So. That thread.

Chocchoc - yeah "read and interacted" is precisely it! It can be interesting and challenging and informative to argue with someone who actually takes your arguments seriously and forces you to defend them. But 1000 posts of "But what about the gender pay gap"... "There is no gender pay gap"; "But what about rape threats online"... "Men get threats online too, no biggie", etc. etc is just exhausting. (As an example, stuck record "There is no gender pay gap" is a very different argument to one which centres round the exact way to interpret ONS statistics, the granularity of the data etc.)

I don't think I'd want a 3 month wait in this section. Not least because we have a fair few members who have deregged owing to f4j etc then re rigged later.

I think I'll just be grateful they're gone, and hope for another couple of quiet months before the next man rides in to tell us what we're doing wrong/should be focussing on/that we're sexist/gaslight us/tell us that we just want to be an echo chamber/whatever.

It's not like we don't have some dissenting posters that we know and love, that have actually read and interacted and learned and thought.

Having a massive row and making a tit of yourself on a thread isn't a bannable offence is it?

Imagine the tumbleweed blowing over the deserted site if it was

That's an interesting idea about the 3 month rule. I'm torn on that. One the one hand, yes, it would cut down on the drive by trolling. But on the other, the anti-feminists who periodically invade and get their arses handed to them can end up being a kind of public service in a way. We often get quite good feminism 101 threads out of it, and they can sometimes handily demonstrate a point, like with the benevolent sexism/bus seat thread, where men were unable to accept that men are generally unable to accept that a kindness is not always a kindness...all very meta...

Crumbs, all that sounds very trying, with associated high atrittion rate.

If they have been banned (and both prolific posters disappearing today is odd) it would be useful to know why. Bob had been posting teachery stuff on school threads so appeared to be a genuine poster. Having a massive row and making a tit of yourself on a thread isn't a bannable offence is it?

A few weeks ago, I saw someone make the suggestion of making FWR work like the sex topic - that you would have to have been a poster for 3 months before you could post on it. What do people think? Would it be worth pursuing with MNHQ? (It might cut down their workload and lessen the number of trolls they have to handle... of course, it could misfire, because a dedicated troll could then put 3 months into establishing a fake posting history and would be less obviously a single-issue GF).

Actually, there are two (male) posters who have left ... the gaming thread is now quiet as a result.

I'm guessing, since a certain poster is no longer doing his pissing-up-against-the-lampost territorial game, that he's been suspended. I'm sure he couldn't have resisted putting in his two-pennorth-worth repeatedly.

Don't WANNA wait!

That's not a job I'd wish on anyone

Have patience - some poor sod at MNHQ is presumably going to have to read the bloody thing before rendering impartial judgement.

I've reported to ask for reinstatement BR, you might want to also.

It all sounds very "I've told the teacher on you and you are going to get into trouble'-ish.

Love a challenge.

Pan - I doubt you could have made it worse!

Yep the problem was Bob didn't actually name. He speculated and what's more, speculated down to a pool of two regular posters but actually had no knowledge of whether either of those had sent the PM (or even if the PM existed).

Bob said that two different people had given him the same name, suggesting that there was more than one recipient.

Why on earth he saw fit to play Columbo is beyond me. More space ownership stuff I suppose.

thanks Errol - it was at about 350 posts when I saw it, saw references to 'violence' ( I presume as an alternative to chivalrousness??) further up, so was going to ride in on my trusty steed in a blaze of chivalrousness...and make things worse.

If the recipient had named the sender and posted the content of the message, fine.

Reporting and letting MNHQ deal with it, fine.

Discussing it offthread? Iffy.
A third party, hundreds of posts later naming not just the 'offender' but also someone else who'd presumably done nothing other than disagree with him onthread ... way out of line.

Funnily enough, both the people he named and shamed and said one would be banned ... think they're still here, aren't they? So if the PM incident happened and was reported, MNHQ evidently didn't think it was that bad.

One poster, not Teacher Bob, said she had received an abusive pm. That poster didn't name the sender but mentioned part of the content. Several other posters asked her to name the sender.

Teacher Bob said he knew who the sender was as he had been corresponding by pm with the recipient.

There was a bit of a hoo ha about Bob naming the alleged sender.

To be honest it's not at all unusual to see senders of unwelcome pms being outed. It happened on the "controlling dad hairstyle" thread and no one said the recipient was wrong to name the sender. I suppose the difference is it was not the recipient who named the sender.