Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

to think MNHQ should not be deleting posts in this way? WARNING: Ranty

624 replies

doublestandard · 10/09/2011 15:39

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? Confused

I have raised this with MNHQ and the second paragraph draws on their email response.

OP posts:
Original poster
doublestandard · 14/09/2011 20:17

Update: I've had an email from MNHQ which I've cut and pasted below [stars my own]:

Hi there

Gosh - we are SO sorry that our recent emails to you have been so confusing.

Right, first off, yes, we have sorted the [separate issue raised regarding use of disablist term on another thread] business out [bit chopped out because it mentions another poster].

Secondly, we have reinstated IfoundmyGspot's post, which was mistakenly deleted. [I reported my own post to MNHQ for a response and they deleted a post referenced in my post]

And thirdly, and most importantly, we have also deleted 's post on the thread because we agree, in hindsight, that once your post had been deleted and people couldn't see what you had posted, her reply to you did indeed read as a personal attack implying you had made comments about her not reporting child abuse.

We've deleted Jacksmania's subsequent post, too, because it repeated much of what said (although Jacksmania was defending you). [JM kindly had a look at the thread as referenced further up this thread]

And we've deleted a further couple of other personal attacks on that thread because, once we've had a thread reported to us, we do like to apply our Guidelines fairly to all those posting on the thread. We should have done this earlier - apologies for that.

We're afraid we're not going to reinstate your deleted post, though (we've C&P'd it below to refresh your memory) because, while we understand you sentiment completely, we do think it is a personal attack - particularly the part that reads, "[deleted because it quotes the deleted post and names another poster]" Again, our apologies for being less than clear when we tried to explain our reasoning to you before.

Sorry that it's taken us a while to sort all this out and respond to you properly. It's not been our finest hour.

------

I am happy with this response. It feels more MN if that makes sense. I also accept MN's decision re my deleted post. I did get a bit personal in my response (although it wouldn't have bothered me but that isn't important or relevant - as Custy says we should be polite).

OP posts:
Original poster
doublestandard · 14/09/2011 20:21

Many thanks to all who PM'd, looked at dubious threads, attempted to guess my usual identity and got it flatteringly wrong and most of all to everyone who took the time to post opinions in an oh so Mumsnetty way. You bunch of cunts Grin

OP posts:
Whatmeworry · 14/09/2011 22:04

MN gets its income from advertisers. Perhaps they are dictating the style of the site starting to exert a certain pressure? The big companies want to associate with a certain image, iyswim

I'm sure there is something in this, also that the MN founders are seen by many to be increasing MN and their own public personae, and they are not Ad "neutral" iyswim. But if they bland it too much, traffic goes down (and AIBU is a traffic magnet).

Balancing these conflicting things is going to be interesting to watch!

SayCoolNowSayWhip · 15/09/2011 09:04

Glad it's sorted now doublestandards. Just goes to show that lots of posting about cunts issues can eventually have an effect. Great response from MNHQ.

And you can all fuck off, you bunch of cunty chops :o
(Just wanted to say that)

AlpinePony · 15/09/2011 09:09

My "problem" with the "no personal insults" thing, is that instead of being able to say "ack, you're being a complete dick here" and then just move on - to get that message across you need to be snide, bitchy and sometimes passive-aggressive and live up to that female sterotype. :(

Peachy · 15/09/2011 09:35

I agree AP; I think personal attack should be looked at as a wider thing- meaning voer phrasing, and groups as much as individuals. I think the latter is non optional wrt hate speech laws.

I do think the whole site culture breeds it though; every few months I will type a post and delete it before posting, noticing I am sliping into what is intrinsically someone else's posting style, a much more aggressive approach. It is very ewasy to do when it seems that everyone else does it as a matter of course.

Mind I really do thin there's a level of grown up acceptance needed: being called on your postings when out of order does NOT equate to a personal attack! Much to the surprise of some less mature people.

AitchTwoOh · 15/09/2011 09:56

i do think we used to self-police a lot more, though. there used to be a lot more 'er, that was a bit much' type posts iirc. but now people just seem to enjoy the ruck,and anyone trying to calm things down is accused of being the MN police. but imo we should all be members of the MN Police, this is our own community, we set the (rapidly diminishing) standards.

