Why is it suddenly ok to make multiple threads on the same subject over and over again?

WanderinWomb, that is a very good point regarding the necessity of name change after yesterday. I hope posters follow this advice.

I have name changed. It is sad because I do love to see the poster names I know pop up and I love the discussions with familiar posters. It feels a bit like starting over as I now am “just another new poster” here. And I will miss familiar names if they name change.

Its nice to say want a balance but as on the 'rapists in women's prison' thread 97/98% of site users agree with the FWR position. Trying to amplify the 2/3% so we can have an equal debate seems... I have no words...seems....hmm

Seems like the voices MN wants to privilege and amplify are the same voices that the rest of social media, mainstream media, government institutions, the NHS, universities, arts institutions, sporting bodies, schools, the BBC, the Bank of sodding England, prisons and Penny Mordaunt all want to privilege and amplify.

Also on b) we know it is same person as shared their twitter account to invite us for a chat to try and link Twitter/Mumsnet handles and get us banned from both places.

Adding my voice. The recent activity is tedious and unhelpful. Definitely not in the spirit of uplifting feminism & women's rights discussion.

It won't be news to anyone reading this that MNHQ's commitment to hosting conversations on this difficult issue has been costly for us in lots of ways. It would be much easier for us to throw up our hands and say we won't host these discussions anymore, but we carry on because we believe it's the right thing to do. However the flip side of that is that it's absolutely crucial for us to be inclusive to voices from both 'sides' - because if we aren't, we're not hosting a discussion: we're hosting a filter bubble. There's no running away from the fact that in some circles FWR is regarded as being hostile to trans people and we're determined to show that we are not

That seems fair, and appreciate it must be difficult to find a "happy" balance.

A diversity of voices means there will be threads and posts outlining positions that many in FWR strongly disagree with. This may feel like goadery to some but, frankly, we disagree

That's good to know as in, people who are genuinely just bringing a different viewpoint to the thread or disagreeing with someone are "rounded on" (for want of a better expression), accused of sealioning/goading etc and isn't tolerated as much as it was before.
Obviously people who genuinely are there to stir up trouble shouldn't be tolerated, but different voices shouldn't be drowned out like they usually are.
So I think the comment of MNHQ upthread is a fair one on balance, must be bloody difficult lol

Things that seemed to annoy you in order to try to get you so angry that you posted something that got you deleted
The deletions were not even for grumpy or annoyed replies, some were for repeating what a mod had said about her previous thread, some asking to stop calling us cis, 'misgendering' and 'generalising' when the OP didn't even state pronouns until page 9 or 10 of one of her three threads.
She claimed it wasn't her reporting , so how did these mysterious strangers even know what pronouns she preferred???
The threads with all the deletions were then shared all over as proof that FWR is full evil transphobes to back up their previous claims of how horrible and bigoted MN is and to try and cause financial damage to the site.

This was a planned attack MN .
I don't expect you to make any public statement about it but really hope there is some discussion about it internally.

The person who was trying to get Soreen to sever links with MN , in fact several of them , are PBP, yet the twitter account was encouraging them to come and chat to us.
There was no need to even reply to them, MN rarely interacts that much on Twitter.
It's not a good idea to chat to people who make it clear they wish to financially damage you and openly plan to report posts to get women silenced. The block or mute functions are priceless.

Its nice to say want a balance but as on the 'rapists in women's prison' thread 97/98% of site users agree with the FWR position. Trying to amplify the 2/3% so we can have an equal debate seems... I have no words...seems....hmm

Would you encourage a dog haters to go onto the pet boards to say they are awful animals and don't understand why everyone finds them cute? Just for a balanced debate?

The last time such Twitter brigading was encouraged it ended up with a MN user having her posts spread all over Twitter and vicious people wishing she would have a still birth or she would lose her pregnancy in various sadistic ways.

