@ ing people

The introduction of @ is irritating

I reckon it’s the online equivalent of jabbing someone with your finger to get their attention

Just bold the name of you think it’ll be missed

I saw (but didn't participate) in a thread today (now deleted) that had what came across as full on tag team @-ing to posters who were actively participating on the thread so would presumably have noticed the comments if their names had been just bolded rather than tagged.

On that thread a couple of the @ recipients did ask the @-givers to stop @-ing them. On that particular thread it did, to my mind, come across that the @-givers were using it in a oi you there listen to me NOW..... oi, you there I haven't finished talking to you, listen to me AGAIN

But that may have been my reading of the thread not reality...

Yeah, sorry OP, I think if you're using a site with *@mention*s you sort of have to be okay with people using it towards you. Even if you don't like some of them doing it.

It's weird though, every time I've seen someone ask another user not to *@mention them it's always been someone they don't agree with. Often there are other users on the thread also @mention*ing them and they don't complain about that.

I've seen threads in the past where someone "tells" someone not to @mention them it and it reads like they're trying to single out and "control" the behavior of that individual poster; it's felt a little like a power play. I don't like it when I see people ask really, it makes me uncomfortable.

If someone's obviously harassing/bullying another poster by whatever means their posts can be reported. But if a poster decides that some totally valid function of the site is harassment "to them", that's probably not enforceable.

If my dad, the bloke in the shop and my students were addressing me as MNetters on Mnet, I would expect them to address me as a Mnetter and I would do the same.

Your RL scenarios have no relevance to being to being asked to address a Mnetter differently because you are disagreeing with them.

Lots of people have different preferences depending on who is addressing them Dione and that's not unreasonable at all.

Happy to be called darling by your dad but not the man who runs the corner shop or Dione by your friends but Dr Diabolist by your students as random examples.

I agree that you should just report each time as lots of people think the @-ing is your issue not the continuing to address you in a way you've asked to stop.

If I were you op I would just report anyone who does this after you have asked them not to.
Lots of people on this thread inc' Thingiemumsnet are missing the point rather.

OP - MNHQ have posted a reply.
Just drop it now. Life really is too short.

Does @ing on other websites trigger an email to the person being @ed?

I it would be like Amy saying that anyone can call her Alan, as long as they are agreeing with her. But if they disagree with her then they must call her Amy, while others can call her Alan.

Surely it dosn't matter why you don't like it, just that you don't and you've asked the person to stop.

Some people don't like love or darling, others can't stand Mrs or Ms, girl is infantilising to some and others feel him/her deny their feelings of identity.

If you ask someone not to address you in a way you don't like it shouldn't matter why you don't like it.

Personally I have no issue with being @-ed or bolded or called love so I don't have a particular investment in this. But once you say it's wrong to address people in ways they don't like when using pronouns it should apply to other forms of address.

Alright Alan calm down.

Because if you ask someone to stop @ you it's just because you don't like it.

Persisting to use a non-preferred pronoun in conversation after being asked not to is denying someone their personal sense of identity and saying your personal agenda doesn't respect that. It's personal.

If my name is Amy and you continually call me Alan then that is personal and offensive and incorrect.

I'm not Alan, I'm Amy, this is who I am, is very different to I don't like people using @.

Gersemi The thing is Mumsnet does now have a view on modes of address with pronouns. Repeatedly addressing someone with a pronoun they don't use when they have asked you to stop is a delete and ban worthy offence.

Does this apply to addressing someone with the @ after being asked not to? How is it different?

I think you just have to ignore it. I like the function and don't read it as aggressive.

I don't like people using the word "so" to start a sentence or the word "pop" ( just pop some jeans on, pop to the shops etc) or the phrase "picky bits" but I don't expect MNHQ to have a stance on any of these things.

@ing is all over the internet, you can't expect people not to do it on here

I know, which is why I disabled mine. What I'm saying is that as Errol says above, people who haven't been around that long may not realise the difference in MN between bolding & the fairly new @ing.

I think the @ is useful if you're posting on a few threads on different boards so wouldn't want to totally disable it.

But there's no earthly reason do use it for posters who are actively participating on a thread.

I reckon if you ask someone to desist and they carry on, then they're being goady and fall foul of the general talk guidelines so you should report them.

Might be good if MN could implement poster-specific blocking - I think this exists for PMs doesn't it?

@ing is all over the internet, you can't expect people not to do it on here

It may help to try and think of it like a face to face conversation in real life. If you're talking in a group and are directing a comment to one person, you'd say their name wouldn't you? It's the same with @

I think the difference here is that MNers have been addressing each other by name forever, but in the past it's always just been done by bolding & often involved a shortform or nickname version - like Empress - & hasn't triggered any emails. Using the @ with a full name - @EmpressAdultHumanFemale - is a different thing.

It may help to try and think of it like a face to face conversation in real life. If you're talking in a group and are directing a comment to one person, you'd say their name wouldn't you? It's the same with @

@username is just directing a comment specifically towards a poster, for their attention. It is conversing, replying, having dialogue. The tone of that dialogue may be abrupt, angry, hostile, polite, friendly, cheerful, etc., but the @username handle doesn't in itself convey anything except that you are directing the post towards a specific poster.

Using an incorrect or non-preferred pronoun is in itself upsetting for the poster concerned, because they will feel that it is inherently 'misgendering' them. That is why MNHQ will delete this.

my question is how would it be viewed by hq if someone continues to @ you after being asked to stop

But you know how it would be viewed by HQ, don't you? Their views on poster behaviour are set out very clearly in the site rules; the fact that there is nothing in there about continuing to use words/modes of address after others have asked you not to rather suggests that MN don't feel it's their business. After all, people are constantly saying they don't want to be addressed as "hun" or to read posts full of "could ofs" and the like; MN don't wade in and tell others off for hurting the complainers' delicate feelings.

There are lots of things that happen on MN that bother/annoy a lot of people (I personally think people who write "could of" should be banned for life } but the response to that surely can only be - go somewhere else if you don't like it.

The poster wasn't bullying you. They made an offhand comment which you really took to heart and got upset and a bit arsey about and they didn't respond to your request not to @ you. Probably because other people were @ you and you didn't complain about them so it seemed you were just being picky with them because they pissed you off.

Try not to spend any more time on it honestly, it's only MN.