Please or to access all these features

Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

What’s the rules around asking questions in site stuff.

31 replies

Blackoutblinds · 11/10/2018 16:22

Could you clarify please.

Thanks.

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Instacrumb · 12/10/2018 09:19

So if I sign up, post a few comments on a few threads then launch a woe is me story completely made up I can be considered as genuine because I have a posting history and Can't be questioned as to whether I'm genuine because I seem legit?

As mn don't have the time to trawl threads and work it out if people are pointing this out on reports for them and they aren't going to listen because the poster has a good history then they may as well remove the reporting feature all together.

Blackoutblinds · 12/10/2018 04:37

I think one of the things that leads to a sense of frustration is reporting and hearing nothing.

Even worse is reporting something else and getting a reply in minutes and getting no reply to the one you’re more worried about.

OP posts:
Schuyler · 11/10/2018 22:17

Can I just add that I know @MNHQ tread a fine line and don’t want to make errors but when things are super glaringly obvious, what more is there?

The posts on that thread evidenced that the vast majority of responders knew the truth, yet apparently this was ignored. There was a lot of discussion over a certain scenario with a parent pretending their child had cancer. Posters were pointing out the bullshit, yet MNHQ dragged their heels. I wonder if a parent who is in that real situation would feel put off seeking support or if posters would be reticent to offer support based on the damage caused by grief trolls.

Some people join MN as brand new posters just to be grief trolls or money grabbers. Yes, MN is often known for being a nest of vipers but it is also known for giving a lot of support to people in heartbreaking situations, both in terms of practicalities and financially. People do join as new posters just to abuse the kindness and generosity of MNers. Just because they’re brand new or they’re not a PBP, doesn’t mean it’s all kosher.

Schuyler · 11/10/2018 22:10

I’m a regular name changer and I reported that thread and got a brush off reply to one report and my second one was ignored.

When you have presented clear evidence to MNHQ and you know other people have, yet you’re still told there’s “nothing untoward”, I think it is a moderation issue.

People with experience and knowledge have told HQ when certain things are completely implausible, yet they insist they can’t find anything untoward, why can’t it be discussed?

That thread is not the first time people have known someone was lying through their teeth and people got brushed off for ages and eventually, MNHQ admit its a troll.

It does cause harm. It means real and genuine posters who find themselves in tragic situations and need support then get questioned and are denied support. Being told to hide the thread if it upsets you is not the answer.

Blackoutblinds · 11/10/2018 20:07

And what if what is described makes it really easy to identify an organisation and what’s being said here is libellous towards that organisation even though it’s not directly named?

OP posts:
Blackoutblinds · 11/10/2018 20:03

And what about when there is evidence of things not being quite right based on posting history?

I mean. How much evidence does there have to be?

So hypothetically, if I described a scenario that many mnetters reported and said could not have happened based on their experience?

Or if I described some legal thing and lawyers reported to say that never happens ?

What if something was described that if it had happened as the poster said would have resulted in legal action against the professionals involved?

OP posts:
53rdWay · 11/10/2018 18:51

though just to be clear - we found nothing out of order behind the scenes

Can you talk at all about what kind of things behind the scenes might be considered evidence that all’s not right? (In general terms, of course, wouldn’t expect you to share details of specifics.)

I ask because sometimes it feels as though people are only deleted for being really really really obvious trolls or being PBP, and that’s it. Which makes you wonder if it’s worth reporting for anything else, like eg “is talking about ongoing IVF on one board while saying she’s 30 weeks pregnant on another”? (One I’ve reported in the past, not a current thread.)

KateMumsnet · 11/10/2018 18:28

Yes, there are often threads in site stuff discussing moderation issues arising from deleted threads - but we felt that this one was really about raking over the deleted thread itself and rehashing it, ie a TAAT.

CaligulaBlushed · 11/10/2018 18:17

I emailed MNHQ once when I thought a thread deletion was wrong. They reinstated the thread.

Blackoutblinds · 11/10/2018 17:58

And this one

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/3356913-MNHQ-We-Have-a-Problem

Sorry on iPad and c&p doesn’t work well.

OP posts:
Saucery · 11/10/2018 17:57

So, one that didn’t have an accurate deletion message and one that clearly breached guidelines on talking about suicide.
They are different than the recent one. The more ambiguity there is about the veracity of a thread the more likely MNHQ are to dig their heels in and stop TAATs.

Blackoutblinds · 11/10/2018 17:55

And one more

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/3372886-Is-there-a-there-a-period-troll

I could go on, but there’s loads. And always has been.

OP posts:
Blackoutblinds · 11/10/2018 17:54

And another

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/3374356-deletion-message

OP posts:
OP posts:
Saucery · 11/10/2018 17:52

If you like.

Blackoutblinds · 11/10/2018 17:52

Thank you Kate but there have been discussions here before in site stuff about deleted threads.

Are we not allowed to do that anymore?

OP posts:
Blackoutblinds · 11/10/2018 17:51

Saucery that’s not true.

There are threads in site stuff about specific threads. Shall I link them?

OP posts:
Saucery · 11/10/2018 17:50

Threads about particular threads aren’t allowed on Site Stuff.

KateMumsnet · 11/10/2018 17:49

Hi folks

We don't have a particular set of rules that we apply to moderating threads in site stuff, but our talk guidelines do still apply.

In this case, the thread being discussed had been taken down, so there was no further risk to other users (though just to be clear - we found nothing out of order behind the scenes). It felt as though the deleted SS thread was really there to rake over the deleted thread, and that pushed it into TAAT territory.

Cheers all,
MNHQ

Blackoutblinds · 11/10/2018 17:48

This is not about any particular thread.

It’s about what’s allowed on site stuff.

OP posts:
Saucery · 11/10/2018 17:48

MNHQ will never allow discussion questioning their decision to allow (or delete) contentious threads. It can be irritating if you feel strongly about an issue or motivations of a poster, but they always try to tidy it all away with no further explanation.

CaligulaBlushed · 11/10/2018 17:47

Is the thread this is about still up?

paxillin · 11/10/2018 17:44

I would agree if the thing that caused offence was done by email or pm, @SoupDragon. As it was done in public with hundreds posting and thousands reading, it might be better out in the open.

immortalmarble · 11/10/2018 17:12

I don’t think that is the best thing to do. People have reported their concerns and have been given vague responses.

When discussion is shut down on the site all that happens is that it is pushed elsewhere.

SoupDragon · 11/10/2018 17:04

The best thing to do in cases like this is to email MNHQ directly. Then it won’t be deleted.