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

It seems to me, having been here for a while now, that this type of thing goes in cycles. Every year there is a huge thread and a huge fracas whereby lots of MNetters get upset and repeatedly ask the question of what we can and can't say.

I feel like what we can and can't say has changed over the years I have been here, and I don't believe it's a good thing.

It does seem to have gotten a lot less tolerant here recently, but I also feel that in 'real' life.

Maybe it's just a sign of the times ?

Feels sad, though.

I agree with this.

Either people can be reported and deleted for breaking the spirit of the rules - i.e. goading, passive-aggressive seemingly naice but actually bitchy type posts - or they can't.

If mnhq aren't going to delete posts and threads like that, then why are they surprised if people lose their tempers and tell them to fuck off?

At the moment, there are a fair few new names who aren't really new. They know how it works, they know how to stay on the "right" side of the guidelines, they know who to follow around and goad and gloat over.

And reporting atm is a bit of a waste of time.

I think the danger lies in the self-appointment.

That means a complete lack of accountability.

Self-appointed mods to often cause more problems than they solve, for all that they usually have the best of intentions, which is why officially recognising them rarely makes things better. You get the 'over policing of personal bugbears' capt mentioned.

But MN is a huge board and not everywhere needs the same level of scrutiny so it might work in certain sections.

Also MNHQ's big advantage is that they are outside the discussion. They have XyzMumsnet to clearly mark them out when they comment or PM. Volunteer peer mods in the truest sense won't have that, and it'll be very difficult to know when they speak with a mod hat or not. It works in small communities where a respected regular can defuse a situation as well as, if not better than, an official mod and where there are very clear community norms but I don't think either of those apply to MN.

Community management is very tricky and I really don't envy MN their task of deciding how best to approach this.

CaptChaos, that is being discussed over on this thread

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/1891620-Why-we-temporarily-banned-Anyfucker-and-what-next?reverse=1

Volunteer night-time mods are already in place.

In that way, you shouldn't get so called 'board royalty' over-policing their own personal bug bears, but a more balanced range of moderation views across the boards - I agree with that.

Volunteer peer moderation has usually worked really well on other fora I've been on, along with at least 2 MMORPs I've played in the past, could MN maybe look into that? I'm not even talking about regular posters moderating an area they are particularly familiar with, but a group of, say, 5 volunteers on hand to respond to reports on the whole board. In that way, you shouldn't get so called 'board royalty' over-policing their own personal bug bears, but a more balanced range of moderation views across the boards.

These peer mods could maybe have powers to silence, but not ban, to hide but not delete controversial posts and, if these solutions don't seem to be calming things down, they can call in the heavier guns of MNHQ?

It might also save MNHQ mods having to wade in to smaller spats, so that they can more easily deal with some of the serious trolling that has been evident over the last couple of months.

I think atm we have posters who consider themselves mods of their chosen topic, and act very aggressively against anyone who seems the least bit inclined to challenge their opinions and ruling of the board. If they were officially recognised mods, then anyone attacked by them could legitimately complain to MNHQ, and MNHQ would be obliged to take complaints seriously.

It's because the aggressors are not in an official mod role - but they see themselves as mods - that the water is so very muddy.

The problem with regulars as mods is that although they know and care about the boards it creates a split and a bit of an odd dynamic. There are the chosen and the not chosen if you go down the route of tapping a select few on the shoulder. Then those who are on the boards a lot are often contributing heavily so they can't be impartial and those who try to become impartial lose some of their involvement so it fundamentally alters the balance and often regulars will cease to be regulars, which defeats the point.

Volunteer mods is not necessarily a bad idea though, with each committing to a set time slot per week, or every couple of days, with a bit of give in the 'timetable, and if regulars apply for those and are chosen then on their own heads be it almost - but specifically choosing regulars is a recipe for resentment IME.

The other consideration is whether those mods act as and when they see something, which is very subjective, or they act on reports in which case you need to come up with a system - one central account for the volunteer mod of each section possibly - to cope with that.

I still think giving some power to regulars in certain areas would allow faster deletion of truly blatantly offensive material....I agree that pre-modding can't work here. But give the people in the thick of the power to remove attrocious posts!

I agree with Nutty to. I don't see why they can't implement it either, it's been suggested for years, how long do they need to consider it for?

I think it could be time to go back to having mods for each section.

I thought it worked well.

What screamingnaan said

I've read that MNHQ tweeted the "P" Beaker thread. That kind of thing is a very cack-handed way of attracting traffic of the negative sort: the servers then can't cope with it (technical inability to cope) and it made MN look silly (it wasn't that funny and made MNers look a bit simple, and easily amused).

A bit more discrimination would be appropriate.

I'd agree with that, ScaryNutella.

I think that Relationships and Feminism are the two main areas that need on-thread moderation.

From what I read, these are the two areas of the site that are targeted most by people trying to get their jollies by upsetting people.

I thought the whole point of all these squillions of threads was: "We don't like MN any more, MN gorn to dogs, sack the new mods, etc etc"

And NO NO NO! to pre-moderation. Sheesh - there's 1000's of posts every hour - nowt would appear on the boards it would take so long.

Seriously. Doesn't work.

And HQ may get things wrong at times, but I do notice that they are willing to come back and apologise when that happens and that has to be one of the most unique things about this site I've ever come across.

No other forum, to my knowledge, has EVER had a mod come on and apologise.

I agree with that. Every.Word.

I've been thinking about this as well.

There's just been a flow of threads recently from people who don't like the way that MN is run. The bullying threads, the wah wah wah we don't like the xmas appeal threads are two big examples.

The fact is that the majority of people on MN Talk are happy how things are. They like the fact there's straight talking. They like the fact that the xmas appeal is unique in its ethos, and they like the fact that a lot of the hideous misogyny that haunts the internet is challenged here.

MN isn't like other sites. I know, I've been loitering on the internet since it was a baby. Its not all bubz and hun. It supports women and challenges disablism. I wish HQ would turn to the whingers and the gripers and the wah wah wah-ers and say, you know what, if you don't like it, sod off.

New posters complaining about being invisible or about how 'known' posters are given preferential treatment is just ridiculous. Its like someone walking into a pub for the first time and demanding that the groups of friends in there stop talking to each other because its mean, and suggesting that the bar tender poured a pint for someone else because they were a regular. Its stupid.

I like MN. I like MN how it is. I don't want it to change to fit the needs of a very vocal whingy minority. HQ, its fine as it is.

Actually, I'm not sure I mean pre-moderation, cos I'm not sure what that is.

Just moderation, like you get on TheStudentRoom, where moderation seems really good.

I think if there were pre-moderation for just three topics - AIBU, Chat and Relationships - then the whole ambience of the site would improve vastly.

It would be very cost-effective to pay a member of staff to pre-moderate those topics, because the number of reports would plummet.

The mods would have to be paid a reasonable salary, however, because their job would require a lot of intelligent analysis, and a lot of emotional intelligence. And it would not be a job to be done in haste while swigging gin