AIBU: MNHQ's thoughts and what you can do

[RowanMumsnet]

Hello there

We've seen a fair number of posts recently about AIBU, and specifically about whether there's a problem in terms of some posters being gratuitously aggressive, even if the posts aren't particularly guideline-breaking in any other way.

We've done some careful monitoring of AIBU over the last couple of weeks and... We agree. Quite a few threads in AIBU do seem to veer off into a pointlessly unpleasant direction with very little provocation.

So from now on, we're going be looking out for posters who seem to put the boot in a bit too readily, and we'll be dropping them "polite mails" asking them to draw their horns in a bit. (And then if they carry on, we'll take further action.)

We'll also remove the text from the header about AIBU not being a fight club, because it's possible that this was (perversely) prompting people to think it was a fight club.

We'd really, really like to enlist your help in making AIBU a more pleasant and constructive place to post.

First off, please don't feel you have wait for an MNHQ response: the MN forums are what you, collectively, make of them, and you can set the tone. If you think an OP is being rounded on, go on and post - and say (without making personal attacks) if you think other posts have crossed a line in terms of meanness or aggression. (Feel free to refer posters back to this thread!)

But also, please report. Not necessarily because you think a post is deletable, but if you think a poster could do with getting one of our polite mails.

To be completely clear: AIBU is exactly the same as all the other topics on Mumsnet, and the same rules apply. Ideally, we want MN to be a place where people can discuss, share, entertain each other, and seek advice and support. It's not a place for posters to take lumps out of each other for no reason, and with no intention of offering constructive/interesting/funny input.

Thanks,
MNHQ

Worra. I wouldn't out her either.

I wouldn't have, if I didn't know she'd already been outed on several other threads. Although, to be honest, it's pretty bloody obvious from the way she posts!

You're right, Worra
She doesn't try much to hide her RL name, but I like to avoid knowing it, IYSWIM

But I have never know who Xenia is.

crawls back into hole

I honestly don't think our paths have ever crossed, which is weird considering how much time I spend MNetting

I've been on holiday; there was no wifi

Glad to see some action has been taken (kind of) and much Lolz at this thread.

I also wouldn't worry too much about JP's feelings. She'll enjoy this kind of infamy.

the type who kindly digs out a sticking plaster from the depths of her handbag and sticks it on your cut finger .... but her handbag clonks your nose while she's bending over.

I have pinched this. It's going to come in useful :)

I would never out someone either. I will call them on the thing I think they have said/done on the thread that is wrong though....which I have done.

< bows to garlic >

They have that concentration camp ref in the Guardian Comment section, below nearly every article on obesity.
If it wasn't a one-off on Mumsnet, I'm reporting any future occurrence, regardless of the poster.

I did see her point, which was that everyone gets thin when they starve. The reference goes too far because people also die when they starve, not mention the multiple organ failure prior to fading out for the last time.

I watched one of those shock-treatment weight loss programmes once - it was the only one I ever watched! I thought it'd be interesting, as the subject group was going to live with a tribe of hunter-gatherers. They began to starve. They were listless, weak, passing out in the heat, foggy of thought and emotionally unstable. I was yelling at the TV When the highly-qualified dietician in charge of them finally called base for medical help, she was told they had severe malnutrition. She wouldn't hear of it! She kept ranting on at the medic about how their diet was healthy, balanced & adequate, yet any bugger could see they needed calories immediately.

After the group had been fed & checked over (the tribespeople got a feast as well) they said the stupid woman was going to stay on the programme, but with the medic on site as well. I despaired and, like half the group members, left the programme.

There's no reasoning with some diet maniacs!

This is a genuine question, because I'm baffled and I expect others are too. I have seen many posts from Xenia in the past because I tend to keep an eye on the Education boards. I noticed she had disappeared but after a few months I spotted a post from somebody else who wrote in exactly the same style and had the same preoccupations. Then that person disappeared and now we have Jane Parker. Now, why is it wrong to say we think all of these names are used by the same person? Is it a breach of etiquette when somebody's namechanged, or was she banned?

I have no idea of her real name, btw, but I'm pretty sure it's not Xenia.

