To be annoyed with MT, and to ask who [email protected] is ...

[CrispWinterSunshine]

Feeling a tad annoyed for two reasons.....

1. I reported a post containing an inflammatory comment. It named a professional person, in a position of trust, and cast doubt on their integrity, with no evidence, and with the effect of potentially damaging their reputation. Mumsnet Towers replied to say they thought the comment was an honest expression of opinion. In my view the comment may or may not be defamatory - I don't know because I'm not a lawyer - but it was undoubtedly a personal attack, which is meant to be against Mumsnet Talk guidelines. Mumsnet Towers suggested I should contact the person in question to alert them to the comment and see if they would like to take it further. It really makes me wonder how Mumsnet Towers decides which personal attacks are acceptable (politicans? celebrities? civil servants?, education professionals?), and which aren't.

1. The Mumsnet Towers reply to me was cc'd to [email protected]. The word "community" bothers me. I have no idea whether this is just a small team of people at MNHQ who deal with reported posts, and who are properly mindful of user confidentiality issues (fine), or a large community of Mumsnet users who for some reason get copied in to all the latest MNHQ goings on (not fine), or something inbetween. Anyone know? I did ask, but didn't get a reply. Perhaps I'm being paranoid, but I'm feeling a loss of trust with MHHQ over the first issue, which is impacting my judgement.

Oh v odd

repost in site stuff?

There are huge discrepancies around what is dealt with and what is left.

I would honestly let it wash over you, it's not going to change.

I think community@ is the one or a few members of staff whose job involves supporting the mumsnet community.

You said it though, in your last line.

You want others to respect professionalism and be sensitive to others' reputation. So, you post in the part of the site with highest traffic and cast doubt on the professionalism of MN staff, just because they haven't yet had time to respond to your message. Um, pot kettle?!

If you want to contact HQ, do so. Venting in part of the site HQ won't read unless a post is reported is just muck stirring - except you don't actually have any muck, just a lot of uninformed speculation and outrage.

If that named person wasn't on the thread, or indeed a member of MN, then it's not a 'personal attack' in the way that the rules mean pa (to my understanding, anyway). MN are usually very cautious about libellous content since SWMNBN-gate so I trust their judgement on that entirely.

Your second point I have no idea.

Are you saying, OP, that you don't think we should have the right to say David Cameron is a twat, for example? Or (for the sake of balance) that Ed Milliband comes over as very a bit odd? Because that would make MN a verrry boring place.

"So, you post in the part of the site with highest traffic"

Does it have the highest traffic? It's not something I use very often. I know it has a reputation for the most vicious replies lottiegarbanzo, so perhaps that would have been another good reason for posting it elsewhere. Thanks for the suggestion PedlarsSpanner. Anyone know if there is a "re-post in another thread" facility, or is it just a case of duplicate posting, and asking for the original to be withdrawn?

"just because they haven't yet had time to respond to your message"

If that's the reason, I will gladly go and crawl under a bush. It's been a while though.

"If that named person wasn't on the thread, or indeed a member of MN"

It's someone I work with, and they're definitely not a Mumsnetter, or particularly internet savvy for that matter.

A 'personal attack' refers to another mumsnet user, not discussion about celebrities/people in the public eye. Have you seen what people say about about Peter Andre, Matthew Wright, Katie Hopkins etc. etc. etc. If it's not libellous, it's ok, is the policy I think.

"A 'personal attack' refers to another mumsnet user, not discussion about celebrities/people in the public eye"

Trouble is everybody is in the public eye these days. The definition of "the public eye" might as well be "can be found in a Google search".

Well not according to MN, and they make the rules.

So what's your problem?

Oh then I have to agree, if we are not allowed to discuss people/celebrities/events etc

then what would we be able to discuss?

It doesn't matter what the definition of 'in the public eye' is, it matters what mumsnet's definition of 'personal attack' is and that's 'an attack against another user of the site'. They've told you what to do; get her to contact them directly and they will deal with it.

FWIW I've seen comments about 'people in the public eye' before that are really beyond the pale, but MNHQ deem as ok so I know where you're coming from, but ultimately it's their site, their rules.

I have flagged this thread up to MN Hq

hth

Well not according to MN, and they make the rules.

Well they may make them Lovecat, but they don't explain them. The guidelines just say "no personal attacks". As far as I can see (correct me if I'm wrong) there isn't any more explanation anywhere, and I didn't get one in the response they sent me either.

Well, you've asked and within 15 posts had at least two explanations, so now you know.

MNHQ did tell you to alert the person involved, which is the appropriate course of action.

So basically you want to change MN because you're annoyed on behalf of a colleague?

Nice censorship tactics there. Do you normally try to close down debate if it doesn't suit you?

Lovecat, I thought I might get some answers, which I have, sort of.

I believe in treating people online with the same respect I would treat them with if I met them in person.

You must think very highly of your colleague Crisp I'm not sure many of my co-workers would go to the bother of joining MN just to defend my good name

Wouldn't it have been better to ask MNHQ about the community@mumsnet? We can only guess, they can tell you what it actually is?

Well if someone has named a professional person to the extent that they are identifiable to the wider community and made defamatory comments about them without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves...then that's libel, isn't it?

Hello

Just to let you know we've seen this.

Community@ is an email list of people who interact directly with users and help to resolve site issues and reports. We use it when we want other members of the team to be up-to-speed on something, for various reasons. We don't mean anything sinister by it - sorry if it came across in that way.

We'll look at the other issues you raised in your mail as soon as we can, OP. We try to reply to all mails as quickly as we can.

sadsqueaker I've been on MN for a long time. I changed my username for this thread.

I'm generally prepared to stick up for people who are being attacked if I think its unfair.

Jolly good for you Crisp

Thanks MNHQ

'I believe in treating people online with the same respect I would treat them with if I met them in person.'

You do?

Yet when I reflected the tone and choice of location of your post back to you, you called my response vicious. I've never before been called anything like that in over two years on the site.

So, um, a big 'chinny reckon' to your policy of 'respect'.

Are you BU to be annoyed with MNHQ? Yes, you are. Always better to talk to people than about them - which was your own very point, was it not?!