As you say , there is overlap between forums and social media anyway, but please don't encourage these open unashamed woman haters that you have already banned from MN. Please.

This whole thing feels a bit like the regular posters have been held up as exhibits in a circus to curious Twitterers - roll-up, roll-up, come in and see the infamous Feminists! They're nice and friendly! You can even call them names they don't like and they won't react! Oh, that one did. Don't worry, we'll remove her. Plenty more to go round.

This really. I don't know whether it's worth it anymore. And getting an email saying your post was deleted for making the site a hostile place to debate but don't worry, you won't get a strike this time makes me think 'fuck this', I'm not having this shit bleed into the rest of my life'.

I asked MNHQ if they'd add that p word to the guidelines as it seems to uncannily always get deleted, quite quickly. But they 'don't think a list of banned or problematic phrases would be particularly useful'.

In a way, that's true. If one word is added, and people know not to use it, the people busy reporting posts will doubtless find another term to complain about. The guidelines are pretty long already - an ever increasing list of terms deemed problematic really wouldn't be a great look.

I think maybe some more distinction might be needed between 'civil' and 'welcoming'. Some viewpoints are simply not compatible with feminist views - that doesn't mean we can't have a civil discussion but it doesn't necessarily mean we have to lay down the red carpet and don extra soft kid gloves, does it?

The LGBT boards should be welcoming to people with the relevant characteristics. The feminist board should surely be allowed to be a tad more welcoming to feminists than those who don't prioritise the rights of females?

I would suggest that misgendering or using c.. is taken off the must be punished list. We have no idea what gender people have even if we believe such a thing exists and c.. can just roll on by. And that punishment and banishment is more evenly applied. At the moment shutting us up is not a good look

It's incredibly unfair to expect new posters to guess at the current mood regarding the political correctness of various terms

This, while at the same time

It's not surprising that some brand new posters aren't yet fully up to speed with site etiquette and we're inclined to take a laissez-faire approach to that

Is a very clear example of a double standard. If you're gc, you're supposed to follow all the written rules + a very nebulous set of unwritten ones that seem to change all the time. But if you're arguing on the other side, it's fine not to be "up to speed" with etiquette. Laissez-faire is one sided.

I've just re-read the hq comment. The last part is worrying. Does this mean that posters who previously would have been called disruptors, goady, ploppers etc.. will be allowed to post without regard to the rules in order for future discussions to be "inclusive", even though it's acknowledged to be painful to others? Who will no doubt be hamstrung by those rules and not allowed to enter into a meaningful debate because their words are banned.

MNHQ generously gave that poster a second chance
And thanked them on Twitter for coming on to post!

Mock I'm curious as to why you're challenging our request to make MN a place where goady twats from SM sides come purely to stir the pot and get screen shots? I get you're opinion of the topics differs from many but these people are deliberately trying to sabotage debate. How is that helpful?

It seemed to me that yesterday, MNHQ generously gave that poster a second chance, and they abused that trust. That screenshot upthread ... is that seriously ok? What condescending arrogance - that wasn't a person who really wanted to understand what the women here think, was it?

Maybe the last sentence re fixing the website does need some thought though.

"No need to bother, Co-op. As of today you are henceforth banned from advertising in The Spectator, in perpetuity. We will not have companies like yours use their financial might to try to influence our editorial content, which is entirely a matter for the editor."

Coop claimed, very quickly, that some intern had hold of their Twitter, and they didn't mean it.

And yes, I do realise that FWR is probably more trouble than any other boards, and attracts ddos attacks and threatens advertiser revenue due to external manipulation. It's a very fine tightrope which mnhq has to walk, but I think on this occasion they got it wrong.

This whole thing feels a bit like the regular posters have been held up as exhibits in a circus to curious Twitterers - roll-up, roll-up, come in and see the infamous Feminists! They're nice and friendly! You can even call them names they don't like and they won't react! Oh, that one did. Don't worry, we'll remove her. Plenty more to go round.