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:
Original poster
MadameDefarge · 04/08/2014 13:02

But I still think they should stand, and like the disemvowelling best.

OP posts:
Original poster
MadameDefarge · 04/08/2014 12:54

They would indicate their preference for deletion/non deletion on their reporting post.

OP posts:
trufflesnout · 04/08/2014 12:47

But the time aspect of asking permission from an OP comes from the part of waiting for the OP's response. Writing a two or three word mini deletion message would take seconds

Original poster
MadameDefarge · 04/08/2014 12:37

I think a mini deletion message would take as much time, surely?

OP posts:
Original poster
MadameDefarge · 04/08/2014 12:37

well, they could have a two choice report option, one for deletions and one for letting it stand.

I agree now that highlighting would just draw attention to contentious posts. But do like the disemvowelling idea

OP posts:
trufflesnout · 04/08/2014 10:19

I don't like the idea of highlighting either, and I can't place why.

I think the idea of asking whoever was personally attacked whether they want something to stand or be deleted would be massively time consuming for HQ - I always assumed that PAs would be the number 1 reason for deletion - there's just too much follow up with asking & waiting for a reply before carrying through, the process is too lengthly

I do like the idea of a mini deletion message explaining why a post has gone though eg "deleted - personal attack" rather than just "deleted by MNHQ", it can be as elaborate as you want, but even in the barest form you get the gist of what happened.

ballsballsballs · 03/08/2014 11:05

Jezebel used to disemvowel. I'm not sure if they still do as I haven't posted for a while.

slightlyglitterstained · 03/08/2014 10:31

KateMumsnet Disemvowelling in action - see Making Light, or Boing Boing (both implemented by same moderator):
nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/006871.html

Some background here: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disemvoweling

Obviously there are some differences between comments on a blog, and forum discussions. Plus, moderation solutions have to fit the community culture - I don't know how it'd fit MN, and I do agree that it wouldn't really help to calm down a thread that's starting to turn into a bunfight.

Thought I'd mention it as an option to think about though.

alAswad · 02/08/2014 22:58

How about greying out the offending posts rather than highlighting them, then? So they stand out less instead of more? Or, I don't know how easy it would be to implement but you could have posts that break the Talk Guidelines hidden by default, but with a button to unhide each one individually if people want to see them?

MNHQ
KateSMumsnet · 02/08/2014 17:38

@Maryz

What a lovely idea Kate.

I would like to be sunshine yellow, if that is ok? Previously I asked for blue, but Olivia very meanly refused with the rather pathetic excuse that it was reserved for mnhq.

Arf Grin

The stories that Olivia comes out with...I don't know...

Maryz · 02/08/2014 17:18

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MNHQ
KateSMumsnet · 02/08/2014 17:11

@MadameDefarge

hi Kate, how about the disemvowelling idea?

Hmm - it's a v interesting idea, and an excellent name Grin Bt rn't rlly hrrbl psts stll frly undrstndbl wtht vwls? Does anyone have an example of where it's been used? It'd be really interesting to see it in action, as it were.

Original poster
MadameDefarge · 02/08/2014 16:54

hi Kate, how about the disemvowelling idea?

OP posts:
MNHQ
KateSMumsnet · 02/08/2014 16:47

Hullo everyone,

Thanks for all your thoughts and suggestions Flowers

We can understand that people feel that posters should be held accountable for any nasty posts they make, and therefore that posts shouldn't be deleted. However, we can't help but think that leaving/highlighting aggressive or unpleasant posts would engender more anger on a thread that might otherwise simmer down, if the offending posts were removed.

Plus on a purely aesthetic level, if we were going to be giving anyone pretty highlighted posts, surely it would make sense to bestow this honour upon the many hilarious/lovely/supportive/moving posts, rather than bringing attention to the shitty ones?

It'd be interesting if we could get a general consensus on what folks think of this idea, so please do keep your posts coming.

Original poster
MadameDefarge · 01/08/2014 23:39

so you could disemvowall as easily as deleting.

Which would remove any extra burden on MNHQ

OP posts:
Original poster
MadameDefarge · 01/08/2014 23:38

that is very interesting slightly.

OP posts:
slightlyglitterstained · 01/08/2014 23:37

I can think of 3 ways to do hard to detect sock puppeting off the top of my head, so I wouldn't rely on that.

I can sort of see for milder stuff that it's possibly helpful in that it reinforces MN rules for onlookers about acceptable behaviour. Still think it's trickier to enforce though.

Actually, one solution that I've seen used very effectively is disemvowelling. Moderator just removes all the vowels from the offensive post (with a script, not by hand!). Means you can still figure out what was said if you really want to but you can't come across it and read it before your brain catches up, IYSWIM?

Original poster
MadameDefarge · 01/08/2014 23:36

So maybe restict it to personal attacks?

Up to attackee if they stay or go, but highlighted all the same as considered to be breaking talk guidlines.

So if the attackee reports, they can opt for delete if MNHQ agrees, or let stand but highlighted otherwise.

OP posts:
Maryz · 01/08/2014 23:35

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
MadameDefarge · 01/08/2014 23:01

But the basic principle should stand. Only delete if the person attacked wants it deleted. Mostly I just want the poster to be sanctioned in an obvious way, ie the highlighting, not deletion.

OP posts:
Original poster
MadameDefarge · 01/08/2014 23:00

but MNHQ could spot the sock puppeting.

I don't think tis a question of shaming, merely highlighting no one thinks the post is reasonable, but allowing it to stand, because deleting it causes more trouble than letting it stand.

Not for out and out racist/disablist/sexist shit, which should be deleted with specific deletion options, not just a random breaking talk guidelines post.

OP posts:
slightlyglitterstained · 01/08/2014 22:52

Think the basic problem here is that "shaming" tactics only work on fundamentally reasonable people who are capable of feeling shame or embarrassment.

Original poster
MadameDefarge · 01/08/2014 22:52

I do agree.

I also think , as mintyy and others have said, that most people would prefer a personal attack to stand as testament to the posters twattiness, and make sense of the the spluttered rebuttals.

OP posts:
slightlyglitterstained · 01/08/2014 22:50

I don't agree. There may be more people harmed by a vile post than the person directly attacked.

Plus there's a massive loophole - someone who wanted to fill MN with vile and upsetting material could create a few sockpuppets, post whatever they fancied as their sockpuppet, then as the "attacked" person say "no, let it stand", and enjoy the effect on bystanders.

Mintyy · 01/08/2014 22:41

Completely agree Mme. There is too much sweeping under the carpet.

Although I do think there should be swift deletions for the out and out disgusting posts which occasionally crop up on here ... they obviously generate hundreds of reports all at once, and hq are quite good at zapping those to be fair.

But, yes, if there are personal attacks then only let them be deleted if the person who has been attacked wants it deleted. That's what I say.