Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk

Back to thread
MNHQ

GOK WAN: Live Webchat - Friday 11 October, 1.45-2.45pm

25 replies

RachelMumsnet · 09/10/2013 14:41

We'll still be sweeping up the biscuit crumbs left from the Jennifer Saunders webchat as we prepare for the return of Gok Wan to Mumsnet Towers on Friday 11 October at 1.45pm. Since his last visit in Summer 2010, Gok has produced 2 cookery books and his latest, Gok's Wok is published this week.

Gok shares many of his family's traditional recipes but gives them a modern twist as he teaches us how to cook, simple, fast meals with flavour and a splash of Gok originality. Chapters cover all occasions from lunches to dinner parties and include curries, stir-fries, noodles, salads, soups and desserts.

Join Gok on Friday at 1.45pm or post a question to him in advance to this thead and you'll be entered into a draw to win a SIGNED copy of Gok's Wok.

We have also teamed up with Gok and Sainsbury's to host a live cookalong on Google+. On Wednesday 16 October at 7pm Gok will be making two super-delicious dishes from his new book and he'd love you to join him in cooking them. Find out more here.

Go to post
MNHQ

RachelMumsnet · 11/10/2013 13:37

Hi Guys... Gok here! I will be answering questions in 10 mins... send them in.... x

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 11/10/2013 14:05

Hello MNers (and hello Gok, apologies for butting in)

Could you please remember our Webchat Guidelines, especially:

a) one question per poster
b) be civil and polite

We're going to go through now and delete posts that break the Guidelines. And we'd be grateful if you could bear them in mind before you post.

Thanks awfully

MNHQ x

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 11/10/2013 14:26

  1. One question per member plus a follow-up question if appropriate, ie once you've had a response.
  1. Keep your question brief
  1. Don't be disappointed if your specific question doesn't get answered and do try not to keep posting "What about me?".
  1. Do be civil/polite.

Flowers Cake

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 11/10/2013 14:34

@JemimaMuddledUp

RowanMumsnet It would be nice if Gok actually answered the questions that have been asked. It is all very well very well saying one question and then one follow up once the question has been answered, but is he actually going to answer?

Well to be fair, it's a lot easier for guests to find and answer questions when the thread isn't full of people posting multiply - that's one of the reasons we include that in webchat guidelines.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 15/10/2013 17:56

So I've just caught up with this and I have to say that reading it in one go, it isn't pretty. I agree it come across as quite "mean girls" - I was wincing in places. Of course, difficult and challenging questions are fine, as they ever have been, but the tone here from some users combined is bullying, heckling and mocking.

It is also in direct contradiction of our webchat guidelines, summarised and linked to at the top of this thread. Namely:

  1. To allow as many folks as possible to be involved, please restrict your questions to one per member plus a follow-up question if appropriate, once you've had a response. (NB don't even think about name changing to ask another, we'll be watching!).
  1. Please keep your question reasonably brief (we'll not doing a word count but it will increase your chance of getting an answer, we suspect, if you don't bang on for paragraphs).
  1. With the best will in the world, guests can't always get through every question, but we make every effort to bring common themes to their attention. Please don't be too disappointed if your specific question doesn't get answered and do try not to keep posting "What about me?".
  1. Obviously you're free to voice your opinion, but do be civil/polite - please afford our guests the same cordiality you would if they stopped by your own house.

We specifically say one question and a follow up, so if you have a subject you want to discuss arising from the webchat thread then please start another thread. Don't derail the chat - it's rude and can prevent other users from getting responses.

I understand there were some serious and valid questions here and it would have been really great to get into them but I quite understand why you wouldn't want to engage with folks you felt were mocking, heckling and generally ganging up on you (which is what this feels like to me, reading it back).

If a particular guest isn't your cup of tea, please don't come on and spoil the chat for others who are interested in engaging? Bear in mind if you have a challenging question to ask there is frankly much more chance of getting answered if you are cordial, and besides it's in the rules.

From hereon, we'll make sure to link to our guidelines at the beginning of each webchat and we'll be deleting posts and suspending users that don't follow them.

