to think MNHQ are inconsistent with deleting posts

[tomhardyismydh]

and to be feeling really aggrieved that after reporting the same very offensive post twice I have had no responce from HQ

yet I had made a fairly inofensive post and it was deleted imediatly once it was reported. (different threads and posters BTW)

Testing...

Pope Benedict XVI, formerly Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, formerly a childhood member of the Hitler Youth, currently ringmaster of the worlds largest organised peadophile ring.

I agree with silverfrog that mn's deletion policy is very inconsistent, and that a lot of upset has been caused to posters on the sn board because of it.

I also fail to see how someone can become offended over a statement made about someone you do not know, will never meet, who is in the public eye. And besides which who are you to say whether people can or cannot insult the pope?

Should "offensive" posts be deleted even if they're true? e.g. you might call the pope a nazi which may or may not be true, but I could call him a paedophile sympathiser which most certainly is true.

yeah I got one deleted the other day, still no explanation as to why.

Does anyone know where the 'pushchair on the bus' thread went. I was quite enjoying it.

how many over 60s in Germany were members of Hitler youth though? I'd imaging an awful lot as it was 'the done thing'. paedophile apologiser though is something else entirely.

It was compulsory after a certain date I think.

I would imagine that the deletions are carried out by different people at different times of the day, so that there are always going to be inconsistencies.

What Justine finds to be ok, might make Rachael reach for the big red delete button.

I have never been deleted. Am quite disappointed about it. I might call someone a manhating cunt just to achieve my goal.

YANBU. I have seen some appalling posts go unchallenged and undeleted while far more innocuous ones are deleted. I reported one recently and nothing was done about it. I was also surprised that a certain poster on a controversial thread recently did not have their posts deleted. They would have been banned from ever posting again on another forum I am a member of.

The moderation is definitely inconsistent.

Go on, Mme. Insult me horribly and I will report your post.

I caannnn't, Eleison. You are much too lovely to insult.

You smell

Oh, do fuck off, Narky.

Sorry, Narky.

I wouldn't be able to do it. I would hyperventilate and miss the keyboard.

YANBU

I had a very tame post deleted within minutes of posting it, at the request of a regular who dishes out far, far worse on a regular basis - but the only time I reported a vile post about disabled people (again from a regular) it was still there days later

There does seem to be a level of inconsistency generally - are staffing levels an issue, or do they guidelines/policies need to be reviewed?

ChippingIn - it has gone absolutely stratospheric over on SN recently.

Lots of regulars taking a break, lots of newbies (some of whom are fond of trolling). lots of sniping and biting back.

the whole thing is in meltdown, tbh. and mostly as a result of MNHQ policies (or not) on deletions.

not many deletions form SN itself - althought htere have been a few - but mostly form the main board, but about SN stuff, and by SN posters. who are fed up with being silenced.

It really is time MNHQ got their act together and got a consistent policy worked out.

it used to be personal attacks.

then some opinions/facts get deleted, but not all.

somtimes only the OP can request a thread pulled (assuming non-controversial posts, and assuming the posts contain facts/opinions)

sometimes anyone can ask for it t be pulled (ie anyone who take offence - talking about whole threads where someone has taken offence, not individual posts/posters)

the whole thing is crazy, and has left one of the most supportive boards on MNet in complete disarray.

I have noticed inconsistencies and I don't post if a poster is annoying me rather than calling them on it.

BUT, I can see that that may be couterproductive. If a poster is asking for help then they need to be prepared to accept it.

And it is just words on a screen.

I dont post on the SN threads, but in AIBU whole threads can be deleted on the basis of one poster throwing their toys out of the pram.

Though if they are getting trolling in the safety of the SN area then I can now understand the new oversensitivity in AIBU.

I dont post on the SN section

generally though, ccp, the AIBU threads which are deleted are, ahem, slightly controversial as a whole - eg "there is no such hting as Apsergers" or similar delightful titles. been there done that.

the new round has been a lot more insidious- posters deciding who can talk about what, and trying to keep other posters quiet about stuff.

worrying, and not conducive to a suportive atmosphere, imo.

the trolls on SN ow - well, whether they are trolls, or newbies clatterign in with bovver boots I'm not sure. ther ehave been a couple of namechangers who have posted inflammatory things, and well, it's all gorn wrong, tbh.

I think that there does have to be better guidelines.

I know it is always going to be controversial, as not everyone is offended by the same things.

And I do see the merit in leaving things, in not deleting as it shows the poster in all her offensive glory.

don't mean have had thread sdeleted by "been there, done that", btw.

I am all for htreads standing, so that everyoe can see the twattish posts, and the reasoned arguments for and against. whatever the section.

What is the main source of worry, silverfrog? Is it the threads where attitudes hostile to disabled people are expressed, or is it associated with the recent media strorm?