Mods discussing moderation with previously banned poster about getting current posters banned

Suggesting ways in which mods could improve appears to be a violation of FWR special rule#5. We won’t allow aggressive or rude behaviour towards our moderation team.

Yesterday when I reported a personal attack I found out that the mod who responded did not recognize an ad hominum attack when reading it.
Since then I have been thinking about the number of ways in which mods have misread or misquoted content providers to justify giving them a strike or deleting a comment without notification or reasons given.

I have at times been asked by mods what exactly I thought constituted a violation in a reported post. And yet this banning of Lang is an example of asking over and over what the mods viewed as a generalization in violation of guidelines, only to be banned under special rule 5 and her question never answered.

The pattern of behavior displayed by MNHQ can no longer be dismissed as a misunderstanding.

I don't believe it did happen

I think it's unlikely, given one of the mods named.
But I trust this site to keep my anonymity, because I share sensitive info about ROGD (for the purposes of helping other parents dealing with the same) and 'not believing' isn't good enough in terms of being reassured that our info is secure.

I would like it clearly stated by Mumsnet that in this case, no mods (including the named mods) either during work hours or in a private capacity, were 'in negotiations' about 'toxic names' on FWR.

It's not a lot to ask.

Interesting

I usually lurk on fwr threads but I am placemarking to see how Mumsnet responds.

I would like a clear answer as to why Langley was banned and whether the external TRA moderating network was involved.
I am trying to be polite here but I am actually incandescent with rage at this ban.

To be honest I don't find the post by @MichaelMumsnet sufficiently clear.

The one area in which MNHQ manages a level of consistency.

Considering information re Lang's banning was discovered by MNetters on FWR through seeing those tweets it's very obvious that someone had access to information regarding HQ's decision, and someone knew Lang had been banned, and was in touch with or working with someone who started the celebrations at having 'taken her down'.

What I'd like to know is whether there was any messaging about LangCleg between @HebeMumsnet and someone @MNHQ now realises is Joss Pryor. For example before the decision was made to ban LangCleg. To be honest I don't find the post by @MichaelMumsnet sufficiently clear.

Also are Mumsnet aware that the issue of 'gaming' the FWR rules by networked external 'moderators' was raised by LangCleg last year in a discussion thread with @JustineMumsnet

Justine wrote "We don’t actually get a significant amount of reports from offsite (under 0.1% over the last 3 months) and the huge majority of concerns are directly reported posts from Mumsnet members"

LangCleg asked, But how many reports do you get from members who post rarely?

But how many reports do you get from members who aren't actively contributing to threads (ie are monitoring them)?

Do you have accounts that have been created mostly for reporting purposes?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/a3615349-Update-on-our-moderation-of-trans-rights-issues#87903106

Two members of the self-described FWR 'networked moderating group' were interviewed in Eve Livingston's December 2018 Vice article, 'How an Online Forum for Moms Became a Toxic Hotbed of Transphobia'

www.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/a3mn9k/mumsnet-uk-mom-forum-terf-transphobia-feminism

Will Mumsnet please review those 'members' who have reported LangCleg's posts to ensure that none are PBP or part of a group 'gaming' the FWR rules to target erudite women concerned for Safeguarding children & protecting Women's Rights?

I agree with that too tea

Why was langcleg banned please?

I don't believe it did happen. I do think it would be good for MNHQ to make a statement in support of their and their moderators' integrity, which is being besmirched by JP's allegation.

So Joss Prior did not have discussions with two moderators, one named, about 'toxic names' on FWR ?

Why can't a clear denial of this claim be made ?

They really need to make a public statement on this. That’s a really damaging allegation. They can’t just play the ostrich on this one.

Joss named a Mumsnet moderator. Are @MNHQ going to investigate what Joss said or let it stand?

@Sundancer77 an allegation has been made by a repeatedly banned MN troll that they have been discussing registered MN users, (including Langcleg- who was banned yesterday) with two MNHQ moderators, one of which was apparently Hebe.

This is serious and I do hope to see a robust response from MNHQ, although I'm afraid that in reality it will be the usual 'pat on the head' type response.

I'd also like to ask if MNHQ would consider changing the report rule so non-members can't abuse it as they currently are?

They may well have an account (or have a friend with one, or multiple socks - or all of the above), that they use to report, without posting.

But I thought vexatious reporting was on the list of offences so how is this even happening?

Placemarking

I don’t get this? What’s the situation?

Indeed. Mumsnet Towers does have a Twitter account after all.

So that’s libel then. is Hebe or MN going to pursue these extremely damaging claims legally?

I'm probably being naive but MNHQ if you've been able to tell us that are you able to release a short, polite but clear statement to the public to state this? When someone is clearly on the wind up and courting their audience in the process I think they should be called out on it.

I would absolutely be in support of that, tea