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

Is this post about specific posters such as Jason and Wannabe?

No, but having been told i shouldn't belive gossip from face book i decided to explain the threads in which i learnt this actually happens. It's not stuff from facebook it's from HQ.

Is this post about specific posters such as Jason and Wannabe?

And again this is what has been confirmed from HQ from threads in sitestuff, so it happens.

I was as hmm about the PL thing as anyone

I don't know what the PL thing you are refeering to is.

Only if they feel there is nothing to be gained from discussing it further.

But what about the case of wannabe or jason, been here years but cut all comunication?

IPityThePontipines: Just because someone's told you that on Facebook, doesn't mean it's true

I know this is off-topic, but that phrase pretty much sums up 2016 politics for me...

Only if they feel there is nothing to be gained from discussing it further. So a Troll won't get to tie up their time with waffle but a reasonable member of the site can talk about the ban and how they can best move forward to get it lifted.

The OP is asking for clarification regarding something

No she isn't, she's saying 'ner ner I caught you out you hypocrites!'

many posters are just starting to get confused about what is acceptable and what isn't and would like some clarification other than "We take each person on a case by case bases and use the talk guidlines loosely"

Isn't that clarification enough?

Justine spent a whole thread clarifying this; there are no hard and fast rules, they just try to apply common sense.

I was as about the PL thing as anyone, but seriously you're starting to alienate people with this now.

Just because someone's told you that on Facebook, doesn't mean it's true.

Nobody told me anything on facebook, MNHQ confirmed they stop communication when they ban people on another thread.

they get banned without warning seemingly depending on who is moderating.

Just because someone's told you that on Facebook, doesn't mean it's true.

I just can't believe that anyone finds that poem offensive.

Seriously though, I did not intend to cause a problem for MNHQ

It only causes a problem for people who are absolutely desperate to catch MNHQ out and paint them as terrible hypocrites.

Why they are so desperate to do so is baffling.

I don't think it's unreasonable in the circumstance to ask for some kind of clarification on the rules.

No one is angry, many posters are just starting to get confused about what is acceptable and what isn't and would like some clarification other than "We take each person on a case by case bases and use the talk guidlines loosely"

At the moment one user is able to do something one day, and it be deemed acceptable, but another does the same the next and they get banned without warning seemingly depending on who is moderating.

Voyage I don't believe the OP stated they were angry. And yes, Justine made her feelings about their moderation clear, hence I doubt we need an interpreter, thanks.

The OP is asking for clarification regarding something. I also pointed out something I felt was a problem that was somewhat related to the problem the OP pointed out. If that makes you angry, then perhaps MN isn't for you.

Please don't feel bad squishy, there's nothing wrong with your poem, we're all adults here who have heard swearing before.

Oh don't be so fucking joyless.

The poem is quite brilliant. If you don't like it then click the backwards arrow in the top left of your screen, rather than trying to sanitise everything.

MNHQ must want to scream into a pillow most days at the moment.

it was just a bit of female locker room banter

Seriously though, I did not intend to cause a problem for MNHQ. It was a poem I wrote for myself, to make myself feel better, and I posted it because I thought that others may find it amusing.
If MNHQ are forced to remove it, I suppose that I have to reluctantly accept that.
In it's defence though:

1. The subject matter is not actually named in the poem. Yes, it's pretty obvious who it's about but if you take out the "commander in chief" reference, than I've basically just listed a load of insults directed at a sexist, racist nasty person. If you don't think those insults are fair, then maybe it's not about who you think it is?
2. I tried really hard (and I think I succeeded) to not include any racist, homophobic, or disablist insults. If you can spot any, I will ask MNHQ to edit the post and remove them.
3. I did not take any cheap shots at his wife, daughter, or other family members. I wouldn't feel comfortable doing that.
4. There are swear words. There is no hate speech, or incitement to violence. Nor did I mock or criticise any religion. Encouraging derision is not in any way analogous to encouraging violence. It just isn't.
5. I punched up, not down. Maybe this doesn't make any difference, maybe it does. Personally I do not think that insulting the soon to be most powerful man on earth is the same as insulting a minor celebrity.
6. Beyond calling him a cunt etc (which is my subjective opinion) I have not said anything which I cannot provide evidence for. His attitudes to women, immigrants, the disabled, Islam and other minorities are well documented.

Is MNHQ going to make the judgement of who they feel is worthy and who is not? That'll go over well.

Why wouldn't it? It's their site.

.

There have been a number of threads about public figures that have been deleted in the past as they were "not in the spirit of the site" because of the negative posts about the public figure.

Its always been my understanding that the ban on 'personal attacks' is specifically in relation to MN posters. In the case of PL, MNHQ chose to extend this protection because of being a guest - which although it seemed a bit unfair to do without notice, is their perogative. In the case of other posts relating to people in the public eye, I'm inclined to think its ok for them to use their discretion- certainly if its about a celebs kids.

In the case of the poem mentioned, satire directed at the most public of public figures has been around for a lot longer than internet forums. If anyone thinks its transgressed talk guidelines, presumably you've reported it and asked MNHQ to reconsider - what one of them thinks may not necessarily be the 'party line'.

I can't believe that thread ended up in Classics Come on MNHQ seriously? That's what passes for a classic thread now?

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

Just because a public figure drags things down to the gutter level, how are we any better when we climb right down into the gutter with him?

Trump has repeatedly derogated women using sexually disparaging remarks. Turning that on him and using it against him is a powerful tool - many oppressed groups do this very thing when fighting oppression. It isn't about bowing to their level - it's about using the very power that they wield against them.