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.

LeBOF Tue 13-Sep-11 13:02:29
Why not? She snogged Reality, and followed Lenin round like a lovesick puppy...

Really? Well you learn something every day.

Ha! I would have liked to have been at the spring meet if she'd rocked up.

The way she acted during the last 6 months before she was banned was vile, and there is no way I would have wanted to be in the same room as her, let alone sharing a drink. Glossing over it as just being argumentative is disingenous to say the least.

Hope you're still reading this SO CALLED DAFTPUNK.

Shirley, good point about the ellipses.

That post is technically a troll post. Either it is DP and she's here to rile things up or it's someone pretending to be DP... but I don't think the post should be deleted, nor the others calling BS which are technically troll-hunting.

Returning to the spirit of the thread I think because it's been dealt with on the thread deleting the post will mean the subsequent posts don't make sense. I think we're all old enough to make up our own minds about it. There are no offensive words, no attacks so I say leave it be.

I'm starting to wonder if anybody realises this is just a chatboard... it's not real life and never will be. How can anybody take all this stuff so seriously? It really is playtime, isn't it?

Yep, but the rules in our playground have been suddenly changed, without warning, mean that some of us are wandering off to other play areas.

When you've been around for years, and hope you've contributed positively, it is upsetting. The nature of the board will change, and I think MN has been a major force for good - influencing policy and providing a support network for parents who need it.

What WhollyGhost said. Yet another post has been deleted for standing up to a poster who deliberately used the word ret**d on the stand up for SN thread, using the "personal attack" justification.

The definition of personal attack these days is far from what it was.

I'm absolutely with you on the other boards regarding support - there should be zero tolerance to the personal attacks. I've read that MN is working behind the scenes to try and combat that.

What I don't understand - and I've really tried to - is the mentality of people who start, for example, 'Stand up for SN' threads, knowing full well that there's a problem here at the moment. To my mind it's a bit like putting your hand in tree-stump full of red ants and then crying that you've been bitten.

I thought the thread was pointless when I saw it... imagine it, is there anybody who really thinks that people with SN shouldn't get what's needed to help out? Why pander to the sly, anonymous and moronic few who do have subversive views? Why indeed - but that's what the OP of the thread is doing, and posting it on AIBU - and expecting a 100% good result.

I was under the impression that the SN board was hidden? Is it not? Surely, if there are people who are looking to disrupt it, they have to make the effort to find it and post on it and they are really easy to pick out and report. I would have thought it was much more of a 'closed shop' and far easier to 'police'. Maybe I'm wrong but if I was really needing support and understanding on an issue with such potential to hurt, I wouldn't post it on AIBU, I'd be on whichever board could provide that.

I really do have a hell of a lot of respect for the posters who are dealing with some serious and frustrating RL issues but that thread isn't helping at all, not in my opinion, it's just attention-seeking in the wrong way and 'tantalising' the spiteful out of the woodwork and, like it or not, there's a less altruistic reason why 'outraged' people are posting on it.

Ok. I've definitely gone mad.

Bit of perspective needed here methinks - calling someone a twat etc on MN often (usually?) gets you deleted, even if you think the poster is very, very wrong.

I just looked at the most recent Dale farm thread, and realised that anyone reading it and seeing so many deleted posts will think I am a racist twunt. I am absolutely certain that, read in context, my posts would not have given that impression to anyone with any sense.

I think there absolutely should be a zero tolerance attitude to posts attacking protected characteristics - but the idea of protected characteristics seems to extend to any mention of unpleasant aspects of a particular culture - does this mean that discussion of female genital mutilation or of honour killings would also be attacking ethnic minorities? Posts where regulars detailed their own personal experiences, and the lack of police action were also deleted.

It seems like someone new is moderating - someone who is very immature and fails to grasp the seriousness of posts discriminating against those with SN, and also reads anything less than complimentary about aspects of a culture as being racist, even if there is blatant misogyny. I think that the SN issue is far more serious, because of the support network which MN allows otherwise isolated parents to access.

I expect that this post will be deleted too, but I'm just thinking about how much more productive I'd be, if I did not spend so much time on MN. I never really considered it a waste of time before, but it is now. I am hoping to get banned .

Whatmeworry... But then it seems fine to call people 'cunts' and other pretty names.

We need consistency, everyone who posts here needs to know what is and isn't acceptable, not some arbitrary "Do I like the poster who said it or not?" dependent view.

I think some people are enjoying the 'bunfights' more than they will admit to. Perhaps it's a pleasurable feeling to be 'group outraged' for some? I don't know but it's disingenuous to pretend, I think.

LWITW I think, and I speak as someone who doesn't frequent the SN board, the point of that thread was that there were a number of vile attacks happening all over the boards, particularly AIBU.

There was an issue which came out on this thread that there is a particular problem with posts being deleted under the "personal attack" banner but that posts that are offensive to others, particularly SN are left up. For example:

PosterA: SN children shouldn't be allowed in mainstream school because they are defective and I don't want my child being dragged down by it.

