Clarification please

Have some flashing snowmen earrings usual. :o

I didn't see the first thread (as I mentioned about 300 posts ago!) but I do remember the anti larking edict with great sadness.

I call bullshit. The first thread was not reasoned debate. It was a weird, goady thread and it's no wonder people got upset. You're a funny poster a lot of the time Hully and I enjoy reading a lot of what you write. But that thread was stupid, you were incredibly sneery and it made for an unpleasant read. IIRC someone asked you quite early on if you were 'okay' as the whole thread was very strange.

And to save anyone the trouble, been around for a few years, regular name changer due to arsey Ex.

Presumably some threads get deleted because of where they're inevitably headed, rather than where they are right in that instant. As I said before, I wasn't remotely surprised by the first deletion - I can see that someone reading half a dozen reports from the same thread would look at it, see how fast it was moving, wince over the few really unnecessary comments/posts and think "fuck it, this isn't going to end well and we don't have the resources to say ahem every other post".

It's horrible for an OP who starts a thread in good faith that turns into something else and gets deleted, because she attracts some of the blame for the bunfight regardless of her real intentions.

I tried to lark about on the first thread to lighten it.

I even handed out Santa hats.

"For what it's worth, however cross you are with our decisions, we think it's utterly out of order to cast pretty nasty aspersions on the professional competence of named members of MNHQ who gave up their Friday evening to attend a Mumsnet meet-up. We don't generally delete attacks on members of MNHQs, but some of the stuff that's been said here is incredibly unpleasant."

It was me that posted that I didn't think it wise to have moderators on MN who were so young and inexperienced. How can they possibly moderate in a sensible way on many of the sensitive and heated threads that require it?

And as others have said. It was a Saturday night.

And some of them didn't look that happy to be there. Fair enough. But remember, if none of us posted they would have no job.. I think MN has done plenty well out of selling our quotes in their books, hawking us to the DM, selling the poor penis beaker poster to the highest bidder.

Haven't seen any names Briar, have you read the rather lovely Christmas meet up thread at all?
It makes reference to a very beautiful, very young, MNHQer.

It was a compliment.

"Actually, when we analysed the stats we found that the deleted post:post ratio had gone down over the last few years."

this doesn't tell you anything though.

In fact what some people are saying is "people used to be wild! It was wild west!" - so in fact you are agreeing by saying that more posts were deleted. There was a different atmosphere and people were saying more deletable things. And those that didn't get deleted were arguably of a stronger tone than things that stand out now in a more anodyune environment. And even the things that got deleted were there for x time, seen, till they were deleted.

I don't know if this is how it was, or not. I am just pointing out that the statistical argument is meaningless because it doesn't guarantee a consistent standard.

I do think it is HILARIOUS that a thread got deleted for suggesting that FC isn't real. Some of my friends are like, "seriously? MN?" and I'm like "oh no, it's not what you think" but now I won't be able to say that because it is the site that deleted a thread that suggested FC isn't real

There was a time when people would deliberately rock up to a bunfighting thread and derail it with larkiness and banter. Then that became frowned upon.

It would seem like it might be worth reinstating this as a strategy to ease the pressure on hq.

It seems to me that some threads are now deleted because it's the easy option for MNHQ.

Which is fair enough if that's how you want to run the site now,but that will piss long standing posters off who know that moderation on here was not so heavy handed in the olden days.

Its a huge shame that one or two posters have made nasty and unnecessary remarks about members of mn staff, largely because that must be incredibly upsetting for those staff members, but also because it has deflected attention from addressing what really does seem to have been a bad moderating decision.

The disappearence of that second thread completely surprised me. I truly thought mn would come back and say whoops, sorry that was a slip.

Maryz, yes
(I know I said I was going to bed, but -)
I work in a job where I have to make decisions about things being approved or rejected and I find that the more hectic it gets, and the more ALWAYS FIENDISHLY URGENT stuff is being thrown at my head, the more I am inclined to just lock things down because I feel my judgement being warped by stress and it seems easier to be negative than positive under pressure. So a slightly dodgy thing becomes "Oh god no that could go wrong" and gets cut off, whereas under more relaxed circs I could be all "there is something interesting about that. Let me see how to temper it so I can allow it without getting the sack"

So I think all the reporting, reporting, reporting (and in this case pressure from IT issues too, which makes everything super stressy) leads to an over-negative, over conservative, over-deletey mindset

SO in other words everyone needs to back the hell off and stop bothering them with whining, unless it matters, which, frankly "hully said santa isn't real boo hoo" doesn't (rolls about smacking the floor in hilarity again)