Clarification please

I think that's an excellent idea Maryz.

Rowan you have just confirmed that the second thread was not 'deliberately inflammatory' haven't you?

I think at this point HQ you should commission a big hearts and flowers style apology picture from TalcandTurnips and all sign it and address it to Hully and all her sycophants supporters on this issue. Because if you don't, you run a very real risk of losing the Heart of The Site. Short of that large and graphic apology, possibly including a big 'we were wrong and you was right' banner, I think you can't win.

X posted.

So the reason for the second deletion wasn't because Hully was being 'deliberately inflammatory' by starting it?

If that's so, then why change the deletion message to that?

Rowan can you please respond to the point that if you agree in hindsight you were hasty in deleting thread one, then why was it inflammatory for the OP of said thread, to ask MNHQ why it was deleted.

Using that analogy:

More guns confiscated in Manchester - this means either that there are more guns and the same proportion are confiscated, or that there are the same number of guns but a higher proportion are confiscated. Or a third, unlikely reason - there are less guns in Manchester but a very high proportion are confiscated.

You point out that HQ say there are fewer deletions now - I thought they had actually analysed it and that there were proportionally less deletions per number of posts? So there are more posts on MN, but a lower percentage of them are deleted. So either MN have kept the same policy and fewer posts have broken rules, they have relaxed their policy, or people report less often and therefore rule breaking posts remain undeleted? What's the problem?

I for one just don't believe that MNHQ have changed their policy. It may be that those posters who didn't use to have posts deleted now do, because the higher number of posters mean it's more likely that a rule breaking post would be reported and deleted. 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.

On the issue of whether MN has changed, it's hard to tell but I really want to put to rest once and for all that pointing to there being fewer deletions, now as opposed to the past, means that it is (if anything) more tolerant of robust debate.

Suppose you look at the statistics for confiscated guns in 2012. Suppose there were many more confiscated in Manchester than in Bath. Would you say "oh well it is obvious that Bath is a much more gun-happy town than Manchester. They all get confiscated in Manchester! In Bath they only confiscated a few, so they are presumably all open-minded gun-tolerant coppers there".

No you would never say that in a million years.
That is the argument being used about deletions. By MNHQ. Every time this comes up.

Please stop doing it. Are you trying to manipulate us by using this argument, or are you so silly as to believe it?

"As far as the first thread goes, we understand that the deletion may have seemed hasty, and we'll hold our hands up"

So, the second thread should not have been deleted either then Amy?

I Missed both previous threads.I do think that going back and changing the deletion message is, Erm, interesting.

In the interests of transparency, it would be interesting if the deleted "inflamatory" thread could be undeleted and locked.

From MNHQ "As far as the first thread goes, we understand that the deletion may have seemed hasty, and we'll hold our hands up"

I really don't understand how you can 'hold your hands up' to making a mistake with deleting the first thread but STILL insist that Hully shouldn't have asked why you had deleted her thread.

It doesn't make any sense!

If you are admitting been too hasty in deleting a thread, you must be able to understand why the OP of that thread, would question why it had gone.

[definitely need coffee now]

During The Big Debate MNHQ said they would lock more threads - if they were too busy to deal with these threads properly they should have been locked until they had time to do so and I do agree that Hully being the OP would have had a bearing on how quickly they were deleted - unfortunately.

I didn't see the end of Thread 1 - so maybe it turned into a bun fight and just maybe deleting it was simpler than it ending up like swiss cheese - but is 'simple' what we are aiming for?

Thread 2 - a thread in site stuff asking why a thread was deleted. I disagree (as do many others!) that it was 'deliberately inflammatory' and Hully is right, lots of people wanted the answer to the question, so posting in site stuff was the obvious and reasonable thing to do. This is a website - we should be able to communicate with MNHQ on this site and not by email if we wish.

This is not the MN I joined a million years ago. It has changed and certainly not for the better. Of course, that's what happens when a site gets so big, so quickly - but saying 'it is the same' is like maintaining the earth is flat - the evidence that it isn't so is right in front of you if you bother to look at it and you don't have to let it run away with itself.

Tantrums - part of the problem is

a) Different people can experience the same thread differently (eg, you say you find threads about school punishments goady, why I don't know, I certainly don't...neither parking really.
b) As with any forum, MN isn't somewhere where one joins and instantly knows all the posting history of the forum, or doesn't frequent a certain forum so doesn't instantly know the history of that particular forum board. I can remember posting something once for opinions and at least a half dozen people immediately jumped on me and accused me of being a goady troll.

