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

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

237 replies

lougle · 19/11/2016 13:05

Apologies in advance for a thread about two threads - I don't want to derail either thread but I'm genuinely curious as to how you've reconciled your stance on moderation with your response to squishysquirmy's poem about Donald Trump?

On your Moderation policy thread Justine says:

"This doesn't mean that it's a complete free for all. Of course we do and will continue to remove posts that break our rules – for instance personal attacks and those that break the law or promote hate."

Then on Squishysquirmy's Help-What-rhymes-with-cuntweasel? thread you've promoted the thread to classics because it contains a 77 line, very clever, very amusing, poem about Donald Trump, which is

-clearly a personal attack
-encouraging others to ridicule him

I'm absolutely no fan, I have to say, but what was the thinking here?? How does this get promoted to classics when other less offensive posts have been deleted recently?

I do think there needs to be some level of consistency if you want people to accept that you are making rational decisions about what you delete.

OP posts:
CaesiumTime · 19/11/2016 19:43

I am behind keeping the thread and the poem.

No protection on MNHQ for misogynist disabilist sexual predators.

Especially those who wield power.

He is fodder for the fire.

JustAnotherSadOldNumber · 19/11/2016 19:38

Some topics probably need more moderation than others.

This!
This is what I've been trying to explain i completely agree with it.

MistressMerryWeather · 19/11/2016 19:30

I read the poem, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. As others have said it's a bit of satire.

I do agree with whoever said it feels like it's being used to make a point about HQ being hypocritical/catch them out.

Will site stuff soon be full of threads like this?

Original poster
lougle · 19/11/2016 19:24

X-posted with you Rebecca.

Do you not see these lines as vile personal attacks, then? What would pass your personal attack threshold in that case? Confused

"But Goddamn you to Hell, you fat flacid cock.
You racist, nasty, blistering canker,
homophobic, disablist, dissembling wanker.
Manipulative scumbag, short-sighted scrote.
They're burning us all, you self serving shit.
Upcycle old thinking as "New Nazi-Lite".
But a fascists a fascist you lying gobshite.
You are the obscenity. You are the curse."

OP posts:
Original poster
lougle · 19/11/2016 19:21

OK. Did anyone read the poem and have any hesitation in realising who it was about?

But Goddamn you to Hell, you fat flacid cock.
You racist, nasty, blistering canker,
homophobic, disablist, dissembling wanker.
Manipulative scumbag, short-sighted scrote.
They're burning us all, you self serving shit.
Upcycle old thinking as "New Nazi-Lite".
But a fascists a fascist you lying gobshite.
You are the obscenity. You are the curse.

Those are the lines that are direct personal attacks, I think. The rest is pretty ranty, but ranting isn't a problem. But I did think that personal attacks weren't allowed. And I do think that this goes 'beyond the pale' as MNHQ put it so frequently.

None of us have to be happy that elections went the way they did, but I do think that MNHQ should be consistent.

OP posts:
MNHQ
RebeccaMumsnet · 19/11/2016 19:21

Hi all,

The way that we work is to take things on a case by case basis. This was reported 5 times to go into Classics and only once, earlier today following this thread, in a negative light.

It is a tricky one and we do not have a deadset policy, we judge by the reaction that we get in reports, our guidelines and ethos and sometimes wider media. We tend not to allow nasty parent blaming or vile personal attacks but we do also note when people 'put themselves out there' in the media.

We try to be as fair as possible when it comes to slebs and we can see that we aren't always consistent but it really depends on what pings into our inbox and if there is a general consensus.

We often find that a thread will be enjoyed by many but others will find it upsetting or just plain nasty, they may not post, but they do report. This didn't happen in this case but we will take another look if enough people feel that it should go.

Amalfimamma · 19/11/2016 19:10

DioneTheDiabolist

To be fair the PL thread had messages deleted because used the word he to describe Donald trump.......

MistressMerryWeather · 19/11/2016 19:04

I agree, Errol.

It's perfectly possible for goady fuckers to be disablist/racist/bigoted without actually personally attacking anyone so it's important that there be a certain amount of flexibility regarding deletions.

