Just had box set ruined by a thread title- can we have a bit more curtesy please

Bum posted the same link twice, doh! The second one should be

Context for the joke in the deletion message:

I got the joke in the deletion message CountBecula.

I missed the gratuitously nasty attacks because I instantly reported the thread title and by the time I went back to pile in in a shuffling, snarling way, you'd deleted the thread.

I was prim rather than abusive in my report

It's the head ghoul in me.

"It's a zombie programme, nobody died!"

Yes they did, that's the whole point of zombies.

Just before I go. The thread deletion message:

"
AIBU? : [Title removed by MNHQ due to spoiler. Thread removed] 1 message.
Thread deleted

    Message from MNHQ: HUGE THE WALKING DEAD SPOILER <img loading="lazy" class="inline-flex mumsnet-emoji" alt="Angry" src="https://www.mumsnet.com/build/assets/angry-BLHnmhGV.png">

    We'll get in touch with the OP (we're coming for you, jaxswagger)"

It was deleted for various reasons.

Again, for the last time, nobody is defending personal attacks.

The OP is on The Walking Dead thread in Telly Addicts so surely she must be used to gratuitously nasty attacks.

That was my point Wannabe, over the FC thing. It's just another example of people doing things differently but believing they're right and arguing over it. I've been on those threads this week. The key point is that you have a choice about whether you deliberately negatively impact somebody else's life. You can do things your own way, you can believe what you want, you can quibble over the word spoiler. However, if you know it's likely that you're ruining a surprise for somebody and you have a choice over whether to do that but do it anyway, it says everything about you and nothing about whether believing in FC is acceptable or similar.

And at no point did I say believing in FC is the same as a spoiler debate. I was illustrating a point about difference and choice but again you can quibble all you like over the semantics of that whilst ignoring what is a simple, polite request which actually doesn't negatively impact other users at all.

Anyway, I really am going out.

It's a zombie programme, nobody died!

limitedperiodonly hardly anyone?

They didn't delete the thread because of the spoiler, they deleted it because it was full of gratuitously nasty attacks on the OP for spoiling.

I said nearly everyone Furiosa. You don't know who lives, do you?

MumOnTheRun. There is no rule. There is a polite request and there is common sense. I assume that people who work/have children/don't have that channel/are busy that night probably don't watch it immediately. The point isn't that there's a temporal rule but that in this case, it's only been 12 hours and common sense dictates that lots of people won't have seen it yet.

wannabe, lots of people (including me) posted 'contains spoilers, can you get it amended, have you alerted hq?' It wasn't pages of personal attacks. There were about 15 responses and they read as 'thanks a fucking bunch that's really bad form' mostly which was a reaction to the spoiler, not an attack on the op really. Some people said 'I've reported this to get it amended' and some people answered the op's question. It wasn't an outright bunfight or personal attack though there were some totally unwarranted responses.

There's absolutely no reason for a lot of the vitriol on this thread either. Telling the op to get a fucking grip or that she's pathetic? Really? For a polite request? It goes both ways. It's nothing to do with the question being asked. Individual people are responsible for their own fuckwittery. This doesn't detract from the actual thing the op is suggesting.

As I said in my post above, MNHQ say in the deletion message that it was deleted because of spoilers. The op of the thread also wanted it deleted because she'd realised her mistake. The personal attacks were just another reason why.

We can nitpick over personal attacks for hours if you want but we're all agreeing surely? They're never warranted. They're ridiculous and inappropriate. Right, so what about agreeing to put spoilers in the thread instead of in the title? Anybody want to talk about that? I mean it's a tiny thing and it's been politely requested. MNHQ actively encourage it and it makes you a thoughtful user of the forum. Nobody want to discuss that? Or do they just want to criticise other people for being different or argue over whether personal attacks are warranted when nobody has even said they are?

limitedperiodonly

Thanks a lot. I haven't read that one yet!

Just don't put OMG!!!! xxx died!!!! in the title less than 24 hours after airing.

I think you can probably get away with 'nearly everyone dies' in Hamlet

Once a programme has aired then all bets are off. Yes some people chose to watch on catch up but that's a chance they take. Spoilers only apply before a programme has been broadcast, you can't control the Internet so best avoid it all together if you're watching later.

yes, am off to the real world as well. Please can no-one talk about events in the news because I won't get to see it until 6:00.

and yes, deleting a thread because it contains spoilers is ridiculous. The programme had already aired.

Lol usual

well, the irony is that there have been threads in the past week from posters whose children have been told that Father Christmas doesn't exist who have been told that their children will find out the truth anyway so to get a grip.

And another thread currently ongoing where a grieving widow and the sister of a terminally ill brother are being ripped to shreds for daring to believe in God. But apparently that is ok, but posting a spoiler over the ending of a fictitious programme which is already known is not? riiight.

There's a vast difference also between Father Christmas for little kids and a to programme for grown adults!

Dear god

ShowOfBloodyStumps but there is a vast difference between a thread title being posted, people saying "ah, contains spoilers can we get mn hq to amend?" which would be perfectly reasonable, it's a thread title after all, and a thread being posted which essentially turns into pages of personal attacks on the op because she has posted a title containing details of a programme which had already aired. and that thread having to be removed not because of the spoilers but because of the personal attacks on the op. There is absolutely no need for the reaction that thread title caused last night. none what so ever.

The fact is, that programme had already aired. While people may choose not to talk about it publically, the reality is that once it's aired it is fair game for discussion. The reaction on that thread says a lot more about the people getting upset than it does about the op who simply posted about a programme which had already aired on British television.

Ohh so 12 hours after isn't ok!? Really, so when is ok?

15 hours after? 20 hours after? 48 hours? 48 1/2? Who makes up these rules?