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

Rules around banning?

338 replies

TheUnworthy · 13/11/2016 21:54

Feeling a little nervous after the recent thread that went 'poof' and reports of people being banned and not knowing why/not having any deleted posts beforehand.

Is there a three strike rule? No strikes?

OP posts:
BeyondReasonablyDoubts · 14/11/2016 17:11

I just said on the moderation thread, there is a worrying theme that those who are more likely to be anti racist, sexist, disabilist etc, are those who are leaving (/being banned) in droves atm.

Owllady · 14/11/2016 17:08

Jason was quite unpleasantly attacked himself. I know it seems to be a theme on these threads to deny things exist, especially if it is over explained to you, but it was a perfect example of how ignorant people can be regarding disability.

crashdoll · 14/11/2016 17:03

Jason was banned for being unpleasant and made a PA. He did apologise but HQ didn't shift.

Fanjo left.

Soubriquet · 14/11/2016 17:02

I thought Jason got banned for a personal attack, then came back under a different account and was then either banned again or left

BeyondReasonablyDoubts · 14/11/2016 17:01

I'm quite sure fanjo deregged. When did Jason go?!

Soubriquet · 14/11/2016 17:00

It's a fair point though so i do get why you said you it

PolterGoose · 14/11/2016 17:00

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Soubriquet · 14/11/2016 16:55

I thought Fanjo deregged after the last big explosion of SN threads.

usual · 14/11/2016 16:54

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Ghostofasmile · 14/11/2016 16:28

I doubt the likes of Fanjo and Jason were either.

Soubriquet · 14/11/2016 16:26

If that's to me Polter whilst I suppose in theory it's possible, it is extremely unlikely for the person I'm talking about.

PolterGoose · 14/11/2016 16:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Owllady · 14/11/2016 16:24

Wannabe hasn't been posting under other names.

Soubriquet · 14/11/2016 15:08

Ok thank you very much

MNHQ
RebeccaMumsnet · 14/11/2016 15:04

@Soubriquet

I'm sorry to keep bothering you Rebbecca

I understand you don't want to discuss it with me. That's fair enough. I don't expect you to

I also understand you don't want to talk to trolls. Again fair enough

But the poster in question is not a troll. She has never been suspended or banned before so this seems to be very heavy handed for someone who was never on the radar before.

It's not a bother at all, we will and do look and I know it can be hard but please do trust that we don't ban folks lightly. There could well be a reason that you are unaware of.

Apologies that we can't be more specific.

QueenMortificado · 14/11/2016 15:04

PolterGoose Grin Grin

PolterGoose · 14/11/2016 15:03

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Soubriquet · 14/11/2016 14:58

Is it possible you have a mistaken identity for her?

Soubriquet · 14/11/2016 14:57

I'm sorry to keep bothering you Rebbecca

I understand you don't want to discuss it with me. That's fair enough. I don't expect you to

I also understand you don't want to talk to trolls. Again fair enough

But the poster in question is not a troll. She has never been suspended or banned before so this seems to be very heavy handed for someone who was never on the radar before.

MNHQ
RebeccaMumsnet · 14/11/2016 14:55

@OhYouBadBadKitten

I agree with ItsAllGoingToBeFine.

Firstly, there should be a consistent set number of warnings when people are sailing too close to the wind. Then if they cross the line something like the following could work:

Adding a divert to a page when they try to log in with either -

1)If it's for a dodgy comment and the person needs to be reviewed:
Your account has been suspended while we review it. If you have any queries then contact.....
This then should be reviewed within a stated, consistent and suitable time frame (2 working days?)

2)If it's for spam or something so so so outrageous, then:
We have removed your account for infringing site rules. If you wish to appeal then please contact....

Because just banning people without any word or reason could frankly drive some people over the edge and while mn aren't responsible for people's mental health, it's really not nice for them to end up being a direct contributor to their stresses, especially when people may have snapped and said something because they are already struggling.

The please contact us email address should not be the general contactus page, because it can feel like you are emailing into a black hole when mn get very busy. It also minimises acknowledgment that something potentially upsetting and big has been applied to a person. It should be a separate email address.

It would be much better for both users and mn I think if a consistent framework were applied.

Thanks OYBBK, We'll have a chat about this one. It would mean Tech work so not something we could do immediately but we will certainly consider it.

TBH, we tend to find folks who are really bothered will mail in, many will know full well why they have been banned and some are just trolls who we'd rather not engage with.
We'll have to gather some figures but I'd hazard a guess that the vast amount of bans happen to out and out trolls and not RL MNetters.

MNHQ
RebeccaMumsnet · 14/11/2016 14:50

@NavyandWhite

2 suspensions then banned then?

Whilst in an ideal world, we'd work on 3 strikes and we do loosely BUT and it's a big BUT - it all depends on the issue that arises at the time. If it's a big one then and they are on a 2nd strike, we may ban or even on a first if the issue is bad enough. It's not an exact science.

By big issue we mean really vile things posted or huge nasty personal attacks, out and out racism and alike.

TBH, that is rare from a MNetter who has been around for a while, more of a newbie thing.

We have and do mail MNetters if they post in an out of character way, just in case someone else has posted from their account, which has happened in the past.

MNHQ
RebeccaMumsnet · 14/11/2016 14:46

@bumbleymummy

Thanks Rebecca.

In the hypothetical situation that you described above, does the poster's history ever get 'reset' or will reports from years before still get used against them?

We certainly take the whole picture into account.
If someone is breaking guidelines 5 years ago and then we hear nothing and then there's another minor issue, we wouldn't necessarily hold their history against them, however, if there were consistent minor issues over many years then we will have to stop it at some point.

QueenMortificado · 14/11/2016 14:45

MNHQ, would it be worth just rethinking about the way in which people hear they're banned?

Ie, you're still able to log in but when you do you get a zombie thread- style alert saying "your posting privileges have been suspended, please contact MNHQ or check your emails for further details"?

NavyandWhite · 14/11/2016 14:44

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MNHQ
RebeccaMumsnet · 14/11/2016 14:43

@Butteredpars1ps

Mmm. Have to be honest HQ some of this doesn't feel quite right. It's sounds like people get banned because x number of people report them. Surely not, that would be like mob rule?

People should be banned or suspended because they have significantly broken a rule or rules. It doesn't matter if it was reported by 1 poster or a zillion.

Hi Buttered,

Agreed and that's why we read every report. You could be reported a gazillion times, but if none of your posts break the guidelines then we won't take action.