Sorry to come over all headmistressy but we think there are very good reasons to have a few basic webchat rules - not least to encourage folk to participate - so we do need you to bear them in mind.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 15/10/2013 21:36

It's not about sticking to the topic Marmalade. The questions themselves were pretty much fine. It was all the stuff in between. The asides, the limericks, the barracking etc

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 15/10/2013 21:37

And agree Alastair Campbell chat was great.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 15/10/2013 22:18

Well I enjoyed my hour or so with him Smile

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 15/10/2013 22:19

We not banning banter! But there's ripping the piss and there's banter iykwim.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 15/10/2013 22:50

@Valpollicella

As someone with experience you always ahve Lines Against Enquiries (LAE). These are banal statements that can b e thrown out to the tricky q's. They answer the question in a way, giving them an answer but actually, not really so.

I absolutely cannot believe that a team behind Gok would have sent him into this without a PR person on hand to do the LAE. Absolutely not. Given his prominence.

Justine, I really do feel that censoring webchats in the way you have described is going to backfire. People will just start other threads/not post for fear of being banned/etc.

Val we usually censor webchats in the way that I've described, as per the rules.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 15/10/2013 22:53

@SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius

JustineMN - do MNHQ go through the questions that are posted, and look for any particular themes that are coming up in the questions, so that these trends can be brought to the guest's attention?

I only ask because it seems from this thread that a number of people were posting questions that had a bit of a theme (the way Gok advises women to squeeze into restrictive underwear to disguise the way their bodies are, and whether his advice helps women feel good about themselves, or feeds into the pressure on women to look a particular way), and none of these questions got answered - leading a lot of people to feel that a whole subject area was being ignored - hence a lot of the irritation and crossness. Reading the thread, it looks as if only questions about food were answered, while a really serious topic was utterly ignored.

It would have been so much better if someone had put a selection of these questions in front of Gok, so he could try to address the issues that were being raised.

We do keep an eye, yes, but as said I believe (and I wasn't there so am reporting second hand) Gok didn't want to engage with folks who he thought we're being hectoring and rude, which I agree some people were.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 15/10/2013 22:59

@ohforfoxsake

It was a crappy web chat and embarrassing for both sides.

He was only ever going to promote his new cookery book (which he did badly) and MNers were daft if they thought he was going to answer anything more probing than a biscuit question.

I doubt if he gives a shit anyway.

Alastair C was here to promote his book too. Most guests come on to promote something - same as they go on Jonathan Ross.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 15/10/2013 23:05

@Hullygully

"bullying"

No way.

That is ridiculous. He was criticised for what he does on his progs and the way he talks to women, he wasn't "bullied."

I think it can very much feel like bullying from the other end Hully - we've been through this before as you know. Not sure there's a lot of difference between a lot of folks relentlessly teasing and bullying.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 15/10/2013 23:18

@Valpollicella

Mignoette, in which way was it spiteful? Honest question?

Justine, I remember the Shezerade (or however the hell you spell her name) webchat.

That wasn't censored. She just 'couldn't make it' for whatever reason.....

Actually it was - I remember deleting a couple of posts but was slightly less diligent after she failed to show up!

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 15/10/2013 23:23

@Hullygully

Yes but Mig, that's like saying Shiny Dave came on to promote his new book about gnomes and people meanly talked about the dismantlement of the welfare state...

One is who one is and one does what one does, and one should be aware one is likely to have it questioned.

The problem wasn't the questioning - as I've said a few times now. Anyhows it doesn't really matter whether you consider the banter/hectoring/teasing bullying Hully, the fact is it's against our rules so please don't do it.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 15/10/2013 23:27

@Tweasels

Surely guests on here are forewarned before they start? They would only have to do a quick search on their name to give them an idea of the response they'd get. If it doesn't look favorable or you can't handle criticism, don't bother.

After reading it all through there were a few posts which might have been slightly OTT but I'd more disappointed if people weren't picking up on being referred to as "doll". We wouldn't put up with that shit from each other so why should we from a celebrity.

