Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

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

141 replies

BarrackerBarmer · 17/09/2018 13:10

Hi MNHQ

I'm asking you, please, to take another look at recent bannings and suspensions, in particular those which occurred on a webchat without warning or communication, and especially those which did not breach talk guidelines, and were served on posters without strikes, or not at strike limits.

We have seen the recently added 'rule 3' which pertains specifically to webchats. However I don't think posters are aware that this may result in an immediate and permanent ban, nor does the rule seem to imply that.

I don't know if you have a review process to ensure that all bannings and suspensions are sound, but I'm hoping you do.

I'm respectfully requesting, in the interests of fairness, trust and respect between the moderation team and the posters here, that you take another look and see if there are any decisions which can be reconsidered.

I'm not naming posters specifically, because I think it may be counterproductive.

I hope you'll consider this request to take another look.

Thanks.

OP posts:
AWomanNamedSpartacus · 17/09/2018 15:03

Adding my support.

OlennasWimple · 17/09/2018 15:00

Yes please MNHW. At risk of sounding like a petulant teenagers it's nto fair to change the rules part way through and start banning people as a result. And it's not fair for some mods to take one approach with posters, and some mods to take another.

SuperLoudPoppingAction · 17/09/2018 14:56

I had no idea about rule 3, having missed the Web chat but I've been guilty in the past of posting a question on a Web chat that's already been asked because I haven't had time to read the whole thread before the chat has ended.

Needmoresleep · 17/09/2018 14:55

Or our "take no prisoners" posters? Smile

frogintheTyne · 17/09/2018 14:51

Needmoresleep

May we have our pioneers back.

I absolutely agree with this....(although I read it first as may we have our prisoners back)

beenandgoneandbackagain · 17/09/2018 14:38

I would also like to add my support.

When Mumsnet brought the rules in, they were very much a lone island in a sea of anti-woman websites. Now more and more people are realising how anti-woman the TRA voices are, is it not time for Mumsnet to re-think allowing some of the more intelligent posters back on?

GreenGloves · 17/09/2018 14:38

Thanks doedoe and others.

ApplesinmyPocket · 17/09/2018 14:18

Please have another look, MNHQ. It just doesn't feel 'right' for MN to ban good, intelligent, thoughtful women without the best reason in the world.

stillathing · 17/09/2018 14:16

bump and support

ShotsFired · 17/09/2018 14:15

Adding my name to the lineup, thanks MNHQ.

There must be a way through this.

doedoe90303811 · 17/09/2018 14:13

@GreenGloves

"One of the points we made was that 'intrusive discussion of an individual's genitals is likely to be deleted'. We felt that the title of your thread as well as several of your posts were in breach of these guidelines, which is why we've deleted the thread."

OrchidInTheSun · 17/09/2018 14:13

And me too

GurlwiththeCurl · 17/09/2018 14:12

Sticking my head out of the Lurking Dimension to add my voice in support. Some excellent and articulate posters have been banned and should be allowed back.

TigerDrankAllTheWaterInTheTap · 17/09/2018 14:10

I agree with Barracker as well.

EmpressAdultHumanFemale · 17/09/2018 14:09

Me too. Please look into this, HQ.

Ariclock · 17/09/2018 14:09

I agree.

TheEverywhereBear · 17/09/2018 14:09

Me too

lovetherisingsun · 17/09/2018 14:08

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

Yes.

My friend got banned a year or so ago for daring to defend herself against a certain group of people on here. She typed sarcasm, no strike warning at all, then quoted what someone upthread put that got deleted and said something like "you can't say things like that", and because she QUOTED she got banned. It was fucking ridiculous. She never bothered coming back, ended up getting severe depression which we didn't find out about until later because she felt that she had lost her last line of communication with people.

UnderHerEye · 17/09/2018 14:08

Another poster who agrees with the OP.

Come on @MNHQ let those voices be heard

WSPU · 17/09/2018 14:07

I agree.

JuneOsbourne · 17/09/2018 14:05

I think you mean "gender critical women", Justanotherposter, and you're right, there are more of us seeing the light every day.

lunamoth581 · 17/09/2018 14:05

I mostly lurk, but I completely agree with BarrackerBarmer.

And Fallingirl:

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

Also, banning or suspending people repeating questions or points that a politician danced around or failed to address is not a good look.

FissionChips · 17/09/2018 14:05

I agree

dinosaurkisses · 17/09/2018 14:05

Agreed- some long standing posters who have contributed to this site and offered support and advice to other users for years have been banned due to them putting a toe over the invisible line of what is and isn’t “acceptable” terminology. I’m thinking specifically of Maryz when I say that.

RedDogsBeg · 17/09/2018 14:05

Agree.

Also, MNHQ with regard to Rule 3 some posters do not read the full thread before posting - as seen on practically every thread on here whatever the subject - therefore duplicate postings of questions may not be an attempt to harangue. Perhaps you could make posters aware that they must read the full thread of questions before adding theirs so they do not fall foul of this new rule.

Swipe left for the next trending thread