Peachy · 15/09/2011 11:02

true Aitch

Nut at a certain level people will give in and go with the majority- it may be that this point in where MN decides between being a sypport board or a fight club

It is their call, they own it.

ShirelyKnotSHIRE · 15/09/2011 11:06

yyyyyyy x 10 at Aitch.

I namechanged recently for a little while and it was really SHOCKING actually. Somebody went for my post in a way that would never have been acceptable, even 2 years ago - or even last year come to that.

I was called every name under the sun, told to FUCK OFF and allsorts - I was only bloody posting about something completely benign as well.

Anyway I left it all sitting there, took a note of the name and will avoid that poster like poison going forward.

ShowMeTheMonet · 15/09/2011 11:09

You were called allsorts? Shock Like Bertie Bassett? Wink

ShirelyKnotSHIRE · 15/09/2011 11:10

YES! That motherfucker.

Wink
Hullygully · 15/09/2011 11:14

Who was it Shirl?

I don't know that there are more frothers, think back to dp days.

ShirelyKnotSHIRE · 15/09/2011 11:18

Not telling. It was a namechanger as well. I could tell.

DP was having it off anyway. She said as much.

IrmaMuthafucker · 15/09/2011 11:40

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ShirelyKnotSHIRE · 15/09/2011 11:46

NO, nobody said a single word. See, that surprised me because time was that other posters WOULD have said "whoa, whoa, whoa!" (and TBH I usually do - I think, if someone is going far too far) but no one did!

Don't get me wrong, I didn't cry about it or owt. I also got attacked on a relationship thread by someone mental on the same day and I just thought "WTF? This is new" and then sodded back to _chat for a bit. Smile

AitchTwoOh · 15/09/2011 11:48

ah no but i am a fluffy hun a bit as well, wrt the swearing. and have been called quite a cunt for it. Grin
AIBU shifted the moral compass a lot, imo. and the gang threads. basically the site is getting sooo much bigger, don't suppose there is much to be done.

Blueberties · 15/09/2011 11:54

Lol I used to say whoa whoa a lot and it went down very badly. Much abuse.

MN are stuck. They say - do report. And then people just whack away and you say that's ghastly. And they say well report me. So you do, and feel like a snitch, and get accused of reporting posts you disagree with or not being able to take a bit of "straight talking" yeah yeah.

ShirelyKnotSHIRE · 15/09/2011 11:56

But Blue - Seriously if someone rocked up onto this thread now and went:

"bertie you fucking motherfucker - go fuck yourself up your arse arse shit fuck hate you argh! wanker!!!"

Which is not a million miles from what was said to me - I WOULD say "Whoa, cool your jets there!"

I would.

Blueberties · 15/09/2011 12:01

Oh sure but I used to say it when people were rude to other people, like, interfering like as was suggested just now.

Btw I still love your "what the actual fuck". [heart] now everyone says it but your were the first and best Grin

IrmaMuthafucker · 15/09/2011 12:01

I would do too. And I'm making more of an effort to do it since this thread because I don't want lots of post deletions. I want lots of people going "that is not very nice XXX do you have to be so rude?" and people changing their behaviour to be less of a twat.

There are people in RL who know my posting name and I think that helps me think twice before I hit post.

Blueberties · 15/09/2011 12:03

In fact I just did, someone called someone a weirdo for worrying about parking so I called them on it. It's not just "fucking wanker shit" that's irritating, it's as though you can just call someone a paranoid weirdo just for disagreeing. I really hate that.

IrmaMuthafucker · 15/09/2011 12:04

Is it "what the actual jeff?" I heart that phrase too.

ShirelyKnotSHIRE · 15/09/2011 12:06

Ah blue - Grin

What the actual JEFF is good. I've stopped saying What The Jeff so much these days.

I'm back into hardcore swearing again! Wink

Blueberties · 15/09/2011 12:07

I don't get the jeff, must do better.

destinationzero · 15/09/2011 12:15

Agree with custardo and aitch, people have forgottan how to be polite on here, Nutmums, often considered mumsnets poor relation, has just as many members as this site. The fact that you can't swear on there and it's heavily moderated hasn't stopped it being successful, these are parenting forums afterall, not fight clubs. They haven't got an AIBU section but still get as much traffic. Calling someone a cunt, just because you think they deserve it, isn't good form.