Don't think she was banned, no, but she has been outed in RL - someone linked to a news article about her some time ago - but then she continued with Xenia as a username for some time after that and I don't know why she eventually changed (as in, what eventually prompted the namechange).

Assuming she has namechanged to protect her privacy for some reason then yes, it is bad form to link the two names just in case it facilitates someone finding her, who shouldn't.

OK, Thumbwitch, I think I've got it now. I do think somebody who posts the most forthright views and also gives out a fair amount of personal information should be prepared to be outed, though! Won't mention the X-word again.

Oh yes, I agree - and her style is extremely distinctive. I'm crap with most namechanges, but I spotted her because of her views; if Scottishmummy ever namechanged I'd spot her too but other than that I wouldn't stand a hope!

Xenia was banned for a while, as was scottishmummy.

Can I ask why these two individuals were banned or is that bad form?

I am just curious and I know it killed the cat

Btw I've never indulged in gossip and this thread has actually turned me into someone who googles researches MN names!

Is it right that you're gossiping about 2 posters who aren't even on this thread?

Never mind. It was naughty of me anyway to ask!

I think the new policy may have filtered through. I put up a very lighthearted thread in AIBU which mentioned benefits and there was a final goady comment WHICH WAS IGNORED! Could have been an unpleasant toasted tea cake fight

This is exactly the point I made to Rowan near the start of the thread.

I reported BIWI's post that outed JP's name change at 10pm last night

It's still there 13 hours later, so what's the point in asking members to report, if HQ can't deal with them?

And yes, I know last night was a Sunday night etc...

Well it got you reading her posts shake so that's good, lolz.

Would it be an idea to have a page at the start of talk forum telling new members what the in depth etiquette of Talk is? Like not outing name changers, RTFT before posting, not speculating who posters are in RL and so on. I know there are talk guidelines but they are pretty limited and rigid and is never even knew they existed before I saw 'deleted for breaking etc'. Could also have some politeness notices like not ganging up on people, refusing to read their explanatory post if they have been clumsy in their post and general gaslighting techniques?

Just an idea.

I don't think anyone when joining the site reads anything do they? I certainly didn't.

Maybe when you register you should have a must read page that you have to tick like terms and conditions? or something to click to say 'we suggest you read this before posting'.

Or does that already happen?

I have mixed feelings on this issue. In the main I feel that people with unpopular views are simply shouted down and accused of being unpleasant when they are simply and politely putting a minority viewpoint. One example is that any criticism of the obese is "fat shaming" and it is a universal truth that this is a bad thing. Strangely you only have to pick up a magazine to read stories from people who are now thin saying it was some sort of fat shaming that put them on the right track. I'm not saying that is the correct view but this subject is one where there is never any proper debate, just a lot of shouting down.

I actually felt MNHQ condoned shouting down over the weekend when a very irresponsible poster who had bred a litter of kittens objected to sensible people pointing out this was contributing to the cat overpopulation problem. There was a lot of "my cat my rules" in response and other posters putting pictures of the litters they had bred.
Now I don't expect a couple of random comments about the irresponsibility of breeding cats to change the world but when MNHQ came on to say cut the criticism and keep posting the Kittie pictures I felt something was seriously wrong.

I also felt there was a lack of understanding that the morality of breeding cats who would/could contribute to animal welfare issues was spoiling the fun. I'm not sure MNHQ would have taken the same view if it had been a large litter of American Bull Terriers as the subject of discussion.

A lot of posters on MNHQ vociferously put forward what are, over the full population, minority views and then act very unpleasantly to those who disagree, it is this sort of posting that MNHQ should keep aware of.

I think MNHQ made exactly the right call on the thread you mention higgle. It wasn't the thread to discuss cat overpopulation and have a go at the OP. It was already happening and the OP wanted support.

There was another thread started soon after deemed to be a TAAT that discussed breeding in more detail.

Re minority views if I read a thread of 100 posts in universal agreement, I would most likely keep my minority view to myself if it differed.

But that's just me. Contrary to belief I am not here for the bunfights, so have hidden AIBU again.

Really glad to see this - thank you :)