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:
GingerIvy · 14/11/2016 14:43

I can't imagine they would be so short sighted as to use how many reports they get on a post as their ruler for whether or not someone is banned. That would allow bullying and (as you said, Buttered) mob rule, which is hardly the way a professional site would run.

I would, however, be interested in knowing the basics of any hard and fast rules, so we know where we stand.

bumbleymummy · 14/11/2016 14:41

Yes, buttered, I wonder about that too.

NavyandWhite · 14/11/2016 14:41

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Devilishpyjamas · 14/11/2016 14:39

If it's three strikes then bye I must be on my last warning (been posting here since 2001 - pretty hard not to upset a few people in that time).

OhYouBadBadKitten · 14/11/2016 14:38

Rebecca, sorry, not yesterday, I said it today! doh. It's been a long day already Grin

Devilishpyjamas · 14/11/2016 14:38

I agree buttered.

NavyandWhite · 14/11/2016 14:37

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

bumbleymummy · 14/11/2016 14:36

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?

Butteredpars1ps · 14/11/2016 14:35

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.

MNHQ
RebeccaMumsnet · 14/11/2016 14:32

@GloopyGhoul

I don't know the back story re:wannabe, and I'm too sporadic a poster to get banned (I've only been deleted once, and that was on a trolly cannibalism thread) but I don't think consistency is too much to ask for, HQ.

We'd agree and we do try our best to be as consistent as possible but the variants here are enormous and so absolute consistency is impossible.

NavyandWhite · 14/11/2016 14:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Devilishpyjamas · 14/11/2016 14:32

MNHQ I think you must have spoken at wannabe rather than to her. I am guessing anywat or you wouldn't be doing this right now. But not my business to share.

I think when poster after poster hasn't noticed this behaviour bad enough to be banned then maybe being very rigid about slaps on the wrists is a bit misguided.

But hey ho.

Soubriquet · 14/11/2016 14:31

The problem is, she doesn't know where she's gone wrong.

And you are refusing to reply

MNHQ
RebeccaMumsnet · 14/11/2016 14:30

@Soubriquet

What about the member I've emailed about Rebbeca

You emailed back saying you don't discuss other members. Fair enough I wasn't asking you to discuss it with me. I was asking you to at least reply to them. You still haven't done this

Hi Soubriquet,

We're sorry but we really can't discuss this as it's unfair to do so publicly.
If there is anything to be said, we will speak to that poster directly.

As I have previously posted, we do not choose to disengage lightly.

MsGameandWatch · 14/11/2016 14:30

I have no axe to grind at all. I am just saying what I know to have happened to a number of long term posters. Just to be clear.

GloopyGhoul · 14/11/2016 14:26

I don't know the back story re:wannabe, and I'm too sporadic a poster to get banned (I've only been deleted once, and that was on a trolly cannibalism thread) but I don't think consistency is too much to ask for, HQ.

MNHQ
RebeccaMumsnet · 14/11/2016 14:26

@NavyandWhite

In my own experience I had my account suspended last year ( or was it this year? ) for troll hunting. If I'm honest i thought it was fairly thinly disguised but still wrong. I was warned too tbf. I don't think HQ were wrong to suspend me either and it has made me think twice now because that troll maybe in fact genuine. So now I mither HQ very often by reporting everything I'm wary of.

As for Wannabe! I don't know what's gone on. But but but she is one of my all time favourite posters here. I don't think I've ever disagreed with her viewpoint and look to her posts as a benchmark frequently.
Hope she's ok and that she will be back soon. MN would be a much worse place without her. 😘

Agreed and we will allow her back if she'd like to come back but we do have to follow through on our own guidelines.

Soubriquet · 14/11/2016 14:26

What about the member I've emailed about Rebbeca

You emailed back saying you don't discuss other members. Fair enough I wasn't asking you to discuss it with me. I was asking you to at least reply to them. You still haven't done this

MNHQ
RebeccaMumsnet · 14/11/2016 14:24

@Ghostofasmile

wait for them to mail in and then we explain

You do block / ignore emails from banned members though, so some of them don't get an explanation. So many people have stated this that it's clearly something you do.

Yes, we have done this in the past and still do. Generally, this is when we feel that we have nothing more to say or that we are not going to change our mind on that particular poster. We would much rather engage than not but very occasionally, we will make the choice to end the conversation when there is nothing more to be said.

MNHQ
RebeccaMumsnet · 14/11/2016 14:22

@OhYouBadBadKitten

Rebecca, thanks for coming back. Please could you consider my suggestions from yesterday at 8:51am.

I'll have a look OYBBK...

MNHQ
RebeccaMumsnet · 14/11/2016 14:21

@AVirginLitTheCandle

That has not happened to numerous posters I know. They've been told immediately that MN is not the site for them and they're banned and that's it, no discussion. And the copied email earlier certainly supports that.

Somehow I doubt MNHQ will address that.

This is tricky to discuss publicly as we don't know who you are talking about and it wouldn't be fair to discuss it publicly.

However, what could have happened is that we have sent a few mails, temporarily banned them and they still do it and we have drawn a line or They may have posted a few minor things and then one really vile thing and we decided that they were not playing by the rules, which really aren't overly hard to post within or they have been name changing, posting lots of blatant misinformation under various names or sock-puppeting or they have recently joined and posted something really awful.

It could be any number of those thing but it certainly isn't our default position to ban. We cannot always explain the full picture to everyone but please do trust that we would rather give a warning or temp ban than ban for good and we don't do it without good reason.

The person who posted earlier clearly has an axe to grind, we'd welcome an email from them so we can explain their specific case.

NavyandWhite · 14/11/2016 14:17

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Ghostofasmile · 14/11/2016 14:16

wait for them to mail in and then we explain

You do block / ignore emails from banned members though, so some of them don't get an explanation. So many people have stated this that it's clearly something you do.

AVirginLitTheCandle · 14/11/2016 14:08

That has not happened to numerous posters I know. They've been told immediately that MN is not the site for them and they're banned and that's it, no discussion. And the copied email earlier certainly supports that.

Somehow I doubt MNHQ will address that.

MsGameandWatch · 14/11/2016 14:05

A week later, another few reports for similar stuff, we ban and wait for them to mail in and then we explain. If they agree to stop it, we will allow them back after a week.

That has not happened to numerous posters I know. They've been told immediately that MN is not the site for them and they're banned and that's it, no discussion. And the copied email earlier certainly supports that.