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

Replacing Thread Deletions with simply highlighting the post.

60 replies

MadameDefarge · 01/08/2014 20:41

So often deleting an offensive comment does nothing to aid the person being attacked, and leaves great holes in the narrative of the thread.

I am suggesting leaving all posts that MNHQ would normally have deleted, but highlighting them in a special colour.

This would signal that MNHQ do not consider the post within the guidelines, with making some threads like confetti.

I do think people should stand by their posts, and deleting them allows people to be quite vile, without any real consequences.

I say this as someone who has been deleted many many times. I think if I knew what I was saying couldn't be pulled at all, it might well serve as break, or at least prompt an apology once I had cooled down and realised I was a twit.

Its not quite naming and shaming, but is showing an MNHQ decision most people will understand on reading those posts.

It might well prompt more self regulation.

As it stands, anything vile gets deleted, and the poster can continue being horrible without anyone really knowing why they were deleted (if they come to a thread after a deletion.

So, what do people think of this as an idea?

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Hakluyt · 09/08/2014 06:22

I certainly think that the person being attacked should have a say in whether or not a personal attack should stay....

Maybe they should only be deleted if the attackee reports them?

mathanxiety · 09/08/2014 05:57

I agree with Lettertoherms, Dozily, et al.

I think highlighting in order to shame people into regretting their posts later smacks of passive aggressive moderating. The truly shameless won't mind what they have written. The people who are hurt are going to still see the posts that hurt them, only highlighted so nobody will miss them. Leaving posts there means other people will still respond to them. Part of the beauty of deletion as it stands is that posts that respond may also be deleted. I think highlighting only increases the risk of threads turning into bunfights.

I also think the current message is fine. If someone is baffled they can always look at the talk guidelines and if it still isn't clear they can always email MNHQ.

SouthernComforts · 05/08/2014 12:17

I would like to see more personalised deletion messages. "Deleted for racist language" "deleted for disabilism" "deleted for personal attack"

Then at least the poster can't deny the context of what they said later in the thread or in TAATs.

Original poster
MadameDefarge · 05/08/2014 11:51

Would it be worth starting a new thread headed up restricting name changes or somesuch?

I think we have all moved on from the highlighting idea,so to engage folk in the name change idea would be a good start point.

OP posts:
Original poster
MadameDefarge · 05/08/2014 11:50

I don't think it should be on a report basis, but on a decision after report basis. Trolls can report as well!

OP posts:
Original poster
MadameDefarge · 05/08/2014 11:49

I like the restrictions on the name changing.

I suppose the issue would be how to police it, as it were. As users here we can't see namechangers, so can only make educated guesses as to whether the poster is name changing.

We can of course report nasty posters. So I guess its up to MN to then manage that information in a meaningful way that would give rise to a decision to ban name changes etc.

I can only think that if an IP address hits a certain amount of deletions, it would lead to a flagging up, so that the poster who name changes can be tracked. Obviously this only works for the casual trolly namechanger, who can't be arsed to reset their IPs, but I think that would work for a vast swathe of name changing to be goady or vile.

Can you dump your poster deletions data somewhere it can be crunched and give reasonable management information to base decisions on?

OP posts:
MNHQ
RebeccaMumsnet · 05/08/2014 11:38

Hi all,

We are following this thread with interest.

Do keep your views coming.

We won't be leaving posts up and highlighting them as we feel this just glorifies nastiness, which we hope you'll agree, really isn't what we are about.

We do have very few guidelines on MN in comparison to many sites and on the whole, they do work. Our guidelines are outlined here and the MN philosophy is at the top of Talk, where we say:

'Mumsnet's aim is to make parents' lives easier.

'Our policy is to keep intervention to a minimum and let the conversation flow. Having said that, we will remove postings that are obscene, contain personal attacks or break the law. Please do bear in mind how difficult this parenting business can be, and if there's one thing all of us could do with, it's some moral support.'

It basically comes down to respect and civility - we are very aware that people will not always agree, but we do hope that posters will remain respectful and civil to each other.

There are also cases of libel, homophobic, racist language and many others that we just don't want to host on Mumsnet.

We do have the ability to suspend posters ability to NC and we do use this if we find that they have been abusing it. We can certainly look at using it a little more if you feel that it would help?

Original poster
MadameDefarge · 05/08/2014 09:31

hm. I don't think that is what I said I wanted.

But I think stricter rules about name changing warnings and bannings might well be in order.

With a more shoot first approach.

OP posts:
dozily · 05/08/2014 09:24

I think the current system works well, and it's quick and easy to delete posts which break the rules. I think some posters would enjoy having their posts highlighted or disemvowelled and effectively their post would still be left to stand.

Deleting offensive posts is more effective imho as it means if you break the rules you can't be part of the conversation.

lettertoherms · 05/08/2014 09:14

Sorry, I misread that part of your post.

I'm not saying anything about being personally hurt by attacks on other posters; though I have been saddened by those posts. But the posters it's directed at can be deeply affected. And posts can be nasty and hurtful without being directed at one poster; like the racist/disablist/trolling posts.

i can see no advantage to leaving awful nasty posts except giving the posters more attention and allowing them to continue. I'd rather have stricter consequences, suspensions and namechange restrictions, warnings and bannings, so that a poster cannot continue being nasty.

