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.

Backpeddle faster, Hecate...

I can see no advantage in not deleting on request unless it were someone clearly trying to censor someone else who had said nothing wrong. There is no advantage in taking any risks for a website.

Just so you all know I have saved this thread in it's entirity and have updated all spreadsheets databases so we know exactly who the twats/cunts are and who called who a twat and/or cunt.

Feel free to send me gin chocolate if you would like me to keep your entry to myself.

I think deleting whole threads would be a good solution. It might deter some people.

Perhaps MNHQ could try the nethuns approach and rather than delete a whole post, just * * * out the bad bits. That way it wouldn't leave the rest of the post open to speculation, just the bad words.
And it would mean that half-page posts that were full of informative and insightful stuff wouldn't just disappear because the poster had written "so ner, you twat" at the bottom of it.

How would it be a good solution? It would lead to nice, interesting threads going 'poof' all because of 2 or 3 cunts.

You get nutters who have nothing better to do than object to every post of someone I suppose but the reality is if you run a site it is much easier and quicker just to delete things. It isn't always practical to spend ages deciding who is right or wrong. If in doubt delete because then there is less trouble.

OLIVIA!!! can you delete JM's post please?? Don't make me report it, I have to go to bed now :)

doublestandard - here's one for your database -

You are a cunty cunt flavoured cunt shaped cunt.

Thumb - I have moddes on sites that do this, and I prefer it to a whole post being deleted.

In addition, it's possible to add a reasonfor the edit, which stops all the 'oooh, what did xyz say?' posts.

I like Thumbwitch's suggestion. I did suggest to MNHQ that they just delete the bit of my post that might (by small minded nitwits) be construed as "giving the finger" and leave the rest.

That's when they came back and said all the other guff stuff about basically not being allowed to express an opinion.

I think it's a good option, Psamme - the speculation afterwards (and sometimes misquoting or paraphrasing of the deleted post) can be quite damaging, I think.

arf at Bats

Right, enough deletions silliness.

This is a thread about a thread and so really ought to be deleted anyway.

However, to answer the OPs query (and we have mailed her again about this): there was a personal attack in her post which meant that it couldn't remain as it was.

Now, I have only just come back from maternity leave so I'm not sure I'm equipped to comment on recent relative trigger-happiness as I've been watching daytime telly for 10 months.

What I can tell you that our aim is always to allow the conversation to flow but within the (whispers in case Lissielou is listening) talk guidelines of not allowing posters to attack each other.

We read every report that comes in and make a call on it based on the context of the thread.
And we are the first to hold our hands up when we don't.
For the record we are not getting tickers.
Hope this clears things up
MNTowers

Actually, I want to address a point moronic made regarding posters who say they have conditions that mean they don't have empathy. One in particular comes to mind, I told her last night that I thought she was the most contentious poster on MN. If someone claims to have, or really does have a particular condition that precludes empathy, shouldn't there be some kind of onus on them to self-moderate? I don't belong to the school of thought that says "if you can't be kind, say nothing at all", that's not what this site is for, but FFS, if someone knows they lack empathy, it really pisses me off if they're allowed to post whatever unpleasantness falls straight out of their brain and into their typing fingers.

There was a post deleted on a thread I started and I never found out what it said. It was obviously (from the reaction of subsequent posters) quite defamatory towards me but a kindly poster had clearly reported it on my behalf.

I would have quite liked to defend myself!

(Thanks to the kindly poster though)

Of course, I am all for a self-editing option within a time-scale, but we're too irresponsible for that, apparently

First time I suggested it, ironically, I was called a cunt

YES!!! I've had a post deleted!!

Champagne anyone?

Hmm, just read over my 17:31:00 post and I'm not sure if it makes sense. Have just switched from iPhone to laptop because it's easier than pecking out letters one at a time. Anyway, could someone please read my post and tell me if it makes sense or if I need to figure out a better way to say what I mean?

I like the deletions. I can always make cuppa in the time it takes between the worst of the posts and it being deleted and it reminds me to go put the milk in. Otherwise I'd have cold tea.

I think I understand what you meant.

If someone knows they lack empathy, they should be extra careful and not just type the first thing that comes into their head. Right?

I am not sure I agree tbh. If you have no sense of empathy, how do you know you are being unempathetic? I honestly don't know if this is bollocks or not because I have never researched it, but I can imagine it would be harder than a simple case of re-reading and being careful.

jacks I follow what you mean, but fully expect your post to be deleted as you are being disablist! ;)

Right, I'm really off to bed now but will just ask Olivia is there any chance that you can just delete parts of posts instead of the whole thing? Or is that too much for the Tech side to handle? I know you can change parts of posts because I've seen it done when someone has accidentally named RL names in a long post - so why not use that facility for moderating cunt-calling talk guideline contraventions?