MNHQ: Please take another look at the posters who have been suspended

See how desperate I am to not be disappointed - to think she'd be a bit thoughtful, able to take criticism, having a bad day; not so much of a politician

Wot they said.

IAm

I am not on Twatter. Oh dear...

fundamental

BTW, I don't mean you, I mean her. But that's not what she was expecting and she didn't have much time, and we were eager/desperate to talk about it

I'd like to think she had a bit of a shock and then a bit of a think.

I admire your optimism, but no, she did not. Issues have repeatedly been raised with her on twitter and she is dismissive, patronising and arrogant.

Prawn

The thing was, the thread was only publicised that day, and the bill she was putting forward was the next day. It seemed to me that it really was a no-brainer that we would all agree with her, akin to someone asking: "Are puppies cute?" Well derr - yes of course (bear with me here)...

So really it seemed like a good opportunity to not just pat someone on the back for a great idea, but to drill down a bit on what Woman means. I don't understand how anyone doesn't understand how fundamentla it is to define your terms

Bolloxio

Maryz, to my mind is the paragon of a polite, assertive poster

I would just love to be in SC's head though. She must have read that thread. It was polite and passionate. It was not repetitive. The questions tackled different aspects of the issue. I'd like to think she had a bit of a shock and then a bit of a think.

Banning or suspending people for “wrong think” is a very worrying path to go down

This.

I support Barracker. Women need to be able to speak frankly on issues which affect our rights

Also this.

Doesn’t this just highlight the need for women’s spaces perfectly?

Perhaps the webchat threads should be pre-moderated - not to filter out any issue, but to prevent too much repetition or one issue dominating the thread to the exclusion of others. I guess ideally there would be a way of aggregating similar questions so that the sense of the number of posters with the same concern, and more nuanced questions which I think can develop as a thread progresses aren't lost. No idea of the technicalities but trying to post-moderate a fast moving thread with many posters must be worse than cat herding.

I wasn't involved in the creasey thread but it may have been particularly problematic because it came up at too short notice?

Marzy had a few deletions in the thread for self ID questions, however..hes actual ban appeared to be for calling out gaslighting by staff. Her posts had been deleted, and then undeleted and then staff said that nothing had even been deleted in the first place. This was false. I feel maryz was well within her rights to call this behaviour out. It may have been a mistake, one mod might have deleted, and the other undeleted..but it did happen. And it was not until she started getting quite irate at the denials from staff that this happened that she was banned..so it was not about asking the same question over and over.

I continue to be grateful to HQ for allowing the discussion, but I think honestly the latest quideline update was just a shitshow, and ever since then moderation has been so erratic that members have no clue if they are coming or going.

Anyway, I highly suspect I am one of the next ones lined up for a ban..so probably shouldn't have said anything, but I really feel the treatment I saw of maryz in that thread to be so unfair. And I highly doubt shes been sending in abusive emails or anything behind the scenes (though as a mod on a busy forum, I agree that sometimes this does happen and the mods get the blame because members do not know about the behind the scenes behaviour)

Thanks for your reply kate

Thanks for explaining that, KateMumsnet. Having not been on the thread I wasn't aware. So in future if mods think there have been more than enough questions on a single topic we'll get a warning. That works for me. I usually read threads before I post anyway.

Glad to hear most people will be reinstated. There appears to be a concerted attempt to get rid of some of our most articulate regulars.

I appreciate Mumsnet hosting these debates. I feel you will do well by it in future as it seems likely that the extremes of transactivism have a limited shelf life.

We're heavily involved in FWR but I think if you ask the average bod if men who identify as women should be showering with little girls you'll get a very blunt "No way". It's just that most people aren't even aware the debate is happening.

Mumsnet as the place of reason is a good look, particularly when it comes to child transition.

It wasn't what happened on the SC thread Kate, no - I just mean it may be an issue going forward if it's a strict rule

Olenna - www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_live_events/3367889-Webchat-with-John-McDonnell-MP-Shadow-Chancellor-Tuesday-18-September-at-11am :)

Has the John McDonnell webchat tomorrow been pulled? Can't find it in Active any more. Presumably the "new Rule 3" will be mentioned at some point on there to warn pp about it?

I support Barracker. Women need to be able to speak frankly on issues which affect our rights.

But Kate, you'd only be ignoring if you were reading the thread. How often does someone pop up with a YABU 500 posts into a thread, when the OP acknowledged they were being a dick three days ago?

Will rule 3 (first time I've seen it "as a proper rule" too, though I did see it stated separately in the SC thread) also apply to other webchats/guest posts? Say people asking someone's favourite biscuit when 72 people have already asked the same thing?

Another voice in support.