I never thought I'd post here. I leave Mn frequently (at least fortnightly), due to its capacity for eating time, only to reregister a week later, when my resolve has weakened or when I have an urgent question I need answering. I've been here a number of years, under many guises, and never been tempted to 'flounce'.
But this time I am 'leaving with indignation' (flouncing), so thought I'd declare my reasons on my way out.
I'm afraid the more I consider it, the more shabbily I think the Rev has been treated.
Unless there are aspects to this of which we are unaware, which I accept may be the case, (although this has never been suggested) then I honestly think her treatment has been quite unjustified.
Firstly, I imagine having to justify to MNHQ that she really is a Rev is quite humiliating. Somehow, just in the asking there is an implication that she may be decieving.
From this, can we assume that any of us could be required to submit our credentials to Mn at any point? If anyone shouts troll, for any reason?
If I claimed to be a tecaher and another poster doubted this would I have to send MN my PGCE certificate?
Surely MNHQ should only resort to such unpleasant personal intrusion when they have goosd reason cause to belive someone is being deceitful, and that thier duplicity could be considered harmful to other posters? Unless these occasions arise do we not have to take each other at face value on here?
Were either of these the case with the Rev?
There has been no suggestion here that there was any basis for the Rev being challenged, nothing suspicious or doubtful about her posts, nothing potentially harmful to other posters. The only reason I have seen given was PPH's claim that her ability to 'sense' trolls was ''legendary'.
I really don't think that is sufficient basis, particuarly when being persued so maliciously on here, really doesn't give MNHQ any rights to ask a poster to verify herself.
An 'we acknowledge your concern and will monitor the situation, but strongly suggest that you do not continue to target the Rev with personal attacks, and in future please report any concerns directly to MN.' Would have been an appropraite response, with a ban considered if such attacks occured again, as this would have been the 3rd incident.
To then muddy the waters of this whole incident, by asking Rev to change her name and decalring immediately following these events that MNHQ has concerns about her role on Mn, is at best crass handling of the situation.
I'm afriad MNHQ's justifcation that the Rev wasn't meant to tell MN of this, is in itself, shoddy.
MNHQ should have had the sense not to confuse these issues and considered the implication of their actions on the Rev and on the wider implication to MN.
They should have put time and space between this incident and the airing of any other, separate, concerns they had.
I apologies Rev, for bringing it up agian, I know you find it somewhat embarrassing to be the centre of controversy (but I'm going now so will embarrass you no further).
I may return occasionslly to get a specific question answered, i can't pretend I could reist that.
But in as far as MN being a place where I enjoy open debate, interaction witt interesting, intelligent poele on a variety of topics my MN days are over.
This has all left a rather bad taste.