How does this gel with your thread on your moderation policy MNHQ??

Lougle - just wanted to say that in case it wasn't clear from my previous posts I have no issue with your criticisms, I don't take it personally and I hope that my previous responses don't come across as snarky. I knew that the poem came very close to the line when I posted it. I thought that (for the reasons I listed earlier in this thread) it fell just within the guidelines. You feel it falls outside them, and I completely understand why, believing that, you made a complaint.

I also appreciate that plenty of people think its a bit rubbish and unfunny.
That's fine too, but it's not a reason to delete it. There are some incredibly articulate, well researched and interesting threads on the politics and referendum boards at the moment. I wasn't trying to compete with those.
There's some really funny threads elsewhere on the site as well. And some rubbish.

I do think it's quite interesting what counts as offensive and what doesn't, it's varies wildly from person to person.
Personally I think that the most offensive comment in that poem was the facsism reference (the rest was either adolescent swearing or demonstrably true accusations) and I nearly didn't include it.
It's a word which is really easy to overuse, and I think that it has been used inappropriately as an insult so much that we've almost become unable to spot a real one when they do come along, like crying nazi-wolf.
But then I looked again at the parallels (and no, I am not saying the current far right movements are carbon copies of what has gone before, but there is enough ground for comparison), and I decided to include it.

Trump is a political figure. It is necessary and right that citizens be able to mock world leaders.

Version 1:
Hitler has only got one ball
The other is in the Albert Hall
His mother,
The dirty bugger
Cut it off when he was small
Hitler has only got one ball
Hess has got no balls at all
Himmler had something similar
But poor old Goebbals
Had no balls at all

If the rule is that we can't be rude to MN guests (or not within a short time frame of them coming onto the MN platform in some way) then that would be good to know. It felt a little bit like a made up rule following the deletion of a "vile misogynist" post, and seemed all the more odd because at the same time there was a thread running about Ed Balls - who was also at Blogfest - and not everything on that was complimentary but was allowed to stand.

TBH I often think of MNHQ like parents or nursery teachers who find themselves drawn into some ridiculous squabbles, and although the rules are usually easy to apply consistently and fairly every now and again they do something that is different and feels unfair...but they have committed to it now, and can't really row back.

WellErr, we'll just agree to disagree then I was going to copy and paste your 'Ner ner' post but many of them to Lougle have been a bit pointed. Disagreeing with somebody is fine; but mocking is what it feels like on this thread. To me anyway.

I understand Lougle's point and I understand the wanting to deride a public figure but as there is inconsistency there, it's fair enough to point that out. It should be the same principle across the board, for everybody.

Disagreeing with someone isn't 'mocking them'

I also agree with Lougle. I read the poem, didn't think it particularly funny or clever (sorry, Squirmy) but saw it as an outburst at the American vote result. That's not satire.

I also agree with Ilovehedgehogs but would say that the echo-chamber effect is already here. We're allowed to question things, that's what makes this site brilliant but the mocking of Lougle for her views isn't cricket and isn't what makes this site what it is.

Dione - iirc there was one (not sure if more) which used the phrase 'vile misogynist' which was nuked, leading to questioning about why as the 'guest' thing wasn't clear at that point. I assume it was the 'vile' which pushed it over the limit of acceptability in that case.

But yes, most of the deletions were for 'misgendering' including the mistake where the 'he' was referring to preceding post about trump.

I agree with Lougle ,it will start to feel like an echo chamber here soon. She can question it if she wants to, I am just as bored with the responses telling her to leave if she doesn't like it.

I am an oldie too, coming up for 14 years on here and lougle doesn't go around trying to draw attention to herself. Anyone who starts a thread or even comments on a thread is drawing attention.

I just had another look at the thread and here are a couple of quotes.
"Paris Lees is a balls out misogynist"
"Paris Lees is overtly misogynist"

There are quite a few posts calling PL misogynist that were left to stand, so it is completely untrue that deletions happened because of that. Deletions did happen where PL was misgendered. This has been clear MN policy for a while.

One more limerick but I didn't write it.
It is about President Erdogan:

There was a young fellow from Ankara
Who was a terrific Wankerer
Till he sowed his wild oats
with the help of a goat.
But he didn't even stop to Thankera.

That was written by our current foreign secretary and printed in the Spectator.
He received £1000 for it.

I agree lougle. I find a lot that Trump has said and stands for very distasteful but find the insults posted here from the poem as direct personal insult and the ambiguity makes me very uncomfortable.

I have great sympathy for Justine and MNHQ as it must be very difficult to draw that line without stifling the range of opinions and robust debate many of us have enjoyed and been educated by on the one hand or allowing an unpleasant free for all on the other. MN do need to have a certain amount of consistency in the deleting attacks on people in public eye though as the site could become an echo chamber if attacks are only allowed on those not approved of

Errol, I read the thread as it happened, it was clear that there were going to be a lot of deletions at the time that it was being written. And while MN may have become a bit trigger happy with the deletions, most of the posts deleted were not what lougle has put up. But then lougle wouldn't know that as she didn't see the deleted posts.

Coincidentally, I was on the PL thread for "Found Poem" purposes.

What's the PL thread?

Loving the poems on here.

Dione - there were posts deleted on the PL thread of that nature. But being a guest, PL was being afforded a higher level of courtesy than might otherwise have applied. This was debated, but when alls said and done, their house, their rules.

Nigel's mate, Arron banks,
had some views which were really quite rank.
He paid for some Memes,
which were truly obscene.
And Nigel Farage he said "thanks!"

"This public figure says really nasty things about women and is a misogynist"

I have never seen such a post deleted. When did that happen lougle?

Dione and Mistress: They're good!
Here's another:

"Man of the people" Nigel Farage
had money and flash cars in his garage.
He said "isn't it funny?
I want power, not money!"
His ambition and ego were large.

lougle - MNHQ are consistent in the "we look at reports and if we think it needs to go it goes, if we think it's fine to stay it stays, and if you think we've made a mistake we'll look in to it and apologise if we have" sense. I think that is actually pretty consistent, but some people clearly want it more rigid than that.

MNHQ have made it quite clear that they have no intention of making it more rigid but still people start "Look how clever I am pointing out MNHQ are inconsistent hypocrites" and "Look at me 'calling MNHQ out on things I disagree with'" threads.

Why? Why not just close the thread you have a problem with?

I've looked at the poem as a result of this thread and think the first three verses are awful. I'm in the "don't lower yourself to his gutter level" camp. While I wouldn't have reported it for deletion as I do agree that it really won't harm him, I don't think it belongs in Classics.

Lougle - but they have explained, you just didn't accept the explanation. The 'rules' aren't rigid, they may be applied differently in the cases where 'someone puts themselves out there in the media'. MNHQ's inconsistencies generally give more protection to the weaker and more vulnerable, less to the strong. IMO that's preferable to a more rigid approach, and seems like the majority on this thread agree.

They said they'd have another look at the 'poem thread' if there were more complaints, as far as I can see the main effect of this thread is people who hadn't seen it taking a look and liking it.

I dunno there's a whole internet out there if you don't like this bit. nobody is conscripted to mumsnet as far as I know.

and this entire thread reads like a not-so-thinly veiled lead-in to the endless circle-jerk around trans issues. stop it. and if it isn't? it comes off as weird and obsessive. let it go...