It seems that what you want is for a poster to say something horrible, have those horrible things left (while they feel smug and satisfied with what they posted), while other posters spend their time following them around the boards attacking them for their comments five threads ago, or perhaps pming them. Or at the least, a thread, instead of the nasty comment being deleted, is then derailed by the rest of the thread focusing only on that post and arguing about it, often ignoring the OP's actual issue or need for support. That's what happens when posts aren't deleted quickly enough. Meanwhile, more trolls will flood the board knowing they can be as deliberately nasty as they wish and get the exact response they hope for.

Original poster
MadameDefarge · 05/08/2014 09:00

I would much rather an unpleasant post was left, so the poster could see what people thought of that post. The best moderation is peer moderation (as long as it does not tip over into mob bullying and pressure to conform)

OP posts:
Original poster
MadameDefarge · 05/08/2014 08:59

I think I would be slightly odd to be personally hurt by an attack on another poster. That's not empathy, that's emotional colonisation.

OP posts:
Original poster
MadameDefarge · 05/08/2014 08:58

er letter, I did say that I was hurt by personal attacks and nastiness directed at me...

Yes, I do. Its been said already. Lots of people have read it. To remove it creates uncertainty and gives the person a hiding place.

The more I think about it the more I think name changing has to go, or at least be severely limited.

OP posts:
lettertoherms · 05/08/2014 08:45

You're not hurt by them, but some mners are, deeply.

A thread fairly recently was deleted where posters were telling the op that they hoped she miscarried.

I've seen a poster wish another poster dead, in a post which was then deleted.

Do you think those posts should have stood?

Original poster
MadameDefarge · 05/08/2014 08:32

I have to say I don't give a toss either way on posts that are vile; they don't hurt my feelings or upset me personally (unless directed towards me) so the ooh we must delete these to protect other MNetters from harm is really obnoxious.Stuff is published everyday that could be contrued as upsetting. Pandering to the lowest common denominator or possible offense and hurt is just silly, in my book.

Especially the direct personal attacks. the guidelines have made getting round them an artform. Most of the time an honest, I think you sound deranged is a lot more decent and less nasty than a convoluted construct.

OP posts:
Original poster
MadameDefarge · 05/08/2014 08:28

I guess the split is then between those who thing deletion is fine and dandy and those who think its infantilising, pointless disruptive.

OP posts:
elQuintoConyo · 05/08/2014 07:18

Highlight vitriol? Give them MORE attention?

I'd much prefer a deletion message like MNHQ give deleted threads, but shorter:

Post deleted for being a troll
Post deleted for being racist/disablist
Post deleted for personal attack
Post deleted for being an asshat

But, many people post a comment about a post just before it's deleted, so you can often tell why it's been deleted.

EhricLovesTheBhrothers · 05/08/2014 06:28

No, I don't like this idea, sorry. It defeats the point of deleting posts if you, er, don't delete them, and highlighting them is worse. I don't understand the point of disemvowelling to be honest and would end up wasting far too much time deciphering pointless posts just because they were there.

lettertoherms · 05/08/2014 04:33

You can be a regular and still be a troll.

Posting racist or disablist vitriol makes you a troll in my book.

The idea that posts won't be deleted means the trolls will come flocking, as well.

Original poster
MadameDefarge · 05/08/2014 04:15

I just don't see the virtue in deleting a post which says 'You are being a bitch' but letting a post which says 'Your post makes you sound like bitch' stand. It just means that people end up finding passive aggressive ways to be nasty or mean, or continue their spat within the 'guidelines'.

OP posts:
Original poster
MadameDefarge · 05/08/2014 04:14

er, not all deletions are for trolls, are they? Plenty of normal folk get deleted here, even regulars.

OP posts:
lettertoherms · 05/08/2014 03:58

I really hate this idea.

This is exactly what a troll wants. They don't care that people can see what kind of person they are. Their aim is to hurt as many people as possible with hateful words. Knowing their posts will be left, with as many people possible seeing it, especially if it were highlighted... that's like throwing them a ticker tape parade for their efforts.

Original poster
MadameDefarge · 05/08/2014 03:48

I think maybe we need to go back right to the basics and ask, why do we delete posts?

To what end? To serve whom?

Maybe we need to analysis this thoroughly before we can sort out whether deletions are warranted are not.

OP posts:
Original poster
MadameDefarge · 05/08/2014 03:46

The maybe it does come down to stopping namechanging, or automatic suspension after three reports of post which break talk guidelines., for a week or something draconian.

But I still come back to the point that removing the posts removes the poster from any further consequences of their actions. Its confusing, infantilising just a bit silly I think. The majority of deletions could perfectly well be allowed to stand as they are.

On really contentious threads it just leads to the post being paraphrased again and again.

OP posts:
trufflesnout · 05/08/2014 02:44

Ah I see.

I still don't agree though. Allowing them to stand, disemvowelled or not, comes across as more endorsement than shaming to me.