to think MNHQ should not be deleting posts in this way? WARNING: Ranty

[doublestandard]

So, having a post deleted is a MN rite of passage and all that, but I think MNHQ have got a bit trigger happy with the delete button of late but not in a good way. And yes this is a bit thread about a thread but I think it's a general problem and worth discussing.

As an example, I have recently had a post from AIBU deleted because I said the manner in which a poster had disregarded others opinions was "flaming arrogant" and that "You have come across on this thread as a self-important, judgey know-it-all". Apparently this constitutes a personal attack?? Since when have we not been allowed to say that a specific post on a thread suggests arrogance? Or that a poster is coming across in a certain way? It is not saying the poster is arrogant or a self-important, judgey know-it-all but that is how they are being perceived.

Now ordinarily I'd shrug this off but I'm seeing more and more posters crying "personal attack!" when disagreed with and then having posts that seem to me to be quite reasonable deleted. I am also baffled that MNHQ have decided that it is not a personal attack to leave up comments by another poster stating that I condone child abuse (I mean what the actual fuck?!) when I have said nothing of the kind and because my post above is deleted people can't make up their own minds. Either delete both or delete neither surely?

I think most people on MN employ an attack the posts, not the poster as a rule. Yes, it is a bit more blunt on AIBU than relationships or behaviour and development for example, and I think that's right, but I find the nannying attitude and selective decisions not to be in the spirit of MN.

-----

Disclaimers

I have namechanged because I don't want to draw any more attention to the thread where MNHQ sees fit to allow a post to stand that falsely states I support the abuse of children. I suspect a few people may recognise me and/or the thread so I'd prefer not to be outed thanks.

In the interests of fairness there was another part of my post that MNHQ felt could be interpreted as "giving the finger". It was actually nothing of the kind - it was a reference to being part of a particular organisation and then a flounce - but I can see how someone might have interpreted it as that even if I don't agree. Fair enough to decide to take it down, but why leave up a libellous post stating a poster condones child abuse when the orginal post is not there to be judged?

I have raised this with MNHQ and the second paragraph draws on their email response.

Fanjo's gone?? Ah no, that's shite. :(

I got deleted the other day (my first time) for saying that the OP was being a 'silly moo'. She was bleating on about wanting a girl and I thought it was a bit insensitive as she was very focused on it rather than having a baby iykwim. I just think given that some ladies here cannot have babies at all or have lost of baby it seemed such a daft thread to start - she was asking for 'having a girl diet tips etc' - silly bloody moo

Anyway I have made some very rude posts in my time and they have been left intact - why MNHQ they so deletey lately?

I think Supernanny or someone like that has got charge of the delete button!

Perhaps it is just an over-zealous YTS trainee trying to make a good impression but I tell you it fecking pisses me off.

Do they still have YTS??
Pisses me off too - if someone's being stupid, why can't we tell them so?

There have been loads of threads where posters proudly announce they are going to report the thread, and a little flurry follows agreeing, thread then gets deleted. What is then to stop a tit for tat war going on with a multi ider going back and reporting those that reported them and getting their threads removed.

There are many game players on MN and I've seen it ruin other boards. Perhaps people shouldn't be so keen to hit the report button unless they are really offended not just because they are holding grudges

Showing my age I think

It's just that kind if mediocre shit, where we all have to be beige and inoffensive even if someone is being an idiot (and by proxy offensive to thinking people). It all just feels a bit watered down and that is a great shame.

So everyone with any sensitivity hides the offensive posters, leaving them free to spout their shite without oppostion to their like-minded pals, and more importantly, any newcomers who haven't encountered them before? Not sure that would work...

Not a personal attack, advice.

Mitmoo, you sow the seeds of your own destruction. Time after time you are given excellent advice on here, yet you refuse to listen to it. You are gently pulled up on offensive comment, yet you refuse to listen. If you feel you are unfairly treated and have a problem with other posters, then you need to start listening to what is said to you, rather than carrying your grudges over into other threads.

This is meant kindly, I hope you take it on board.

I used to be anti hide poster- and I still have reservations as it would allow bigots to effectively prgram MN to allow them to spout vitriol without seeing any challenge.

But on the otehr side I'd ahve dearly liked it recently, trying to come on MN for a break from something upsetting in my life and just getting the same old crap I have debated and been upset by a hundred times.

I suspect the bigots who stick around long enough to reporgram their responses effectively are beyond help; whilst protecting vulnerable people is important, so I now have been converted to teh idea of a hide poster option.

Sarah it was more crap, more of the same and I don't take crap on board from anyone. I was flamed for using the word shysters as listed in the OED and used perfectly in context.

Some unintelligencia tries to insinuate it was antisemetic. Crap. It was used in perfect context and confirmed by the OED's definition. I will not change the OED usage to suit some petty game players who were desperate for an excuse to flame.

If anyone was still unable to see these sad games at play all they needed to do was to use the search facility to find the word shyster being used by others, there were three pages that came up and not one other poster was challenged. Double standards? Game playing? Crap? Yes to all three.

So no if people spout crap and double standards I don't take it on board.

I can only suggest if you feel strongly about the use of the word shyster you petition the OED to change it.

If someone has taken offence at the perfectly correct usage of a word they have the problem they don't get to change the correct use of the English language because they see harm in it.

And it's not just fanjo; two others have gone also, well known MN names who have fought the SN corner for years.

Who else has gone Peachy ?

I think its glittaknickaz and I can;t recall teh MN name of the other person, someone I know off board.

It's so awful that people are leaving but I can understand their reasons.

It's freaking sucks here sometimes

Mitmoo - would it really have hurt you to have responded to the poster who was offended by the word with a quick 'Sorry you were upset, I wasn't aware of that implication of the word' It would have absolved you of any implied charge of racism and avoided upsetting people.

Or is your right to use a word really more important than the feelings of another poster, however misguided you may think them to be?

I think the biggest problem the other day was that the thread wasn;t even about SN- it was about truancy- but people see a few posters and just fire their missiles right at them. If you can't even avoid the Sn attacks by going to other threads what's the point?

Oh correction- it was the truancy one and one about child safety

I think name changes should be minimised to two names: one main one and we can all have a second private one that we can use for safety but would still be noticed if it appeared performing sock puppetry regularly.

I say that as owner of over 200 names! I get that namechanging can be fun but it's become too risky.

I agree Peachy totally about the namechanging. I didn't see the truancy thread, but the baby safety one left me open mouthed.

It's the stronger, better person who can admit they are wrong.

I'm not posting here half as much as I used to. I can't be doing with the 'if you don't like it you can fuck off' attitude. What happened to having a considered discussion? It rarely happens anymore and MN is the worse for it.

This isn't going to be a popular opinion but I honestly think mumsnet should not moderate on the grounds that some individuals have found a post offensive. I would always champion freedom of expression. I don't think being offended is a terrible thing.

But I don't have a child with SEN and maybe if I did my views would be different.

I do think we could do with more posters reminding others about the supportive spirit of mumsnet and challenging on thread rather than reporting threads.

Norman I probably agree but I equally think that safety valves- eg the two namechanges (people can always ask MN for more if needed, they know who's who) - can be built in to mitigate things.

I'm not a massive reporter as a rule, as likely to report if I am worried about someone as I am if offended, but YY to reminding about support. However there is a core MN group whose genuinely held opinion is that everything a child with SN gets in the way of support is to the detriment of their lives wrt to taxation etc. They're right. The only argument against it * is decency and empathy.

*actually short term investmenty = long term savings but try proving that