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

I missed the whole Stella Creasey business and had never heard of Rule 3 before this thread. I could easily have got banned for something I didn't even know was prohibited.

Please MNHQ, if you're going to add to or alter the sticky at the top of FWR, alert us to any changes in the rules.

You say Rest assured we will ALWAYS let the guest know that it's an area of concern to multiple users and will encourage them to engage with those questions (we learned that lesson with Gordon Brown and his biscuits).

But it's impossible for MNHQ to say how many posters feel that concern unless they've been allowed to say so.

I can see MNHQ can get annoyed if, during a webchat, an individual makes numerous posts all demanding answers to the same question. But I can't see how someone asking a single question once can be treated as though they're behaving badly.

The last point I would make is that any embarrassment for either Mumsnet or the NSPCC following their PANTS event rests squarely on the shoulders of the NSPCC.

They should have been able to answer questions about safeguarding effortlessly. It should be core to their policy and values.

But they couldn't answer the question and I for one will never forget that. It was a big public admission of failure.

Same here. No contact from MNHQ until I prodded them a day later

I was just logged out with nothing to indicate why

Empress

Same here

I didn't know what was going on at first, just that I couldn't log in & Forgotten Password wasn't working. I sent a couple of messages & HQ replied to my second one, maybe three days in?

At that point they asked me to agree to stick with Talk Guidelines and the suspension then lasted for a week after I responded. I don't know whether it would have taken longer for HQ to tell me what was happening if I hadn't asked.

Yes, the mails we sent were clear that the suspensions were temporary - but we asked people to get back in touch with us first to confirm they were happy to stick withing TGs.

Fair enough. But I honestly think - as above - you must have accidentally missed some people out.

But Kate - you guys have issued suspensions on the basis of a fast-moving thread where nobody could keep up with what was happening, not communicated with the women suspended, and then added a post hoc rule to justify it.

I think perhaps those women might not want to send a supplicating email to you to work out whether or not you're going to reinstate posting privileges. I don't think I would be up for that, honestly.

It's not that they are sitting in a corner weeping because they've been banned. It's that we are missing them and want them to come back. Can't you just be proactive and invite them back? It's not that big a slice of humble pie to eat, is it?

I say this as a person who is doing her absolute best to abide by the rules and spend as little time as possible moaning about them on here because I understand that must be dispiriting for the mod team.

Its worth remembering that most of us on here don't know the full story. The mods may be behaving like tyrannical dictators but there might be more going on behind he scenes.

I used to mod (professionally, ie paid job) for a forum and we had a poster nice as pie on the forums, everyone thought they were a lovely soul that was supportive to everyone but this same poster used to send the most vile abuse to moderators when they had to step in due to dangerous content in her posts. She always spun it as a being a victim of vile moderation on the boards but we always tried so hard to support her and be polite and got nothing but abuse in return and eventually she was banned to MUCH anger on the forum.

Anyway, point is, there might be more going on behind the scenes that posters aren't telling us (of course there also might not) but we want never know he full story.

Which webchat was this? What have I missed? How long was I down the gym this afternoon?

In MNs defence the whole GC/self ID thing is truely weird.

Lots of shouty aggressive people quick to complain to MN or their advertisers. It is a debate that really should not be happening in this way. Almost everyone would prefer a process that said, "Lets review issues for TG people and try to resolve them, but in a way that fully protects the most vulnerable women and children, and ensures that necesscary womens' sex protections remain in place. "

Instead we have older women physically attacked, women's groups "no platformed" in Universities, Linda Bellos (ffs - the grand old dame of minority politics) facing private prosecution, apparently half the Cabinet and most of the opposition and media afraid to say anything, with bizarre twitter and other attacks on people who dare speak out.

Thank you MN. You are, and your mods, are really appreciated. I am sure you have had it from both "sides", and I suspect it has been pretty awful. .

I believe that with the help of some key media people, common sense is starting to gain a bit of traction. Something to be welcomed by women, parents of girls and those concerned about the vulnerable.

I think the Birds Eye response is best. Potato's to all. Can we have a new emoji.

so most people will be able to post now

But have you told them this? Because I'm aware of more people than that who believe themselves to have been permanently banned.

Rule 3 is a new rule that was added (weirdly to n the middle of the other Rules) following the Stella Creasy debacle

I hadn’t seen rule three as well - people often just type a question without reading the full thread - would they be banned? That could be difficult to manage. Would people be given a warning first?

I think most of us, the majority of us, are trying in good faith to stick within the rules .

and there were two permanent bans. We don't want to comment on individuals but the decision to remove someone's ability to post is really not taken lightly and is definitely not done on the basis of people's actions on one or two threads

But what did they actually do?

I agree

Sorry - we know this isn't what you want to hear but we hope it explains where we're coming from a bit more clearly

I think most people on the thread understand that you have made that decision

Its not like we want to hear 'we are reinstating everyone...yay!'

I would like to hear that on the, im sure rare, occasions when moderation has been over zealous that you are happy to revist and possibly reconsider

Ive had no personal problems with the moderators on here...the one time i was deleted and i thought it was unfair i emailed stating my position (and crying ) and the mod was kind enough to reinstate

But a pattern seems to be that some posters arent being told they are banned or indeed why and that is very unfair im sure you'll agree

People slip through the cracks...but there appears to be a bloody great crack over the FWR board

Well I had no idea about rule 3. If you're adding more you really need to highlight that there have been changes so that we can avoid falling foul. And yes, it is common to post something while you remember before reading an entire thread.

I would hate to lose the uniqueness that is MN.

I support Barracker's post.

I'd also like to add that I'm aware of at least one person banned during the Stella Creasey debacle who was not informed of her suspension and has had no reply to her email(s) asking what had happened.

This cannot be right.