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.

It's all well and good having '1001 dislikes', but if 999 of those originate from one mental with a grudge it's neither accurate nor fair.

How about in addition to 'mnhq think you're a cunt today', someone reporting multiple posts gets the 'mnhq thinks x needs a cup of tea and a sit down'.

Hmm that's a good point AP. Add a from X number of posters to likes and dislikes?

doublestandard Member since April 2009. Total postings 10,452. Number of cuntish posts 2. Number of like posts 453 (89 posters) Number of dislike posts 132 (47 posters).

But that may start getting a bit tricky. The important one is definitely how much of a cunt a poster is/isn't.

As we aren't allowed cunt in thread titles any more it could all be academic.

On the one other forum I use regularly, you can click on a posters user name and see the date they joined and the number of posts they have made. I think that's sufficient, really. Oh and name-changing isn't allowed.

I agree with Nonemous and MmeLindor upthread.

Too difficult to police all these things

I recently had some posts deleted on the Dale farm threads - AFAIK, they were the only posts I've ever had deleted in all the years I've been a regular poster here. If there was a three strikes policy, I'd be gone. Replies to one of the deleted posts make it sound awful.

I haven't a clue why my posts were deleted. Lots and lots of posts were deleted on those threads, including any accounts of problems experienced by people living near traveller camps, but positive experiences were allowed to remain.

I think that, on threads where so many posts are being deleted, MNHQ should clarify their policy. I posted that I did not understand what could possibly be offensive about one of the posts I had deleted, and that too was deleted (admittedly, I explained what I had written, but I am still none the wiser).

I'd prefer if the moderation stayed light, as it used to be, but I understand that the site has grown a lot, and that may not be possible.

A problem with relying on numbers of likes/dislikes is that there are lots of MN based groups on facebook (and some fun gals even have a closed forum).

I've seen it happen where posts or a thread are being discussed away from MN, and support is rallied for a particular stance, or to have posts reported. There is a danger that any new system that relies on the number of reports/likes/dislikes will give these off-MN groups more of an opportunity to control discussion here.

I feel exhausted just reading this. I think I like things the way they are.

Maybe a five reports by different posters before a post is deleted policy, with the exception of racist/disabilist comments?

When pinkys post was deleted on the ttc a girl thread I queried it, and was told by the reporter that she didn't want to read childish insults on mn, and why did I feel that personal attacks should be allowed. Then the op said she had reported it because she was disappointed that she wasn't getting the advice she wanted. Bloody ridiculous. It feels like we are pandering to the professionally offended. If I wanted filters and fluffiness I wouldn't have joined mn

leBOF - I liked them the way they were

i have it on good authority that oliviamumsnet and rowenmumsnet have petitioned for animated smileys.

annmumsnet and tech said [and i quote] at a team meeting 'we don't give a shit whether they bounce or not'

i am not liking this attitude at all

Agree with Wholly.

Btw I just wrote a proper, serious post and iPhone ate it Will try again.

I don't think people often have to, it's been my experience that they tend to have been deleted and thei first thing I know is someone messages me about it LOL (thinking about when someone launched a MASSIVE attack on Dh a few years back that ws completely wrong- about him using depression as an excuse to be unemployed when he actually had two jobs LMAO, but whilst was quite funny to jump on their ehads in safety it would have decimated DH who was quite ill at the time to see it)

I don;t want photos - you can do that in profile if you so wish. I don't want anything jumping up and down. I don't want or need to know how many posts someone has made. I don't want tickers ( whatever they are). I don't want edit post thing. 'I love you just the way you are'.

Please NO to post counts next to name. What if my DH were to look?

We could have little potted histories next to names.

Peachy - has been around since the year dot and is always generally not a cunt but if you rile her about SN she may be

MmeLindor - has been around for a few years and does not often swear* and has NEVER been deleted.

Hecate - has been around for a bit and is always right.

Pinot - is a relatively new poster, sometimes a cunt but more often very funny

Reality - is about to pop and might get a bit cuntish if you rile her in the coming weeks

Lulumama - is the voice of reason. Listen to her, unless you are a cunt

*except on this thread it seems

Instead of 'Message deleted by Mumsnet' how about this?? We could devise others for various situations.

Am liking that one Mme

I think I was deleted once but not sure. If I did it was certainly deserving of it.

So, seriously I would like to see less posts deleted and more left to stand so we can see what was actually written and judge for ourselves. One of the things I think MN does best is self-moderation. In most instances if someone is being vile on a thread they are picked up by other posters (although I do admit I haven't seen as much of that of late). I like this because I think it allows everyone to judge for themselves and helps to change attitudes for the better.

The examples given on this thread are ridiculously trivial and would have been allowed to stand in days gone by. I find some of the deletions are an insult to the intelligence of everyone on the thread.

However, if we must go down the road of more deletions (due to bigger site/more complaints/pissed off advertisers/whatever) then I think any posts relating to the deleted post should also go. I have sympathy for situations where someone has lost their cool and posted something in the heat of the moment because someone has posted outrageous comments about a protected characteristic (as definied by the Equality Act 2010, so includes disabled, religion and belief, race, sex, age, sexual orientation amongst others) or has been deliberately provocative or rude/disrespectful to others on the thread. If it is really offensive then yes it should go, but it is unfair to then leave posts standing that make reference to that deleted post that may or may not be an accurate reflection of what has been posted.

In the situation that made me post orginally, I got annoyed with a poster because I felt she was being rude and ignorant. She ignored other posters opinions and the explanation of the organisation she was complaining about and disregarded them without justification. I lost my cool a bit and called her on it in a slightly less friendly way than I would normally and had my post deleted. Fair enough if that is the policy (I think it was a bit heavy-handed but hey ho). But that poster has then named me in her post and attributed behaviour and comments to me that I did not make. And that is allowed to stand. That sort of thing is what is hacking people off. The inconsistency, the preciousness and the pandering to people who are happy to whip up controversy but cry "personal attack" when criticised is new and I don't like it.

Ha ha Psammead

And can I now add 'nevergooglesmackedarse' (to post an alternative to Psammead) to the list of things one should NEVER ever do without a scourer eyes at hand?

yeuch.

I was against hide poster because sometimes people say daft things on one thread but are very sensible on another but I'm coming round to that option a bit more. I think because these nasty posters are often nasty on all threads.

Maybe not a permanet hide poster but just "hide posts by xxxx on this thread" option?

Psammead- that's brilliant. I have shamelessly appropriated it. I am reserving it for very special occasions.