Lines in the sand don't work because people use them to either stifle discussion or get away with being a dick.

DioneTheDiabolist · 19/11/2016 19:02

lougle, the guidelines state that transphobic remarks will be deleted. The PL thread contained misgendering and false statements, as well as attacks on MNHQ. They were not deleted because posters expressed distaste for the words of public figures.Hmm

newroundhere · 19/11/2016 18:53

Also placemarking for any response....

Original poster
lougle · 19/11/2016 18:49

I haven't said it makes me angry Confused and nor am I joyless. I do think that it's not a level playing field if a poem like this is promoted to classics at the same time as posters are told that they shouldn't be writing their distaste for the words of public figures on MN though...and I'm saying that purely from a parity stance, not because I agree or disagree with any of the issues on either topic.

Isn't it OK to have principles?? A straight line in the sand I don't mind at all. I big long wibbly wobbly line that moves every time you look at it, I mind.

OP posts:
ErrolTheDragon · 19/11/2016 18:39

Some topics probably need more moderation than others. I've not been on any with the disablist issues, but it seems to me thats an area where stronger moderation generally is required, esp if its cropping up in places like SN support threads. Disablism attacks some of the most vulnerable, parents need to be sure of a safe place to discuss issues. For many other topics, a lighter hand may generate more robust but overall good discussions.

MistressMerryWeather · 19/11/2016 18:23

The problem is there are many different opinions on how it should work, JustAnother.

Some people want more moderation, some people are pissed off because they feel it has become overly moderated.

HQ can't please everybody they just have to take things thread by thread.

Amalfimamma · 19/11/2016 18:20

shamelessly placemarking to see MNHQ's answer

JustAnotherSadOldNumber · 19/11/2016 18:12

Last week MNHQ did a brilliant job of removing disablist posts from a thread before bandwagon jumping and derailing began.
Because the big provocative posts were delt with it meant the little things weren't nitpicked at, the situation didn't build. It worked brilliantly and the whole "Leave things up for education" aspect worked.

When MN works it works brilliantly.

JustAnotherSadOldNumber · 19/11/2016 18:09

There are plenty of forums with rigid guidelines if that's what you want.

Where have i said i want this?
It's perfectly possible to have a middle ground. The site has changed over the years, it's attracting lots of people who comment on daily mail articles, it's a bit of a joke to come here and troll about the batshit crazy threads they highlight.
The guidelines could be reworked to take this into account.

WellErrr · 19/11/2016 18:01

Also, if you find swearing that offensive, maybe don't click on a thread with "cuntweasle" in the title and then scroll half way down the first page to find the offensive post?

Grin
WellErrr · 19/11/2016 18:00

But as the site has and is growing they do seem to need more than just vauge guidelines in place

There are plenty of forums with rigid guidelines if that's what you want.

Saucery · 19/11/2016 17:50

I haven't seen your thread, squishy but you are kinda tempting me into it Grin

Saucery · 19/11/2016 17:49

I suspect it's more a case of them replying in their own sweet time TBH. Which is a bit unfair, but like they've said recently, it's their site and they can do what they like.

JustAnotherSadOldNumber · 19/11/2016 17:48

Anyway, this is a tangent. My point was that the guidlines could do some revision and consistancy.

squishysquirmy · 19/11/2016 17:47

Also, if you find swearing that offensive, maybe don't click on a thread with "cuntweasle" in the title and then scroll half way down the first page to find the offensive post?

JustAnotherSadOldNumber · 19/11/2016 17:47

It's my understanding that WannaBe is perfectly entitled to contact MNHQ and discuss her suspension.

She tried that, but it took coming on here with a new account in site stuff in order to get MNHQ to reply to emails.

It's very hard to discuss anything when MNHQ don't reply.

Saucery · 19/11/2016 17:45

It's my understanding that WannaBe is perfectly entitled to contact MNHQ and discuss her suspension.

JustAnotherSadOldNumber · 19/11/2016 17:43

I should add that i really do think HQ are good with their case by case thing.

But as the site has and is growing they do seem to need more than just vauge guidelines in place.