Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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 · 10/09/2011 17:39

Thanks Olivia (and sorry about the cakes Sad) I have replied to you. The post which then attibutes comments to me which I did not make is still there though and to quote Thumbwitch it is "the speculation afterwards (and sometimes misquoting or paraphrasing of the deleted post) can be quite damaging, I think."

I am misquoted. There is no context (ie previous post by me) for people to make a decision so it still looks like I call people names and condone child abuse. Not on really.

Congratualations Jacksmania!

OP posts:
Honeydragon · 10/09/2011 17:42

Pssamead ... I couldn't come up with a better solution Blush that's what Thumbwitch is for Grin I just though of one that would have entertainment value.

Can you imagine the mudslinging that people would try and get in after the final 3rd deletion before the red button was pressed Wink

SuePurblybilt · 10/09/2011 17:42

Olivia Mumsnet? Did you MN on your maternity leave? Under a name change?

Jacksmania · 10/09/2011 17:46

Thanks :o

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

Yes, that's it. Obviously that doesn't apply if someone has no idea that they lack empathy, but for the posters on MN who have actually said "I have x, and it means I lack empathy", well, ok then - if you know that about yourself, a bit of extra caution would be a good thing.
If my post gets deleted for being disablist, well, nothing I can do about that, and it's certainly not meant to be "-ist" in any way.

FlyingStart · 10/09/2011 17:46

(I will stick my head over the parapet, here goes)

I think the whole AIBU should be scrapped. AIBU is a car crash waiting to happen or more like, watching a car crash happen.

(ducks head back down below the parapet)

MNHQ
OliviaMumsnet · 10/09/2011 17:48

@SuePurblybilt

Olivia Mumsnet? Did you MN on your maternity leave? Under a name change?
don't you? Grin
Hullygully · 10/09/2011 17:49

Have a trial month with a no deletion policy and see what happens.

AlpinePony · 10/09/2011 17:50

No, I know you weren't being ist jacks and whilst full regulation of anyone's behaviour is rarely possible - I did note a few very mean posts of late by someone who used the caveat (and I paraphrase here), 'it's not my fault I'm being nasty, I have x disorder'. So imo very much aware they were out out of line!

(Talking about a poster - I expect to be deleted. ;))

BatsUpMeNightie · 10/09/2011 17:50

Oh how I loved Francis Urquhart - does the clip say

"You might think that. I couldn't possibly comment."

Jacksmania · 10/09/2011 17:51

Oh by the way Olivia thanks for setting my mind at rest about the tickers... if MN got tickers I'd have to leave.

But what I really would like to see (this is somewhat tongue-in-cheek) is a "hide all posts by" button. Now that would be brilliant. Thank god MN will never be as fucked up as Feckbook, but that's one thing they do right, the option never to see a certain person's posts, and the option to never have a certain person be able to see your own posts. I figure, I'm not on Feckbook to be annoyed, I'm on there to keep in touch with people whom I don't see much, and if I know that a certain person annoys the piss out of me, I'll hide them. Wish I could do that on here, there are some posters who make me see red if I so much as see their posting names.

Hmm, maybe I should self-moderate due to anger issues? :o

banana87 · 10/09/2011 17:52

YANBU, they have gotten very trigger happy lately and often without reading what they are deleting. I know because I've been on the receiving end AND I have been reporting and the WRONG POST gets deleted. They need to get their act together really.

Original poster
doublestandard · 10/09/2011 17:53

I would like a "like" button next to a poster's name. It would save me having to write out "I agree with XXX" so often and I wouldn't have to read pages, and pages of posters drivelling on repeating the same points ad infinitum.

OP posts:
Jacksmania · 10/09/2011 17:53

AlpinePony, that's exactly it - and I actually typed out what you said and then erased it before posting because I figured that would get deleted for sure - when posters use their condition as an excuse to be mean. That really grates my carrot.

Jacksmania · 10/09/2011 17:54

Oh, a "like" button would be great!!

Psammead · 10/09/2011 17:54

Honey, I am starting to see the advantages... Grin

Jacks I don't know. I don't think you're being ist, though. I mean... if I was green/red colour blind, I might tell you the wrong colour of something, and no amount of looking and considering would help me know the correct colour, although I would be aware that I had colourblindness... that's what I meant. With people lacking empathy, I mean. They might know it, but not be able to improve upon it with consideration.

Jacksmania · 10/09/2011 17:56

Hullygully Sat 10-Sep-11 17:49:07
Have a trial month with a no deletion policy and see what happens.

LIKE.
MNHQ, you should try it. I think there would be a certain amount of piss-taking for several days, but after that I think you'd see a return to some normalcy.

Psammead · 10/09/2011 17:57

Do not like like button.

Jacksmania · 10/09/2011 17:58

No, Psammead, it does make sense. Sigh. And you're right, there's no way to ask someone to change something that's outside their capabilities.

I do think, however, that certain posters do know when they're being unkind, or when it's being pointed out to them that they are, and they take the piss by quoting condition x.

OracleInaCoracle · 10/09/2011 17:58

I think the problem is, people draw their own conclusions as to what a personal attack constitutes under talk guidelines and what is offensive. If someone calls me a cunt, fair enough. I may have deserved it. Someone calls me a nasty piece of work and insinuates that I am always pretty vile and fake , bang out of order.

Olivia, I know you mn, on a thread the other day you called me lissie, only mners do that Grin

OracleInaCoracle · 10/09/2011 17:58

I think the problem is, people draw their own conclusions as to what a personal attack constitutes under talk guidelines and what is offensive. If someone calls me a cunt, fair enough. I may have deserved it. Someone calls me a nasty piece of work and insinuates that I am always pretty vile and fake , bang out of order.

Olivia, I know you mn, on a thread the other day you called me lissie, only mners do that Grin

Tee2072 · 10/09/2011 17:58

::offers gin and chocolate to all::

I think if MN is self moderating, then we should be allowed to self moderate, i.e. allow edits up to a certain timeframe.

Jacksmania · 10/09/2011 17:59

Lissie, do you have triggerfinger, or does your computer? what's with the double posts??? :o

Tee2072 · 10/09/2011 17:59

Okay, random Grin there!!!

Psammead · 10/09/2011 18:02

I love you, Tee. No-one ever wants an edit button.

Jacks you're probably correct. It's hard to prove, though.

OracleInaCoracle · 10/09/2011 18:03

Jacks, I'm posting off the twatphone, its most frustrating!