Clarification please

I'm a big reporter of threads. I wouldn't have reported the original thread or this one.

hully you are an acerbic poster, but never a dull one. I think you are being targeted. It is not fair...

Never seen MNHQ sockpuppeting before. Most unedifying.

So don't bother then ShreddedHoops.

You can always dereg yourself.

Oh fgs, just leave and start your own site rather than haranguing the people who run this one. What exactly are you hoping to achieve here? You're behaving like a needy friend / toddler / teen. It's only a website - get a grip. It really does seem like Moldies all over again - the same small group of posters banging on about how it's not the same anymore and trying to tell the staff how to run their own site. I don't know why I keep clicking on these threads but I doubt I'm the only one who just thinks ffs find a different website then.

Has MNHQ been on a little too much gin?

None of this makes any sense.

I thought Hully was being an arse. But that's never been a reason for deleting a thread

Why would you report it? Stating that people are arses for not endorsing the magic and beauty of Santa, is part of the fun...

The PO will inherit MN?

That's sad.

Is this outrage for real ?

Of course they are moderated, no site would seriously leave themselves open to being sued these days.
It's the ninnies who report stuff because they are 'offended' who need to be moderated.

I asked about the reading/not reading of the second thread, Cakeetc. I wonder if you'll have more luck with a reply?

there are no hard and fast rules BUT Hully was the OP of both threads.

Ah, very interesting x-post.

Um. Clearly I felt extra specially strongly about that...

Lots of reports can easily be generated by saddos on Facebook groups getting their mates to pile in. When the reports are baseless (like here) surely they should not be acted on?

Apologies Plenty, I have been more specific in my following posts.

Yes I read the following posts too, it still makes no sense.

I usually steer well clear of mn politics but I'm starting to wonder if it's something to do with Hully. First she's not allowed to 'banter' and now she's not allowed to debate. Has there been some sort of focus group that has decided Hully's posts put off advertisers or something?

First thread - I didn't see it, I can understand if it was deleted because it turned into a bunfight (not Hully's fault by all accounts)

Second thread - really good discussion, no PA's that I saw, made me think, can't understand why it went at all, unless either TAAT are against the rules with no exceptions, or it's something to do with Hully. IT WAS A GREAT THREAD.

You've been more specific, but really it's just confusing the issue more.

"If the same posters are talking about a thread that was removed about the exact same issues, very shortly after the initial thread was removed - then yes, it's a thread about a thread."

But according to your own guidelines being a thread about a thread isn't a problem in and of itself; it's repeating and rehashing the deleted stuff that's discouraged (and even then the guidelines imply that it will only actually be deleted if it qualifies for deletion in its own right; repeating and rehashing is just seen as an etiquette issue). It's quite possible for the same posters to talk about the same issue and even to refer to a deleted thread without repeating or rehashing.

Why do your guidelines say one thing and current MNHQ deletion policy/practice say another? There's a very good summary of the original rationale for the "don't rehash deleted threads" thing on the other current thread about threads about threads, and it does seem to have been lost sight of.

"There were also several personal attacks against other posters from the original thread on the second thread."

I thought you hadn't read the second thread? Everyone here who did read it says that there weren't any personal attacks.

You've been more specific, but really it's just confusing the issue more.

"If the same posters are talking about a thread that was removed about the exact same issues, very shortly after the initial thread was removed - then yes, it's a thread about a thread."

But according to your own guidelines being a thread about a thread isn't a problem in and of itself; it's repeating and rehashing the deleted stuff that's discouraged (and even then the guidelines imply that it will only actually be deleted if it qualifies for deletion in its own right; repeating and rehashing is just seen as an etiquette issue). It's quite possible for the same posters to talk about the same issue and even to refer to a deleted thread without repeating or rehashing.

Why do your guidelines say one thing and current MNHQ deletion policy/practice say another? There's a very good summary of the original rationale for the "don't rehash deleted threads" thing on the other current thread about threads about threads, and it does seem to have been lost sight of.

"There were also several personal attacks against other posters from the original thread on the second thread."

I thought you hadn't read the second thread? Everyone here who did read it says that there weren't any personal attacks.

I meant I agreed about the boards no longer seeming unmoderated.

This is why I hardly come onto MN any more. The site used to be a lot more robust.

I can remember a thread ages ago that wandered from a bunfight to song lyrics to songs and that one got moved to Other Subjects so it didn't get killed by Chat. Now it would get deleted.

It sucks. Seriously.