a late night troll posting vile stuff about dead babies and stuff like that. It's not supposed to be about sophisticated judgement calls, but about zapping very obvious wrong 'uns who target the site after 2am or so until office hours start again. It would be monitored, so anyone who got a God Complex would be fucked off pretty quickly.

That's the problem mildred.

There are obviously some precious people over-reporters around.

I have never, ever reported an attack on me. And I would rather others didn't either. If people are rude, I'd like the comments to stay as evidence.

PS
On the subject of stats, it has just occurred to me that I have never reported a post of someone else's because of a "personal attack". I can't imagine the thought processes of someone who would report a poster for a "personal attack" like "fuck off" or even, hilariously, something like "you bossy boots". I have been hurt and annoyed by posts of course, but now I think about the thought processes of going and whining about it just - I just - FFS, have these people no self-respect?

1 - I agree that problematising some notion of "goady" is counterproductive. I had issues with it on the original "goady fuckers" thread, vaguely wondered about posting about it, but Threadie in one of her fabulous disguises did very eloquently, and I considered it done.

2 - I couldn't give a shit about consistency in moderation. According to some weak quantitative means certainly. I know some people thought it was unseemly to publish AF's stats, but I thought - there is no shame in it. I hope she doesn't mind that they are out there, but those numbers are meaningless. The very system according to which they are compiled is as nonsensical as "number of times men called Dave shut you up by calling you a fiery redhead" or something. This fetish of consistency is standing in for something more substantive because of insecurity about what that might be, and about articulating it too. (2 different things)

3 - On the whole, I do seem to like it here, as I am here a lot. I have had a metric fuck-ton of support here and I am so fucking grateful for that. but I do get pissed off with the "la la la la la fingers in ears" attitudes to how feminists get treated these days on the interwebs. And I am a bit eye-rolly about determined "equality" standing in for actual fairness. I have written in more detail about this elsewhere.

4 - this is such a weird situation, isn't it? that someone is monetising our cameraderie? Don't you think that is weird. You would have said, "oh you can't put a price on a nice dry, wry atmosphere, but a solid shoulder to cry on when you need it." But there is a price on it. How do we feel about that? I don't exactly care. Because I don't come here and try to be kind or funny to get paid, so why should I care if someone else is making £££ out of it. but... are there costs? Ultimately right now this is a net gain for me as an individual because I have nowhere else like this to go and I need it. But there are books being sold, and things we have all said make those books up, and if I have ever said anything useful to any of you lot ever, I am very glad but you know what, I quite actively and deliberately said it FOR FREE. not to be sold off

I wasn't thinking of self appointment though. The peer mods I'm talking about have always been appointed by the site/MMORPG owners

And thanks Milly I had only really read Justine's post on there, which sort of turned me off, it felt like we were being shown someone else's none to brilliant exam results, and I'm really not up for that!