Clarification please

Another great post, ShreddedHoops. All the above goes for me too, and for loads of other MNers I know.

divisive

Dittany! Yes, of course, Dittany.

No, I was not comparing Hully and D or anybody else, just saying it's easier to be anonymous when you are less memorable.

I know that D was... divisive but I did learn a lot.

I've said it before, but I am often genuinely puzzled that people don't find the 'off' switch when they are not enjoying themselves?
We have total control over what we respond to and how we respond (apart from when we lose our rag, that is, of course).

The only thread I've ever reported a pa was that particular forthright FWR poster - called me a rape apologist I was genuinely upset, I don't consider it snitching.

Maryz - dunno, I don't think there's that much of a chasm between your experience of MN and mine. I'm on here all the bloody time far too much - I'd be embarrassed to say how much but it's a good chunk of my leisure time! And I have been here for donkey's. My experience differs, as a name changer I haven't 'made friends' on here, that's by choice, I do want some distance and often the freedom to rant about politics or whatever without it ever being traceable back to my rl. For many posters, that's important, I'm sure you understand that. I find it frustrating when name changers are labelled as 'cowardly' as they were on this thread or possibly the other one, and blamed for all sorts of nonsense. I do understand the emotional connection of MN, but, dunno, I do think well it's only a website. If I feel myself getting too heavily involved, I will see it through but then usually name change afterwards - every 6 weeks or so. It's a good way of interacting online, I think. And one that HQ not only allow, but I think they really recognise how important it is for a vast chunk of the community. MN isn't rl, and one of the things that I and many others like is the anonymity. more than that - the knowledge that you're being treated solely on the basis of the words you've typed, not for any persona you've built up. There are so many reasons why that can be valuable.

Sorry that ended up as a bit of a meander! I feel that for all you lot get upset at being called 'MN royalty' or whatever, maybe being recognised and treated differently, reported more or whatever, it's not on to slag off all the name changers, of whom I'd wager there are a gazillion who've been on here just as much as you lot, just as often, taken part in just as many emotional discussions and bunfights, but are genuinely anonymous. Don't think that our experience isn't just as deep. I'd be bereft if MN was to go bust or summat.

Dittany? tbf I found her posting style was rude and narrow minded not very... inclusive. Although that doesn't excuse what happened to her.

I wouldn't put Hully in the same camp. She is always polite.

What I like about MNHQ is that they do hold their hands up and admit mistakes because they're just people like us. I also like that they can be questioned publicly and treat us, the users, as equals. I think this is missing a wee bit at the mo.

Sadly, posters who stick their head above the parapet (Hully is not alone, how about Val and... oh crap now I cannot remember her name: v knowledgable woman on FWR, NN starting with D? ) and express opinions outwith the 'norm' (whatever that is) become noticable and memorable and attract 'followers' and 'enemies'.

You'd either have to have a very think skin to maintain the 'words on a screen' attitude (much as I in principle agree with it), have the patience of a Saint to never lose your rag or by a robot IMO.
I have never been provoked to the point of using breaking Talk Guidelines, I don't think I am that boring and predictable.

If anything can be taken from this I think it should be locking of threads before they go all hysterical might be a good idea, so MNHQ have a chance to look at them properly.

I wonder whether they might apologise to Hully by email, so it's not quite so public?

Yes I do. But it didn't appear in the morning and then I had to do stuff. I need a claxon in my head !

:( I was hoping this would all have been sorted out by now. It does all feel very personal and a bit unjust.

Usually MNHQ have held their hands up to something by this point, everyone starts apologising to everyone else in very British fashion... and then we all have gin.

Exit - don't you use 'Threads I'm On' ?

Locking threads is a great idea. But a great big claxon when they reopen would be helpful

Zombie wishes she could foresee a happy conclusion to this, but sadly she can't.

Hully is, rightly in Zombie's opinion, aggrieved especially about her first thread in Site Stuff being deleted.

MNHQ acted under pressure in deleting her original thread and may or may not have made the right call. Deleting her first Site Stuff thread is more questionable. They are also, again rightly in Zombie's opinion, aggrieved that extremely nasty comments were directed at named HQ staff. That was appalling conduct by the posters concerned.

Trying to look ahead, Zombie hopes that locking threads will be used much more frequently in the future. This would allow both sides of an alleged bunfight time to cool down a bit and allow MNHQ to have a much closer look at the thread before making the delete / let it stand decision. Zombie thinks this is particularly important when the OP of a thread is known to be a target for reporting by certain other posters.

That makes perfect sense MaryZ

But now you will be told you are mumsnet royalty and unfriendly and bullying to new members, since you have mentioned making friends on here which is not allowed

It does, Maryz.

No. Being deleted shows that a) someone has reported you because they don't like what you have posted and b) MNHQ think that your post breaks the rules.

But has been admitted by MNHQ they don't always get it right.

It isn't as black and white as you would like to make out it is, Shredded. Which is why there is such a debate about it on this thread.

And if you're the person who has been deleted, and you feel that the decision was wrong, it can be very hurtful. Do you not see that?

I think that MNHQ have a thankless task here, to be honest, and I would say that 9 times out of 10 they get it right. And they're always happy to admit if they got it wrong.

Posters are what makes MN, and if posters are annoyed/upset/aerated about something, MNHQ do listen to what they are saying - that's what makes it the site it is, and why so many of us have a very large and soft spot in our hearts and lives for it. But that's also why so much emotion is exercised and being expressed here.

Kinda missing the point there Dazzle

Why was the thread started? Yes, that is what we are talking about. It was started to ask why the first thread was deleted.

HQ have stated above that it wasn't deliberately inflammatory, although they changed the deletion message to say that it was. So, clear as mud.

I think it might be a good idea for mnhq to state whether or not they believe Hully is lying when she says she didn't mean to be goady, and that they accept that maybe the second thread was just asking a question and wasn't in fact deliberately inflammatory (it being in Site Stuff and all).

That would be eminently sensible and honest, Maryz and put an end to all the confusion.

And were people who reported the thread completely unreasonable in feeling/believing that the thread was started in order to be inflammatory? I have no axe to grind here, I wasn't one who reported, but I do think we should all have a right to report posts and threads which break Talk Guidelines. And not be slagged off for doing so.

Starting a thread for inflammatory reasons is trolling. So the debate is: why was the thread started?

"This always comes up on moderation discussions on here - being deleted shows you've broken site rules - whether you've been reported or not is a moot point. And it's really crap to blame and badmouth people who do report rule breaking posts. If you don't want your posts to be deleted - don't break rules. And if a thread you were on / started is subsequently deleted as there were so many rule breaking posts? Well that's just tough luck, and not a reason to go crying repeatedly to HQ about how things have changed/people who report are grassing snitches/it's not like the good old days etc etc ad infinitum."

Good post, ShreddedHoops. I agree with all that.