How does it feel tone in here?

[kickassangel]

I'm just pooling around on my iPad, wasting time, when I realized that Dadsnet is in the club section of mn and wondered how people felt about that?

Would it be more relevant to be in the parenting section, or does there even need to be a separate section?

Just curious, really, but it sort of feels like being a Dad is some kind of hobby group you might sign up to on a Thursday evening, when I suspect that really it's part of everyday life.

Basically what I'm saying is he would have gotten warnings in the past, and then for whatever reason this time he got banhammered. So technically, he was warned.

MrGin says he received one email 3 months ago. That's it. He is currently awaiting a response from MNHQ re. this banning as no warning was given.

YES he could be lying but why would he? He's just confused as to why he's been banned.

We know MNHQ DCOP but sometimes they do get a bit triggerhappy - they have admitted to it in the past - I'm hoping that's all it is this time, or it's a temporary suspension, but no one will know until they reply to MrGin.

Hmm well I guess we'll never know.

Actually, I would have imagined HQ have various scenarios for bannings/suspension.

One - repeated warning emails, if the offences are minor and consistent.
Two - more of an 'emergency' situation ( ) - they will ban without warning

Nowhere have I ever seen HQ promise to send warning emails - certainly with lots of dodgy overnight wanker trolls, they ban straight off the back.

So, it would seem that HQ have opted for option Two for MrGin. Heavyhanded? Christ yeah.

But it also would suggest that he's not lying about receiving only one email.

So perhaps some posters can stop gleefully accusing him of lying. Thanks.

Artex - fwiw those posts were v largely words of concern for MrG as a poster, rather than any effort to re-ignite the 'hoohah' - that calm had extended from Friday evening, until AF's comments on Sunday (excepting pornmokey's Royals comment).
Having said that I am doubting any 'enforcement' action will happen in this circ.

I am appalled at HQ allowing MrGins name and rep to be picked over like this.

What a disgraceful scene.

He might just be suspended. If he hasn't heard from them, it's much more likely than a ban.

HQ do make mistakes, we know that, but they will explain. FWIW, I didn't know until recently that they count deleting posts as a warning, so it's not necessarily all email based.

It's also notw-worthy that Mr G did not post anything about the radfem people in an inflammatory way after MNHQ had intervened and a brief dialogue too place. He was still engaging with HQ when the issue of being banned was sprung. Which is fairly inconsistent conduct from HQ.

Pan is you were referring to me I was not 'gleefully accusing him of lying.' I was stating what I believe the rules are. Why on earth would I gleefully accuse him of lying?

I think you really need to stop singling AF out. She commented on earlier posts she disagreed with, which is the nature of a forum after all, even if it was after the thread had moved on. Would hardly be the first time someone has commented on earlier posts they personally find offensive. Hell, I've done it!
It's not her fault anyone was banned if that's what you were implying.

Really? Deleted posts count as warnings?

Not good news for me

pinot, I doubt anyone thinks he's lying.

There is no point getting angry with other posters when it is MNHQ who do the banning/suspending/whatever it is.

it's odd that isn't it Pinot? The whole radfem implosion, triggered by dittany, means that d. can't be mentioned/discussed 'because she isn't here t odefend herself', yet MrG isn't afforded that consideration. He obviously isn't in the "protected species" category, like other posters or groups of posters.

lurking - I think so.

YY, LePan.

It's not cricket.

Lurking - not referring to you in anyway - sorry you thought so. Iwas referring to Artex.
re AF's 'picking scabs'? Yes, it was picking scabs - it had calmed down (excepting pornmonkey's ill=advised swipe) and now we are back up and running.

Post deletion counts as a warning now, does it? Has that been laid down somewhere in the Talk Guidelines?

Pan, I think you should be blaming pornmonkeys, then, really.

Which is a shame since it seems pretty clear s/he is a troll and not really interested in any of the points of view people are trying to defend.

I think this re-invigorated ruck has simply been another win for the trolls.

thumb - as I said, I think so. I'd like to know for certain.

This isn't 'advanced social skills' is it? I was 'ordered' to avoid a particular section quite a while ago. Which I always have done since.
But still the point remains - MrG was exchanging mails with HQ on the thread when a ban was issued - not nursing his grievance anywhere else.

Dittany was attacked relentlessly across multiple 1000 post threads and is still the subject of snide comments. It turned into a free for all on her, which is why posters called for it to stop. It's hardly comparable to discussion of Mr Gin in this thread.

Though that should stop if it's making people uncomfortable.

I always thought post deletions were kinda like 'points' up to a warning. You get enough deletions and you get a warning.

I'm very confused now.

Me too LRD - that's a bit scary if it's true!

Oh, for goodness' sake.

Let's all stop discussing MrGin, though I think this is a bit silly since initial posts like Thumbwitch's are clearly not intended nastily, they are simply people discussing why he might have been banned! Likewise my posts saying what I understand of the rules are not intended nastily either.

MNHQ will doubtless at some point tell him what's going on, whether it's a ban or not, and he'll get in touch.

It's ridiculous to keep on about it and drag in the thing about feminism yet again.