Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Clarification please

766 replies

Hullygully · 05/12/2013 16:25

So I come back to find that you have deleted my thread asking why my Santa thread was deleted.

Of course it was a thread about a thread, it was asking a question about the thread.

Wtf else is one supposed to do?

I put it in site stuff.

It was also a really nice friendly thread full of poetry and laughs. Why why why why was it deleted? What the hell is going on there?

Secondly, if one wants to talk about something, and that something has been deleted purely owing to others mischief, does that mean that one is never to talk about that subject again??

How mad is that?

OP posts:
Fairenuff · 06/12/2013 21:55

Also, the phrase 'deliberately inflammatory' implies (well, actually states) that the OP intended it to be inflammatory, which is not always the case.

Not sure why HQ uses that phrase?

DeckTheHallsWithBoughsOfHorry · 06/12/2013 21:52

Agreed about locking, although if a thread is heated it can drive the participants up the wall and cause spinoff tension. Sometimes a good bunfight guideline-testing thread sort of keeps all the aggro in one place.

Mintyy · 06/12/2013 21:44

It makes you feel awful when your thread is deleted and you don't think it is fair. It makes you question your motives, your manners, and your sanity. You could say it is the internet equivalent of gaslighting, to coin a fashionable phrase. It is quite understandable to feel very upset to have the rug pulled out from under your feet with the insinuation, or even the outright accusation, that you have done something you have not.

Fairenuff · 06/12/2013 21:21

Plenty I so agree with you.

A thread started in Site Stuff entitled 'Why was my thread deleted?' - Let's call it Thread A

A thread started in Site Stuff entitled 'Clarification please' - Let's call it Thread B

Both threads were from the same poster, questioning HQ's reasoning for deleting an earlier thread.

Thread A was deleted, thread B was not.

Why?

I have asked this before on this thread and HQ have not responded.

PlentyOfPubeGardens · 06/12/2013 20:44

I agree though, more use of locking threads might be the way to go if there is a lot of work pressure.

PlentyOfPubeGardens · 06/12/2013 20:43

I don't agree the second thread was deliberately inflamatory.

Rowan said, (about why this thread has not been deleted) Because it had become a discussion about MNHQ policies and decisions, and it's pretty much always our policy to let those threads stand and allow things to be thrashed out in public.

I think hully's 'why was my thread deleted?' thread was 'a discussion of MNHQ policies and decisions'. It was on site stuff, so I'd have thought it was obvious she wanted clarification from MNHQ on their decision. She could have emailed, as a pp suggested, but would she have got anywhere if she had, given the server problems? I thought 'site stuff' was a perfectly reasonable place to ask these questions - is that wrong? I've always really valued MNHQ's willingness to publicly engage on questions about moderation and I can't see what hully did wrong in starting the second thread.

The thread then merged into something splendid and I was really sad to see it deleted. I couldn't see any 'inflamation', deliberate or otherwise.

Fairenuff · 06/12/2013 20:29

Hey, Maryz, I just gave you a cool nickname, Marz Xmas Blush Xmas Grin

Fairenuff · 06/12/2013 20:27

the situation we were in with the reports backlog meant that we were acting under some pressure

I agree with Marz. If you feel under pressure, lock the thread and take the time to look at it properly.

Maryz · 06/12/2013 20:24

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Fairenuff · 06/12/2013 19:55

As far as the first thread goes, we understand that the deletion may have seemed hasty

Vague.

It seems that you are hinting at the possibility that you maybe should not have deleted the thread.

and we'll hold our hands up to that one

Is that a poor attempt at an apology? I would have thought after making such a hoo-ha, you could be more specific and say what you mean clearly.

This would really help to clear up some of the confusion that has been discussed on this thread.

< Using the royal 'you' here, so nothing personal Amy >

DazzleII · 06/12/2013 19:38

I should think, AmyMumsnet, that many MNers are around your age, so their demographic should be represented IMO. Also diversity is good. And young people tend to be a joy really useful members of any team. Smile

MNHQ
AmyMumsnet · 06/12/2013 17:29

Hi everyone,

Crikey, this was a bit of a shock to come in to this morning.

Firstly, we would just like to clarify that we tend to use the royal 'we' here at MNHQ because most of our decisions are made as a team - particularly ones about thread deletion. We had read through both threads and several of us agreed that the second thread appeared to be deliberately inflammatory. As far as the first thread goes, we understand that the deletion may have seemed hasty, and we'll hold our hands up to that one; but the situation we were in with the reports backlog meant that we were acting under some pressure.

We're sorry that our email to you, Hully, was a bit delayed in it's arrival, so it seemed that we'd deleted the second without any explanation. We hope you know that if you had emailed us to ask what had gone on we would have replied to you as soon as we could have. I'd also like to apologise for my deletion message on this thread, as it was not specific enough, and I'll bear that in mind in future.

To those suggesting that my age might affect my ability to do my job - while it's possible that I am indeed young enough to be some posters' daughter, I'm sure you'd hope that they wouldn't face any questions about their ability to carry out their work based on their age alone.

It was absolutely lovely to meet so many of you at the meet up and I'm grateful for the kind things you have said about me on this board - I'll do my best to live up to them going forward.

BOF · 06/12/2013 00:16

I do know that, Hully, and I hate seeing you upset.

MNHQ
RowanMumsnet · 06/12/2013 00:16

Right - going to lock this one now, we'll re-open it tomorrow morning

Night all

Fairenuff · 06/12/2013 00:13

Oh come on Theworld are you seriously asking me why Hully is not responsible for what another person writes? Really?

Ok, I'll explain. Each of us is an individual. With our own independent thoughts, feelings and opinions. We all decide, on our own, what to type and how to phrase it and when to hit the 'post message' button.

We can't go 'wah, wah, wah she made me do it'.

Okay?

HoneyDragon · 06/12/2013 00:12

O was the thread deleted because of the op

Or because people couldn't be civilised?

Original poster
Hullygully · 06/12/2013 00:12

You know what, boffy?

I am loads of things. But I am not dishonest.

OP posts:
BOF · 06/12/2013 00:10

I think I'd better bugger off this thread- I'm late to this thread and I feel like I'm rubbernecking.

Please don't go, Hully.

Theworldisbiggerthanyou · 06/12/2013 00:10

Why not Fair?
She gave the poster the opportunity to slate the mod by openly questioning them and disagreeing with the mods replies.
I am possibly responsible for lots of posts by others (given that they will be as a direct result of my post) but I am sure that I have never given one the chance or platform to think its ok to slate a mod.

Original poster
Hullygully · 06/12/2013 00:09

absolutely fairenuff

OP posts:
reelingaroundthechristmastree · 06/12/2013 00:09

MN royalty comments are the new Godwin's law.
(On here anyway)

One mention and you've lost the debate.

Fairenuff · 06/12/2013 00:08

Because it had become a discussion about MNHQ policies and decisions, and it's pretty much always our policy to let those threads stand and allow things to be thrashed out in public.

So was the last one. That was why it was in site stuff.

Original poster
Hullygully · 06/12/2013 00:08

fine

equivocate

I hope that makes the hive mind of "we" happy

OP posts:
BOF · 06/12/2013 00:07

X-posts with Rowan, sorry.

BOF · 06/12/2013 00:06

They don't like deleting threads critical of MNHQ unless they really have to, Fairenuff, because we'd start a gazillion conspiracy threads and there'd be Godwin's law and all sorts, I think.