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.

oh what? Glitterknickaz as well? FFS. :(

There's otheres as well.

Actually Sn posters eaeving weekly seems to the norm; feels like I am going against the grain by staying sometimes.

Didn't you leave for a while as well, Peachy? I vaguely remember you disappearing for a bit.. glad you came back though.

Peachy yy. I have two friends with late diagnosis of aspergers (late20's) who are now so lacking in confidence due to horrendous time at school from pupils, scapegoated by teachers (this was the 70's) they cannot hold down a job, experience terrible depression, self medicate with drink/drugs. A bit of investment early on makes all the difference later.

in the dim and distant days when mumsnet started it was a nice place where people were as polite to each other as they would be in real life. If you forgot that people would remind you. Gradually it has been overtaken more and more by the bullies and by those lacking in empathy. I wonder how many people join for a time and rapidly disappear? Perhaps mumsnet's more frequent use of the delete button (is it more frequent or just that there are more posts now?) is a reflection of increased turnover of members/declining membership?

Mumsnet also wants to have some influence in RL. If you want to have that you can't be seen as a site for bullies and cranks. Perhaps there is an impact of advertisers or maybe they are concerened about a News of the World type campaign against advertisers on the site.

OP - didn't see the thread but you were obviously being deliberately rude from the comments you quote. It clearly was a personal attack and it should have been deleted. Without seein the other thread - andI have no desire to look for it - I don't know if it was a double standard but you should be reflecting on why you feel entitled to be so offensive.

Have just read the thread in Site Stuff about thread deletions, this is what I posted there:

Tbh, I am torn with the post deletions. Sometimes I think it is good for some comments to stand, because I would actually quite like to see which posters are being cunts.

Could MNHQ highlight the post with the words, "MNHQ thinks you are a cunt, but will not delete this cunty post as others should see your cuntishness"

Thumb I did elave for a while yes.

I cam e back when feeling stronger, didn;t last long! I am thinking I should change my species to weeble

I think elsewhere someone suggested a 3 strikes and you're out policy. I quite like that. I also like the 'MN thinks you're a cunt' post. Perhaps the little red sign next to the post could have that in very small writing....

Mme Lindor, are your tech skills up for devising such a thing?

Saycool
I am sure we could ask for advice from the Geeks.

Maybe we could have a CuntOfTheWeek award, handed out by MNHQ and included Aitch's roundup.

I'm not sure about the 3 strikes. Unless moderating was really carefully done, a poster could find themselves banned quite quickly if there's someone with a grudge.

It would be interesting to see if restricted namechanging, coupled with transparent reporting would work. Ie, a note by a post saying 'this post has been reported by XYZ'. Could get a tad crowded though, what with the stop sign and the 'Mumsnet thinks you're a cunt'.

@ Sarah (although it's probably not really appropriate in the context of the thread.)

Peachy - definite but ironic there at the Weeble idea!

MNHQ could delete this, or they could leave it here so that everyone knows that

Oh yes, red would be good. Then we could scroll through on a Cunt Hunt when we're bored.

Yes, just skip through and see who is being a cunt today.

Someone could write a widget to trawl through for cuntyness of the day :o

Arf at Cunt Hunt

Would MN thinks you're a cunt apply only to posts which are totally horrible and could we still have Thumbwitches idea to delete a small part of a post where the main bit is sound but the outrage has boiled over/crossed a line a tiny bit that could just be zapped with red this bit has been removed by MN for being a bit cuntish?

I also like the like/dislike buttons. Great for lurkers and they could go where the twitter/Facebook buttons used to be. And they could be trialled in chat and AIBU??

Oh lawks what happened to second paragraph? Apologies for lack of punctuation

New option on the menu:

somewhere next to threads with no eplies

Threads with replies from cunts

No?

Yy Peachy. Hope MNHQ are making notes

Argh! I just wrote a brilliant post but lost it.

What about some posters stats? For example:

doublestandard Member since April 2009. Total postings 10,452. Number of cuntish posts 2. Number of like posts 453. Number of dislike posts 132.

This, like a profile, would follow your member details, not your posting name. So while MissPerfect appears to have 0 cuntish posts, her alter-ego NastyBollox has 462 which would show up on the MissPerfect stats so we can all see she's not as nice as we thought.

There could even be graphs!

Y'know, I am coming round to the idea that people should have some poster stats attached to them - and yes, to their member details, not their posting name - would solve a lot of problems with those who namechange to protect their privacy and are then accused of trollery.

Not sure I want the total number of posts to be listed though!

Oh no DS

Peachy member since 2001 number of cuntish posts 3 number of likes