Oh look, it's those guidelines making no sense whatsoever again!

If they have decided that we are the problem then they are incorrect

Yes, I agree. I also think they know that.

I hope this thread results in them evolving their guidelines to be something that actually work properly and fairly.

But that might be just due to reporting, hands. Obviously people sit there, and relentlessly report.

The HQ deletion strategy must be one that is not affected by the number of reports.

The decisions must rest entirely on the nature of the comment, and not the number of people who disagree with it.

Yes, it's all quite 'calm down dear' as though I am a petulant child. No. I am an adult who is also physically disabled and, therefore quite vulnerable to the physical threat that men can pose. I am absolutely within my rights to express concern.

The email exchange I had was very much a 'know your place' sentiment.

I frequently find myself wondering what the actual point of the Equality Act is. Men seem to have replaced women as the protected sex.

The other thing I've noticed is how on other threads, businesses, public bodies, organisations and representatives of political parties are 'fair game' but if you criticise certain charities, CEOs or people working in non exec roles for say a political party or a national student body, then your post may be removed or the thread pulled.

kittens

Do you think that's because they are actually controlling? Or because they can't formulate an effective framework to satisfy TRAs/advertisers so they end up saying just do it ffs, out of desperation?

Three strikes and you're out (a horrible policy that sent millions of black men to jail in America) means that everybody is walking a tightrope. It's far too easy to get deletions, if you're just a bit too honest or say what's on your mind or name reality.

And I don't really understand it. I totally get that you might want to pull a comment, but because it doesn't exactly violate your guidelines, you're not willing to discuss it.

It's their site, they can do what they like.

But what I don't understand is the internal analysis that results in this.

What is their assessment of the situation that means they, invariably, err on the side of censorship?

They obviously have some kind of goal in mind. But what is it? If it's to appear fair to their sponsors and advertisers, I don't understand why they can't do that, with less censorship.

We give them all the words necessary to justify what we are saying. Always.

Do they have a specific advertisers who are constantly on their back, I wonder? Who look at the comments themselves, maybe?

Is it literally a decision between pulling a comment and losing an advertiser?

Justine said she puts the people before profits (or something like that). Which sounded amazing. I wonder if she was sending a warning to advertisers, not TRAs.

I'm just trying to think it all through. Most women here understand that this site is a commercial venture. And, given the nature of the site, I can't imagine that most people working at HQ do not understand what is going on re women's rights.

If they say the sky is green then it is, and we are unreasonable to challenge it.

How dare we deviate from our tropes 🤔(which TRAs only serve to enforce if they think sticking on a frock and calling yourself a hyper-feminine name makes you a woman!)

No, I won't be meek and subservient anymore. We don't need to be nice.

Witchy, bitchy me is in full swing

Lots of non-answers, outright avoidance and 'gentle' reminders that men are more important than women in a space meant for us.
I'll likely be deleted for this but as @TheProdigalKittensReturn says, it'll be because I've stood up for myself and other women.

They didn't get back to me and his posts remain

To be fair to MNHQ, I’ve reported a TRA troll in the past and had a brief return email conversation with MNHQ about whether to leave all their posts. In some instances I think the aim is to make the thread Swiss cheese and have the whole thing pulled so it’s occasionally better to let things stand. Good for lurkers too. Not saying it was the case with your example, but just offering a counter point.

been banned

Datun I reported one such 'activist' to Mumsnet. He bragged on Twitter that he'd be banned and made a joke about IP addresses.

He then posted derogatory comments on FWR. When I pointed this banned user out to MN they said they'd look into it. They didn't get back to me and his posts remain.

Part of the unfairness is allowing other people to report, who are either not even members, or do not participate in the actual discussion.

We know there are countless TRAs who don't appear to work, who can just sit there constantly reporting, under different names and IP addresses. It's just part of their 'activism'.

And I know it's got to be hard for the moderators, but they have allowed themselves to be used and made it even harder.

Having to jump, read comments, make a decision, respond to emails, etc, every time a TRA just idly presses a button, is self-inflicted.

Anyone who has a parented children absolutely knows that you create boundaries, make rules, and stick to them, religiously. Especially as the opposition ratchets up.

As soon as monitors get wind that they can have people deleted or banned for yawning, blessing, biscuits, and anything that they pretend is ambiguous, they will go into a reporting frenzy.

It's so easily avoided. All of it.

I had two deletions previously (in succession) that MN did not email me about. Therefore, if it's three strikes and you're out, I'd have no way of knowing.

Precisely. I mean, I have no idea if the deletion on this thread is the only one I've had recently or if there have been dozens more. And I'm not going to start scanning every thread I've posted on to check.

Frankly however, I've given up caring. If the Special Sacred Caste Rules were applied consistently and fairly - or were even in any way clear, FFS - I'd try my best to stick to them. I really would.

But they aren't. I've no idea what is acceptable and what is not - since apparently we are supposed to be allowed to put a pro-woman viewpoint but at the same time every single way of expressing such a viewpoint is subject to random deletion accompanied sometimes, but not always, by passive aggressive guff about civility and "the spirit". So I just say what I want to say and let the cards fall where they may.

There is stuff done all over the site which is frowned on in FWR

Yes. Absolutely. But of course only frowned on here since relatively recently. Since (mainly biologically male) trans activists discovered that women on here were actually waking up to what has been going on and started trying to stop us from talking to each other.

I realise you have a difficult path to tread, in the current climate MNHQ. I think you, along with so many state institutions, politicians, schools, multinational companies, media organisations, hospital trusts etc etc etc, have been groomed and gaslit into thinking this is genuinely a civil rights movement on behalf of a vulnerable group of people.

It is hard to swim against the tide when there are so many voices from so many quarters telling you that this is what right-thinking people go along with. Even people like Obama and his AG Loretta Lynch were manipulated into subscribing to it and enabling it; plenty of other otherwise inspirational people, including so many women who genuinely fight for other women in other areas - Stella Creasey for example - have signed up to it and present it as a moral crusade, in defiance of all reason and logical analysis.

But I do think and hope that the day will come when people look back on these times and ask what on earth everybody was thinking. When it will have become clear to the majority of people that far from being a civil rights movement, this is actually just a new form of that old chestnut, male oppression of female people.

A minority group yes - but a minority of those who already have more power imposing their will on and controlling the group that has less power. Minority groups are not always the marginalised, disenfranchised ones - just look at the white minority in Apartheid era South Africa.

There is nothing brave or stunning about punching down, as TRAs do.

I wish you could see this now. But I live in hope that you one day will.

ControversialFerret Your post at 20.20 exactly!

Maybe a handwritten card bearing the message ‘Oh do fuck off dear’ would pass the ladylike test? Or crocheted into a fetching beret?

Sadly, no.

A while back, I was given a strike - a real one, with an email and everything - for a post that simply said ODFOD. You know, that ubiquitous MN put down since time immemorial. Apparently, this is now disallowed when it's a) FWR and b) the "dear" concerned a member of the sacred caste of Woke. Presumably one can still say it to the boring, lesser, cunty women who actually populate the site.