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.

You might need gin Olivia.

I'm not Widowwadman

Ah, this is where mn is going wrong. They've assumed all electrical appliances have ai, hence the toaster's in charge.

Red dwarf anyone?

Arf at AlpinePony

Georgimama - not a total cunt, no, but I was perhaps a bit unfair to someone. It happens when you're upset sometimes and in times gone by might have remained; but fair enough to be deleted.

Hello Olivia! have a and some :)

On a total side issue - where did the pom bear go? I've never used one and it's gone. Was it decided the thread that spawned it was not actually very naice?

Very curious to see the results of MNHQ thinking about this.
This recent trend of rapid-fire post deletion does everyone a disservice. All the more so if posts are being unilaterally deleted and others allowed to stand. OP, that's not right at all!

alpinepony

Now Olivia's here (I like her. She didn't send me The Email). She can confirm I am not WW.

Yanbu, mnhq has been extraordinarily trigger-happy lately. And there seem to be a few posters who can't cope with being told that they are wrong or with someone disagreeing with them. If I wanted to be moderated I would have joined a different site.

But mnhq will only quote the talk guidelines at us in response

Yanbu, mnhq has been extraordinarily trigger-happy lately. And there seem to be a few posters who can't cope with being told that they are wrong or with someone disagreeing with them. If I wanted to be moderated I would have joined a different site.

But mnhq will only quote the talk guidelines at us in response

I agree YANBU

I had a post deleted in a thread that later was deleted, think was troll. I merely asked if perhaps the person was struggling with anger and truth, given the contradictions in their other threads and their anger. Was a question, not an attack. If the cap fits.

is still there, it's just hidden from the list :)

In general if someone asks for something to be deleted on a website there is much less risk in removing it than fighting the issue.

I certainly don't mind if anyone "personally attacks" me and freedom of speech is very important but it's only a web site for mothers ( or even those working class enough to use the dreaded word mum).

ah but perfumedlife, that could have been construed as on-thread troll-hunting - which is definitely being heavily clamped down on in some cases.

?

Has the bear gone?

Hang on a mintute...

Loving Trills and her put it in the right topic work.

But in answer to Op, yup. I agree.

If you think about it, does it really matter if there are a 1000 posts going YOU ARE A CUNT

NO, YOU ARE THE CUNT

NO YOU ARE ETC

Anyone not interested can just click on another one

I had a post deleted for 'personal attack' -- another poster made some extremely racist comments (unambiguously racist, trust me) and I suggested she was a BNP member. Apparently, suggesting that a racist is a member of a racist party is a personal attack.

(and it was literally just something like, oh here comes the BNP.... not, fuck off you fucking BNP cunt or anything...)

Hully is a CUNT

I see what you're saying thumb but I've never been able to spot a troll, I post assuming all are genuine. So, as it stands, I would need to forget something the poster has said on their other threads that I read and that contradicts their currents situation. It's like asking you to inhabit a parallel reality for each post.

I loathe troll hunting.