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

MNHQ

Civility - what we should and shouldn't allow

134 replies

JustineMumsnet · 25/04/2007 10:00

Hello all,
We've just deleted a thread entitled:
"AM a bit pissed so this isnt gonna be worded as eloquently as one would wish, but Gordon Brown is a bit of a cock sucker so who the fuck are we gonna vote for?" on the grounds that some folk had complained, it's a personal attack and also we'd like to get him on for an online chat and we didn't think leaving it up would be helpful in that regard .

But it did get us thinking about what sort of guidelines (beyond posts which break the law) we should have as a rule, particularly with regard to folk who are in the public eye - celebs etc.

We've always shied away from deleting on the grounds of poor taste (who's taste and where do you draw the line?) and we certainly are not too fussed about swear words. But naturally there's a lot of comment on MN, much of it tongue in cheek for sure, that could be construed as as abusive towards famous folk - equally true is that it's an awful lot tamer than elsewhere on the net.

Mumsnet (as you know ) is pro freedom of speech as a rule and have no wish to censor or stop the conversation flowing. What's more our stated aim is to make parents' lives easier - and a bit of bit of a vent/laugh is often a useful thing but should we intervene more or is it a case of just reminding/ urging folk to be civil and treating each case on it's merit?

Should there be one rule for celebs and one rule for the rest? Had the Gordon Brown comment been made on the thread and not in the title of it, we might have been inclined to let it stand - but does that make any sense?

We'd be very grateful if you'd let us know your thoughts about where you think the lines should be drawn and what sort of level of intervention you'd like.
Ta very mucho,
MNHQ

OP posts:
littlelapin · 25/04/2007 10:24

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MerlinsBeard · 25/04/2007 10:24

The thread title shocked me a bit, although i didn't report it. If Gordon Brown had been looking on MN at the time it could have been SWMNBN all over again (how is that going btw?)

Ithink a reminder that MN is a public forum therfore accessible by all, including children of any age should be enough. Sometimes its easy to forget that there are people behind the nicknames as well.

expatinscotland · 25/04/2007 10:22

99% of the time, however, people are considerate with regards to thread titles.

So why do we need policed and nannied because of the 1% who aren't?

KathyMCMLXXII · 25/04/2007 10:20

I think slightly stricter rules for thread titles (or as emankcin says, a request not to use profanity) would be a good idea. Maybe just a reminder that your thread titles are forced on everyone so please be considerate.

expatinscotland · 25/04/2007 10:18

PLEASE NO censorship.

If you're prudish, you'll probably find out fairly early on that this probably isn't the board for you.

MrsBadger · 25/04/2007 10:15

It is a shame that the whole thread had to go because of the title though - I guess there's no chance of having (eg)

'AM a bit pissed so this isnt gonna be worded as eloquently as one would wish, but Gordon Brown is a bit of a [phrase deleted] so who the fuck are we gonna vote for?'

or perhaps a request to the poster to rephrase if they want their comments to stand?

emankcin · 25/04/2007 10:14

I do not think thatthere should be a rule for celebs and a rule for the rest of us. Maybe Mumsnet should consider asking everyone to not use profanity in thread titles. Equally sexually references in thread titles can be offensive to some people.

I propose that mumsnet consider a topic specifically for sexual references and use either an acronym or initials. so off the top of my head 'S.O.S' sexual outragous stuff!

The more prudish and those mumsnetters who at the time may have children who can read sitting with then, or teenagers watching over their shoulder ( as i do on occasion) would know not to click on that topic.

The argument could be that it comes under relationships, however i find that relationships as a topic is rarely about that more than it is about a DP not spending time with the children, washing up, spending money, having an affair ( which usually doesn't have any explicit detail regarding sex per se.)

For your consideration

Tigana · 25/04/2007 10:12

Calling an MP "a bit of a cock sucker" seems fairly tame to me, honestly, and aren't MPs very much used to vaguely 'personal' attacks in the media etc anyway?

Calling him "a bit of a paedophile" would be bad.

Think it's a shame it was deleted. It was about the concerns of the public about the personality of the probable next PM - seems fair topic to me.
Could maybe see some Mners being a bit miffed because there wer lots of 'naughty words' in the title...but could have been much worse!!

NotQuiteCockney · 25/04/2007 10:03

I'm sure that if someone came on and named, and was rude to, a real life person who wasn't a celeb ("Joe Bloggs of Wooster Garden City is a dick"), that would be worse than being rude about a celeb, surely? I don't think we're in danger of having one rule for celebs and one for everyone else.

(I do think there might be one rule for people who are on here to defend themselves, and another for people who aren't.)