MNHQ need to review policy regarding apologist posts

That thread was moderated (I know, I was deleted).

Difficult to see how MNHQ could justify leaving personal attacks up or leaving people to 'get a verbal kicking'. It's a way of allowing mob rule. Leaving that sort of attack up could discourage the 'wrong' sort of views: effectively restrict free speech and limit the debate.

Personal attacks should be moderated quickly, not because people aren't adult enough to take them but because they change the manner of discussion and because they might frighten away other valid viewpoints.

this is not your safe space, OP. were you conscripted to MN? are you compelled to come to a website and read things that offend you?

of course not. do people really get huffy because a completely free chat forum for anonymous posters doesn't moderate according to their personal moral compass?

blimey.

I believe in free speech so I don't believe apologist posts should be automatically deleted

However, I feel the free speech should go both ways. So for example on that thread, if you post that getting your sexual kicks from the abuse of children ever has any mitigating factors then you should expect to get a verbal kicking

The angry responses should also stay. In the interests of free speech.

Either that....or it all goes

So, a difficult line to tread and requiring more (trained) moderation. Paid moderation.

That's not going to happen though. So we have this situation where goady fuckers stay within talk guidelines and wind people up enough to break them. Win/win for the apologists.

I actually hope the thread in question is allowed to stand to give other guests attending this wedding the chance to recognize it and not go.

I am not a child.

I am going to read views that I hate, some which I find really offensive.

However, I don't want to be like Netmums where conversation is stifled as soon as someone posts anything controversial. Some of the replies on that thread were horrid but like I said, I'm not a child I can moderate myself.

Why shouldn't they stand? Because it might upset someone? Well, that goes back to moderating yourself and knowing what threads to stay away from because the title made it very clear what the thread was about and everyone knows that even on threads about child sexual abuse there will be goady fuckers who will say something offensive. I don't read a thread that has the potential to make me hurt. I would much rather people's horrible opinions be left to stand, that way there is no backtracking and people can debate those points without name calling.

I don't think MNHQ did anything wrong and I don't know why they apologised really. They got to all the comments in the end that needed deleting, just not in a time frame that was acceptable for you.

MNHQ needs to stop apologising to a group of adults who have a fucking off button on their computer/phone.

Bunfight, sorry - what a horrible autocorrect

The overwhelming majority of the posts on the thread agreed with the OP.

A minority of posters felt she was (or potentially was) being unreasonable, and the gunfight stemmed from this.

If it was felt in that instance that any posts deviating from the stance the OP had taken then really the thread just shouldn't have been posted - the fact that it was surely indicates that an opposing view could be aired?

There is a fine line between deleting people for having an opinion that differs from the norm and deleting offensive posts. How is your post about Olivia's job adding to the debate, that's just fucking rude. If a thread is annoying or offending you then leave it. If mumsnet is annoying or offending you then don't look at it.

I reported several posts on the thread yesterday and received a prompt and courteous response. Olivia was certainly doing her job

Did you really say Wondering if Olivia will still have a job tomorrow? OP.

That's shocking. How bloody rude. De register if you don't like how the site is run.

That is reassuring to read, Greys.

Good post ItsAllGoingToBeFine. Spot on.

Apologists in your view

I value the fact that on MN difficult or controversial issues can be robustly discussed with input from both sides of the argument. Just because you find a particular view abhorrent doesn't mean that it should be deleted. You can either stay and debate the poster or leave the thread. Deleting controversial posts isna slippery slope, and MNHQ are very very good on this, even reinstating deleted posts on occasion when they decide the initial decision bwas wrong.

There's certain groups of young people particularly in America who are insidiously trying to no platform speech but I don't think it's representative of young people as a whole. I'm not sure I'm considered young anymore at 27 but I know it's not common amongst my peers

Are you young OP? I notice younger people seem to want to no platform and stop free speech for some reason.

You have choices, leave the thread, stop engaging or debate.

Who said you should be silent? I'm saying you had the option of closing the thread instead of continuing to engage and then wanting mumsnet to come delete the things you didn't like. I don't understand what was so urgent that you're now railing out MNHQ for not responding fast enough

If you are clearly overly agressive in your posts thrn you should be 'silenced'. I think.

I don't agree with you OP.

And actually I think some of the posts on that thread you highlighted are pretty disgusting, and I don't mean the ones you mean.

Yourself and others are adults who are fully capable of exiting the thread that is causing them such distress until a time when MNHQ can get round to sorting the bunfight adults got themselves into.