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.

Izzywhizzy trolls aside at a certain level MN has to delete or run the risk of beinga ccused of supporting hate speech / enabling it and even facing legal action.

I really really really want a hide poster button; I can then carry on and try to inform people who would like to be informed, without having to waster energy (or getting caught up in wasting energy more like) on thsoe who are stirring or don't care.

So a hide poster option might look like this?

LeninGrad Mon 12-Sep-11 09:22:45 Add message | Report | Message poster
Post hidden by Mumsnet

I wonder if there's any merit to an argument for showing how many members have hidden a poster? I'm thinking it might a) make a nasty poster think about their behaviour b) tackle the argument that advertisers newbies visiting the site will think the site supports such bile by showing that n posters have actively hidden those sorts of posts.

when i was on moldies it was really nice

and BORING
i like the loons tbh

I think any form of censoring beacause someone disagrees is bad news, people need to read opposing views or they wind up in self reinforcing la-la lands.

I liked the earlier idea of a post being deleted after a few separate individuals complain.

It depends how you define disagrees.

general disagreement- OK.

But breech of hate speech legislation whilst still a disagreement- has to go.

How can you tell that the separate individuals are not part of a facebook clique? There are quite a few.

I am against censorship on principle, and I don't think anyone has the right to avoid being offended. A discussion board would be a very boring place if nobody was ever offended - I am quite sure that threads about some parenting techniques sanctioned by paediatricians and GPs e.g. controlled crying, cause offense to some. But that's life.

Trolling is different.

and what peachy said - it should go without saying breech of hate speech legislation has to go.

But breech of hate speech legislation whilst still a disagreement- has to go

Agree.... my concern is when the "professionally sensitive" want to censor far beyond that. IMO everyone is sometimes BU and need to hear that message.

Some of the FB cliques are quite positive I suspect, and without them less Sn stuff would be tackled. I happily admit to having asked friends to post experiencs on hard threads in the past. I have no idea if there are any malevolent ones about though.

No no no to how many have hidden a poster; you are as likely to be hidden becuase you are on the side of tolerance as not; and I reckon I;d be hidden by 87% just because of my typing.
There's be no way of knowing why you were hidden!

And YYY to what tortoise said- and not only that but if you are on benefits and the sort to actually desperately not want to be a particualrly nasty thread will harm you far more than someone who generally doesn't give a shite but is the supposed target (clue: this daily mail-esque underclass doesn't really post on MN. Many are illiterate, many do not use a PC or want to, and those that do are not going to be on here avoiding chats about which Jonny dress is most popular for this season's school run).

Whatme can you define professionally sensitive please?

(where many see prodfessionally sensitive or the more usual term offended, I see vulnerable, scared for thir child, often reasonable but fighting a minority cause and quite possibly exhausted).

Peachy - I see that too, but that does not mean they are being reasonable if they want to stamp on other posters who are clumsy or unaware rather than hateful.

I had a misunderstanding with a well known poster a while back - IMHO she was twisting my posts and misrepresenting them horribly. That she was scared for her child does not make that reasonable, but it does make it more understandable.

There shouldn't be censorship based on individuals being particularly sensitive. There should be self censorship, and maybe even PMs to muttonheads like me that the person flaming them might be in a bad place, and to drop the dispute.

"You have come across on this thread as a self-important, judgey know-it-all".

I would take that absolutely as a personal attack.

Wholly I agree.

snaz I am not sure actually; I think that's an opinion albeit a strong one. Attacks are more aggressive and personal.

Only on mumsnet would that be not seen as a personal attack! If someone posted that on my facebook wall I would be upset. I think the same rules of good manners should apply. Equally I don't see how "You have come across on this thread as a self-important, judgey know-it-all" enriches a thread or is informative.

Of course it is, Snazaroo.

Just thinking about an irony here - I am certain that if anyone had been interested at the time, I'd have got an ASD diagnosis when I was in school - it's been mentioned to me by people who are in a position to know, and I get near the max score on the ASD tests which are available online. And these traits mean that in some ways I am not as sensitive as I should be - I know this and do my best to compensate. Having my posts deleted, as they have been recently, is excluding me from participating. If it keeps happening, I won't be sticking around.

I used the term professionally offended earlier, but wasn't talking about the SN parents who get frustrated and offended by posters' ignorance. I was referring to the posters who can't handle being told that someone agrees with them, who report posts like pinky's "silly moo" and who generally feel that the board should run to their requirements and they should only get the responses they want.

Re the hide a poster option, if, say, peachy had hid me (thank you for that info btw) and I could still see her posts, what if I wanted to query something she said, to either understand better, or clarify, or even correct? I do think the hide option is a bit iffy. On fb it works because you can hide posters who don't interact with, but people use mn to chat

Re Professionally sensitive (or offended) ... this is what I am on about :o

WhollyGhost, the people who know they lack empathy, and apologise and explain when they get it wrong, are not the problem. It's the ones who are in denial that they lack empathy, and scream "over-sensitivity" when people are upset. Because people who lack empathy and the ability to get on with people in RL are drawn to internet forums, there are going to be a lot more on MN than in RL.