So, what can seem tedious or goady to a long standing member, may not be to a new member or what may seem goady to you may not to the next person. The topic alone doesn't indicate the posters underlying motives, the delivery might give readers a clue as to the posters motives but even then if on first glance it appears to be goady, shouldn't someone be given the benefit of the doubt at least for a few minutes rather than people appearing with pitchforks?

for clarity, I am not saying we should not have moderation. And then, it is implicit in the notion of moderation that moderators are going to make judgements on what is ok and what is not. That is fine. I am not suggesting that some simplisitic notion of "free speech, man" is the issue here. I just think that the apparent direction of the moderation is a bit wrong. the moderators protect our free speech by clearing us a space in which to have it, I am grateful for that, we have a garden to play in because it is being tended by diligent people who are actively taking out nettles and briars. but it is hard work I sense a tendency to deal with complicaed patches of interesting wild flowers and delicate unusual plants by covering it all over with can't-fail-busy-lizzies. Ultimately we should be conscious that what we are asking is that the gardeners do more work, and do it better.

Tantrums, I agree, but even worse than goady they are also so terribly boring.
because everyone on those is just looking for an opportunity to get out their hobby horse and ride it around in the way that makes them feel good.
the "OMG COMMON PERSON LUNCHBOX" ones are really offensive (to me) not because my kids don't get fucking home woven yoghurt in theirs, but because it is just so awful to see all these people piling in to glory in their disgust at the proles.
They don't uncover or unpick anything except a load of predictable prejudice and I stay away from them because when I am skiving off at work I want to do something fun.

What is so horrible about this idea that threads can be deleted for being "deliberately inflammatory" is that it points to an implicit approved list of hobby horses that can be ponced around on in certain areas by certain people, which is not only socially and politically retrograde, but tedious as fuck

If every thread is perceived by different posters differently, how can you decide which ones are "deliberatley inflammatory"?

I think HQ that you should change the wording because, by saying 'deliberately' you are making a judgement on the OP's intentions. And sometimes you are wrong.

Also, you have as good as admitted you made the wrong call here but won't outright state it.

Both of these actions are highly likely to offend posters - ie accusing them of intending to goad and then finding them not guilty but refusing to acknowledge it.

The deletion message did change didn't it? Can we at least clarify that. Initially it only said because it was a Fred About A Fred.

Those of you who find the Mandela theme distasteful are very much free to say so. I seriously doubt anyone on this thread would report you for having that point of view.

Totally agree with this "It really bugs me this big-sisterly heavy handed hegemony that consensus and agreement is automatically good. Agreement and consensus is what you want when you are trying to decide where to have lunch, but boring and pointless when you want to play"

Getting more and more like the Huns site by the day.

So, can I just ask a question?

A lot of threads on here lately are started in order to provoke a debate- threads about what people put in their DCs packed lunches, where people park their cars, whether teachers are right to do xyz, how much money people spend at Christmas.

We are not all the same people. So in my mind, I could go down the list if active convos and find things that i think have been said to goad me. Things that other people would agree with.

Every single thread has the potential to turn into a bun fight.
Every single one.
All it takes is one person to find the subject of the thread wrong, 1 person to post how much they disagree with the OP and it all kicks off. It happens all the time.

So my question is this. If every thread is perceived by different posters differently, how can you decide which ones are "deliberatley inflammatory"?

Because I find the sanctimonious "oh my god look what is in this child's lunchbox" threads to be pretty goading and inflammatory. I find the threads about WOHM vs SAHM, parking, school punishments etc goady.

But there they are. Every single week. Full of people sniping and arguing.
I don't get it. Every subject could be argumentative. .

I think it might be time to step back, or get over it! You are arguing about nothing and it's all a bit bonkers imo.

Also wasn't there lots of criticism about the reasons for thread deletion not being clear enough? If they have changed the deletion reason perhaps that is because they think it is what is wanted as opposed to some sort of sinister censorship or rewriting of history?

Is no one ever allowed to post opposing views without it being dismissed as some sort of buzzword bingo? It happens all the time and it's frustrating. Looks like I wasn't the only one reading the Mandela comparisons who found it to be in bad taste.

SoupDragon, what are you doing here if you don't care?
It is funny that people can be so self righteous while putting the energy into telling other people to stop putting the energy in to something they insist is unimportant.

Oh dear god. Get over it.