Deletions due to being discussed elsewhere

Add a big bunch of hypocrisy to your posts and you'll fit in perfectly.

MN's site, MN's roolz hun.

Now who is the Reddit poster who keeps double posting and telling everyone it's because the signal keeps dropping?

I don't think it's Dippin, but I should really go and have a search to check.

Because, well, I have a right to. A duty, perhaps.

I agree: after all it's their own fault for posting on mn in the first place.

I'm practicing a bit of victim blaming before heading over, to make sure I fit in.

Hey, apparently anything anyone writes on MN is fair game Farse.

Or does that rule only apply to people like Euph?

Seeing this particular op's indignation is a bit odd.

Knowing her and some of her many, many previous user names I know a heck of a lot about her. Now if I was a right bitch, I could AS and then go over to Reddit to almost (but not quite because no doxxing don't you know?) out her in real life.

I could then make up a load of extra lies, accuse her of criminal behaviour, and misquote what she's said (with the addition of "I remember her admitting to shoplifting, stealing from her boss and cheating in her university exams, but of course all those thread have been deleted now").

It would be hilarious, wouldn't it?

It's hard to keep up Dipping. Name changing drama llama troll.

Does the same thing over there. Has multiple accounts and deletes the ones that people start to turn on.

It was bound to happen - Trolls are everywhere but people seem to be eating it up on the sub.

Are you being deliberately obtuse, Cote?

Neither of Lorna's posts mention anything about the number of readers, nor did the thread deletion message.

As Lorna pointed out above, the OP of the thread approached them with privacy concerns , and this is what lead to the deletion.

If, as you assert, all the Reddit posters are MNers (or ex-MNers), then they all know the 'rules' concerning AS and 'joining the dots' and potential outing.

What was going on on Reddit was not acceptable by MN standards (which is why it doesn't take place on MN). The thread wasn't merely 'discussing' the post from here, it was dissecting it, dragging up details from other threads, misinterpreting info, adding spurious 'facts' and doing it all under the banner of "well, it's our right to discuss all this"

It is, indeed. But it is then extraordinary to complain when a poster withdraws their thread because of it, or when MN decide to support their poster and try to help them maintain their anonymity.

The Reddit thread, with it's blister and bravado of "well, if she didn't want it discussed she shouldn't have posted it" is spectacularly. Issuing the point. The poster didn't 'want it discussed', she wanted help and advice.

Of course if it had been taken up by the Fail, or tweeted or promoted on FB (although I thought MN had agreed not to highlight sensitive topic threads on social media?) then the thread would have reached a 'wider audience' too. And there would have, no doubt, been many disparaging and derogatory comments. But I doubt that wider audience would have had either the time or the inclination to AS, cross reference, and just plain make up whatever they liked to fit some weird agenda, coming ever closer to doxxing. And certainly not with the same viscious glee that is shown on the Reddit sub.

A few people have noticed and mentioned to me privately that the OP of that Reddit thread is - Ironically - a complete troll over there.

It trolls people here too.

I don't blame Euph for getting worried about this weirdo dissecting/twisting her situation.

“Its not the number of people that's relevant is it though?”

Well, MNHQ says it is the number of people in the thread’s audience that’s most relevant to why it was deleted.

Their deletion message says that it was deleted because it’s being discussed somewhere else, which Lorna just confirmed.

Its not the number of people that's relevant is it though? Its the content of what is being posted that would make anyone who is the target of it unhappy to continue to throw fuel to the fire.

I know you all love maths as much as I do

"we used the term 'wider' to describe an audience outside of Mumsnet, not necessarily larger."

But that's precisely the point. The 1260-people "audience" there is made up of MNers, and just a small percentage of MNers at that. Those threads would make no sense to anyone who isn't a MNer.

Yes, it is a sub that is hosted on Reddit, but that doesn't mean anything re audience. The only way anyone would find it among all those thousands of subs on Reddit is by searching for "Mumsnet" and then they would find Mumsnet itself before they find that sub anyway.

"we are approached by a distressed or anxious OP who has concerns that their thread is being discussed within a wider audience"

"Wider audience"? Everyone on that Reddit sub is an MNer. None of those threads would make sense to anyone else.

Besides, MN boasts over 4,000,000 unique visitors every month whereas that Reddit topic has only about 1,200 followers. How exactly is it a "wider audience"? Please help me with the math, @LornaMumsnet

And the O so close to the N

I hate the way the K kn my keyboard is so close to the L

Found it

I dont realky understand why a thread discussed on another forum shoukd be pulled in this one

I obviously have every sympathy if the Mumsnet OP has guven too much information but thats how MNHQ should have deleted the thread, not because it was being discussed elsewhere

It it one rule for reddit and different rules for other social media? Or is it a blanket decision

It's not that surprising really.

That particular thread was being misrepresented at the 'other place', the OP was being misquoted deliberately by certain posters who then refused to edit their posts after it was pointed out that they were inaccurate.

I found the whole thread distasteful and the posters who misquoted the OP should be ashamed of themselves, they made themselves look very, very stupid and by refusing to amend their posts probably caused the OP even more distress.