PosterB: That's a nasty, bigoted thing to say. What a twattish attitude!

MNHQ delete PosterB's post as personal attack but allow posterA's post to stand.

This has since spawned a thread specifically about that issue, the stand up for SN thread and a hiding posters thread. They are all basically saying the same thing - the site moderation is seriously off at the moment.

It seems like someone new is moderating - someone who is very immature and fails to grasp the seriousness > We need consistency, everyone who posts here needs to know what is and isn't acceptable

But you can't start a policy of deleting posts just because you don't like an opinion. I don't like posts like that but they have the right to express their point of view. On one of the other threads there are people complaining because they don't like some posts about single parents, you can't moderate on the grounds of 'offence' unless what that person says is illegal because what is entirely subjective.

As for hate speech - the definition expressly says there most be intention to harass etc expressing an ignorant, ill thought out or badly worded opinion is not hate speech. That is why the BNP are allowed to leaflet and extreme groups are allowed to put up posters and why we have a healthy culture of debate on mumsnet.

I do not want to be treated like a child on mumsnet. I want the freedom to talk about issues that are important to me. Sometimes my opinion will be offensive to someone else on mumsnet.

My opinion on religion is unlikely to be popular: Is dismissing the Christian God as a 'sky fairy' hate speech? Is saying the burqua is an offence to women hate speech? Would it be deleted?

The best policy is not to engage or to fight it with common sense and decency

doublestandard... Yes, I understand the points you're making. The thing is, I think it very much depends on the way that something is said rather than what it actually is, which could be the very same thing.

I have never heard (in RL) anybody saying something like:
"SN children shouldn't be in mainstream school because they'll drag the lessons down" or similar

But I have heard: "I worry about the amount of pupils in the class already and SN children need extra help. There's no money for TAs at the school, how are the kids going to pass their exams."

To me, both are the same, but phrased differently.

It's exactly the same with 'sink estates' and the like - people worry how it's going to affect them individually, without thinking about the other people involved. We've all become terribly insular and selfish and if it doesn't affect us personally, we don't want to know... I'm generalising, I know, but that's how it seems to me.

Yes, the moderation does seem very 'off' right now. It's going to take some time to resolve that, I think, and more clarification on 'stated opinions' is going to be necessary for everybody.

It's not just SN, we all have different issues we are concerned about. I remember objecting to the term 'Nazi' in a thread about something trivial, and the OP couldn't have cared less, said it meant something to her too... I was really offended and just left the thread. What can you do? Opinions are often upsetting and annoying, but we don't have control of them and neither should we.

The rules have to be consistent though and applied to everybody, fairly, across the board.

It's all a bit Pammy wakes up and Bobby is in the shower.

During the London riots there were posts talkling about 'the blacks' rioting, how they were 'race riots' and 'they' need to learn 'our ways' - pretty standard racist stuff. those posts were allowed to stand and I think that was correct because they were challenged. What is the point of challenging the post with a cogent, thought through argument if it's just going to be deleted? What's the point of the forum then? Do we all just discuss BLW and try not to mention spoons?

I suppose the acid test for me has been having and seeing posts deleted that would've stood in the old days and other bile being left to stand. There are routinely choruses of "why did you delete that?!" and no one seems to know what the rules are any more.

The examples you give seem quite different to me. One says SN children are a problem, the other that large class sizes and lack of funding are the problem.

"Non-English speaking children shouldn't be in mainstream school because they'll drag the lessons down" Shows no concern for non-E speaking children.

"I worry about the amount of pupils in the class already and non-English speaking children need extra help. There's no money for TAs at the school, how are the kids going to pass their exams." Shows concern for non-E speaking children.

I completely agree with your last sentence.

Doublestandard; Surely a situation like that just calls for someone to point out the 'acid test' on the thread - and say why that statement is problematic.

Why would it need to be deleted?

Yes, that's my point NormanTebbit. I think most posts should stand but offensive words removed.

However, what is happening at the moment is the poster saying why the statement is problematic is being deleted. Which is just madness because the whole educating posters, dealing with things on threads can't happen if you're post is deleted because you say a poster is being a twat or being arrogant.

Ah then I absolutely agree.

I think the policy should be that offensive words should be removed but that people should be able to post their opinions freely. This is not a popular point of view though so maybe I'll find somewhere else to procrastinate chat about things important to me

So my self report survey of one (aka just me then!) says:

Used to care if my post even might be deletable, and would be mortified if it was.

Now know a post can be deleted for very littel so have lost all sense of stigma.

Well done MNHQ

YYY to removed offensive words but letting posts stand otherwise. After all Oi you [deleted] cow you really [delete] me off you know you [deleted]

says everything about the posted and loses offensive words; it also differentiates from pusghed over the edge arghs to outright trolling.

Lying sadly as a Sn Parent I have heard that, and indeed ahd that directed at me. The atititudes exist and so one suspects eventually will the post.

"YY to removed offensive words but letting posts stand otherwise."

I would be delighted if that was what happened.