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.

(actually I don't think theya re the same: statement two invites explanation of how sen fubnding works etc; statement one invites a lot of trolls to come and agree that all kids with SEN have terrible behaviour and should be in a 1970s institution)

doublestandard... That's very interesting. You see the two as different, I see them as essentially the same with the crux of the matter being that someone would be concerned, at the end of it, with their own child's welfare in terms of getting through their exams.

It all depends on how the post is phrased. I've seen many threads where an OP has been slammed for what is an inflammatory first post whereas it's really just a post that's badly written and when an explanation (or back-pedalling) follows, the responses calm down accordingly. An OP who is wound up and frustrated may post their first post in anger, without thought of the structure, only the broad content, and that's what they're judged on.

I agree with you that the deletions are problematic; it's far better to challenge somebody's view and get an explanation than launch into a tit-fot-tat exchange and escalate a thread beyond what's reasonable. It serves no purpose either.

I can see why MN are having difficulty.

I understand absolutely why people lose their tempers, but there's a difference between expressing an opinion and personal attacks. It's the difference between a reasoned debate and a "bunfight".

NT your examples (religion)

wouldn;t bother me

what bothers me is when you get 'I think the Christian God is a skyfairy and anyone who thinks otherwise is just stupid'

I really don't mind what you think of a God I do beleive in, just don't extrapolate that to sum up my whole intelligence level (not you personally, I hope YKWIM). The one thing that grates me more than anything in a single posts (significant words excepted) is when people say @X is right and anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot' . Yuck. It is a fundamental component of intelligence imo to accept that not everyone shares your opinion (within hate speech regs / attack limits)

X-post, LyingWitch. I think an OP often is distressed, and should be given some leeway.

And I would like to say wrt to the explanation thing is that certainly from my POV- and I am one of teh big explainers- that I do it through choice, it is not something anyone has a right toe xpect of me; I won't always be posting, I do have a life even if it doesn;t look it sometimes (!) so basing a policy on expecting an explainer to be about is a bit unfair.

It should be a bonus.

yy pEACHY

have to go school run

I think removing offensive words would be unworkable, first because posts could be rendered unintelligible, and second because the general gist can be conveyed in words that are not necessarily offensive per se.

The odd F off, yes, very possible to delete, and sometimes the rest of someone's post after the F word was deleted would be fine, but a post that is very upsetting to a particular group might contain no specific words that in themselves could be singled out.

'The best policy is not to engage or to fight it with common sense and decency'. I agree.

I think a heavy handed deletion policy would actually encourage egregiously offensive hit and run trolls who would be sure their posts would be there at least for a few minutes offending all and sundry while the reporting and deletion process got under way.

Peachy... but not everybody here is a parent, nor are they necessarily au fait with teaching assistants or SEN funding. I think we have to allow for people to post, however clumsily, challenging or asking for an explanation of what was meant if needs be.

I personally don't like swearing, it's on most threads by many posters that I like very much and I don't like it any better, but I don't jump up and down about it, we're adults here, I just sweep past it. There are lots of different things that wind people up, it's far too easy to offend and be offended and I think that people should be allowed to express an opinion and either be ignored or challenged. There's no call for personal attacks, not from anybody, We're not kids and we do have control over what we do and say.

I think that deletion, if allowed to carry on the way it is, is going to result in the site imploding. Some degree of tolerance has to be a starting point along with proper and consistent application of the 'rules' and help from MNHQ only if really needed.

Perhaps math

but my point is that many posts would still be fine; it's not a never delete a whole post again stance, but a consider that when it is an option one.

A great many posts are lines and lines of good post with a tempr loss at the end; or a banned word.

A thought on the TrollFormerlyKnownAsDP above

I know a fair few homophobic gay people, have met racist black people and even disablist disabled people: often the easiest person ot hate is yourself after all.

Whetehr youa re homophobic etc etc etc is not in what you are and who you get turned on by, but how you treat them and others sharing that characteristic.

Again, just IMO.

I don't think MNHQ has a policy of expecting posters to 'explain', Peachy, nothing's black or white anyway so one explanation may differ from another. I think the idea was just that explanations can educate but of course everybody's free to do that or not as they see fit.

I think the 'God is a skyfairy' example is really illuminating too. It wouldn't bother me in the slightest what somebody else thinks, that's their prerogative.

Taking a less emotive example - if somebody says "Yankee candles stink of bleach", I'd disagree but accept that their nose is different to mine... I wouldn't fly off the handle at their sweeping generalisation.

I think we (many of us) do fly off the handle very readily.

Can you not just ignore them, Peachy? They're not even here now, just posted one post and you've brought them up again. What for? MN is a public board also, anybody can link in to any of the threads. I think you're winding yourself up into a tiz.

the god is a skyfairy example is a cracking example becuse it's simply rude.

the mn ethos and culture has changed. before such rudeness of others beliefs would not be tolerated by the masses - whether they agreed or not with the premise.

i have to say that on the whole i think mn gets it right. i also think that this exersize of 'blaming' mn for what is censored and what is not is quite indicative of the cultural change.

we are all supposed to police this site and to make it perfectly clear what is acceptable and what isn't and we can do this in a way that doesn't turn into a witch hunt. we can. but we often don't

if we did, this would allow for clumsy posting. if debate and questioning were the order of the day that is.

for instance, mumsnet has a multicultural membership - each of those cultures expresses things differently.

we have had cases where the word 'retard' has been used. I am given to believe that is is not uncommon in the USA, however very much frowned on in the uk.

Culturally within this site, we - the mn masses would not allow another member to use that word without a challenge.

this is correct.

howeer, it is how we do this that counts. the TONE of the challenge is all important.

in summary, i think mn has forgotten how to be polite.
yes that is it entirely.

FURTHERMORE i think the cultural changes are evident by the very fact that it's me who has pointed this out

Arf at Custy

at custy.

Indeed. The place has gone to he'll in a handcart.

Hell
[twit]

Good post, Custy.

I think you are right that blaming MNHQ for being 'unfair' is all part of the abnegation of personal responsibility.

i have to say that on the whole i think mn gets it right. i also think that this exersize of 'blaming' mn for what is censored and what is not is quite indicative of the cultural change

I agree with MN by and large getting it right.

I think the big issue is that immoderate people of all stripes want the MN moderators to moderate the people they disagree vehemently with :o

Very good post Custardo.

...and very good posts, LyingWitch

Good post custardo. YY to "MN has forgotten how to be polite". YYYYYYYYYYYY.

I'd still like to hide certain posters. But I'll settle for pinching their little heads in my imagination.

LOVE mn has forgotten how to be polite. LOVE LOVE LOVE.

YYY Custy