Reviving some important old threads

It does, @Wrath.

Very unfair on those of is who have been around for years.

It would be massively unfair for anyone to get a strike for something written before the new regs. Fair enough for MN to delete it, if they feel the need but they must not allow themselves to be bullied into banning people for past sines.

In fact they need to stand up for their members a lot more than they do and not cave in to the trolls out to cause trouble.

I think so Wrath.

Also maybe referring reports on threads older than, say, 30 days after the post in question to a ‘spirit of mn’ review or upwards in the chain of command for review or some such. Deletions can be temporary, can’t they? Technically speaking?

As I said earlier all that would need is for me to AS a now banned term, report, and for retrospective posts a user is potentially banned.

For someone to do this, I'd doubt their reasons would be altruistic.

It would make sense to censor the now offensive content, but not delete the post or have that censorship count towards a ban.

Oh, I don’t mean is expect the banner to include the full, now banned, terms! That wasn’t clear. More along the lines of “certain terms that were permitted at the time of posted but are no longer considered acceptable (as per guidelines of whatever date) have been retrospectively redacted. Date of redaction xx-xx-xx”

I could live with certain terms (tf cs tm and whatever), being redacted if it was clearly stated in the banner that these terms had been redacted and on which date this had occurred.

rufus, I thought it was too.

Absolutepowercorrupts

Thats just so unfair

I had a post deleted 6months after I posted and that counted as a strike. I did not receive an email from MNHQ about that deletion . I found out about it after I was given a second strike.
My second strike was for a phrase that I'd used countless times, it had never been reported before.
I don't bother to post in FWR anymore. It's now become an echo chamber for all the anti women activists.
I read it every day but I really cant be arsed tying myself up in linguistic knots just to keep AWAs happy.

I'd favour a policy that says that if a certain amount of time has passed since the post was made it can't be deleted except in absolutely exceptional circumstances. The worst stuff gets reported at the time, surely?

It's time HQ stood up to the bullies. No example to our DCs

I don’t understand what this means...what bullies

Oh - and my view is that they should not be edited. "Offensive" words could be redacted if absolutely necessary but the post should stand and its context made clear.

They were used as a teaching resource in some citizenship and culture courses that I am aware of. They are gold dust if you want a snapshot of prevailing opinions, changing language and attitudes to current affairs.

I can't imagine that anything ever posted on MN would be considered to be an important historical document.

I expect the Westminsterenders threads will be a very valuable research resource in the future. FWR stuff too, if not retrospectively edited.

This is indeed something that the needs a clear, published policy from MNHQ. There probably isn’t one yet but there needs to be sharpish.

It would seem fair for all threads started before the change in guidelines to be locked and bannered as pre-dating the change in guidelines. I imagine that’d be a huge task though...

It's time HQ stood up to the bullies. No example to our DCs.

I agree with langclegsinspace

That’s certainly how i read wraths post and I’m interested in the answer

@LilyMumsnet the examples you use would always have been against talk guidelines, presumably.

I think what Wrath is asking (correct me if I'm wrong) is, if an old thread is revived that pre-dates the new talk guidelines on FWR, would you retrospectively apply those rules? E.g. a post from 2017 that used the word TF, cs or TM would have been within the talk guidelines at the time of writing, but not now.

And if you did retrospectively apply those rules, would such a deletion count as a 'strike'?

This is a real concern:

If you accumulate enough deletions in a rolling period, you could be banned - and all that would need is for me to AS a now banned term, report, and retrospectively a user is banned.

Then all at once, the strikes add up to a ban for a regular poster?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'regular' poster, but it would affect any poster with a history, now or in the future.

If you accumulate enough deletions in a rolling period, you could be banned - and all that would need is for me to AS a now banned term, report, and retrospectively a user is banned.

There's at least one academic getting scholarly articles about Mumsnet published in journals.