Gok's been before - he knows the form. But seriously I've never seen a webchat go off the rails like this - even the ones with the dullest politicians where they say nothing but the party line.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 15/10/2013 23:28

@Hullygully

Ok

I will never banter or tease again. I can't agree to not hector because I don't agree that I did.

Shiny Dave's fair game tho, isn't he? And surely Gove and Gideon?

How about trying to follow the rules? Read them, digest them, follow them. It's not tricky.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 15/10/2013 23:30

@SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius

If he was only here to publicise his book, why was this webchat apparently a sticky on the Style and Beauty forum, and why wasn't it made clear that he was only going to answer food related questions?

He wasn't only going to answer food related questions. The breadth and scope of the questions wasn't the issue. The hectoring, teasing, sarcasm was the problem.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 16/10/2013 00:23

@Valpollicella

Sarcasm? Really?

Better add that one to the webchat rules then Justine. Cos we were never told that...

Well, yes you were actually, in the webchat guidelines at the top of every webchat thread! i.e. be polite/civil and treat webchatees as you would a guest in your home. If I started making sarcastic asides to you when you popped round mine for coffee I doubt you'd think me polite...

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 16/10/2013 13:57

@Valpollicella

I'd think you were sarky Justine, and then bat back quite frankly with more Wink

C'mon. Really? This webchat is no more that others have descended into.

Has there been some kind of push from his PR/publicists/etc? In all my years here I have never seen this.

It's rally interesting that a big name came on, who has backing from other big names, and now the threat of being BANNED for asking a bit of a bantery/bad/cheeky/rude q is being propositioned as the way forward for w/c?

Hi Corporate Person

HI MN People!

Do you feel you espose you values

HI! Will you be bring out a range in pink and blue?

YES! Yes we will!

Aren't pink a blue a bit steroetyped? Why would your org do that?

Hi X company, I've read you have shares in Slavfes XL. How do you feel about us knowing about that?

thats not what the chat is about

And so on

No, no push from Gok camp whatsoever. Not a dickie bird. As said I think this was the worst I've seen. Lots of folk have agreed that it was unpleasant and bullying in tone. We don't want chats to deteriorate like this, so if one was to do so in the future we will be quicker to delete and ban those not following the guidelines.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 16/10/2013 14:03

@TunipTheUnconquerable

I don't know Justine. I think it depends how far you want to push the 'guest in your house' analogy because it seems to me to set up a really problematic imbalance.

If even Scherezade Goldsmith came to my house, I would be utterly lovely to her. I would make her cups of herbal tea and ask her questions about keeping geese and totally stay off the difficult questions like 'How do you seriously think someone who is stinking rich and clueless about how normal people live their lives can seriously give us advice about being more environmentally friendly?'

But if she was in my house it would likely have come about because she was a friend of a friend or something which would imply a certain equality between us and set up responsibilities on both sides. If she said 'Can I come to your house to advise you about saving energy and sell my book to you?' I would say no thank you. Same with Gok.

If you say 'the rules are that you must treat them like a guest in your house' when they haven't actually come on those terms, you are basically saying 'you must put them on a higher plane than you'; they can ignore our politely-expressed questions all they want and once we've asked our question-plus-a-follow-up we must humbly stay quiet or get banned. I am really uncomfortable with this because it's part of the thing I hate about modern celebrity culture, where celebrities are treated as a higher class of individual just like the Victorian aristocracy were a higher class of people and the common people were not allowed to engage on equal terms.

By doing this, you also cannot avoid the fact that by inviting people you are giving them a Mumsnet stamp of approval. I would suggest this gives you a greater responsibility to be selective in terms of who you ask. Personally, I much preferred the set-up where Mumsnet said it wasn't implying approval because the posters would hold the guest to account if they felt they were unacceptable. But if you go with the guest-in-the-house rule, that will not be how it is any more.

Obviously it's your website and as webchat organisers you see a side of it and deal with problems we don't know about, but one thing I have always loved about Mumsnet is how seriously it takes its posters. So I would say that if the rules are going to be enforced this strictly, you absolutely MUST set the terms of each webchat more clearly, because it is not fair on posters not to do that. If Gok is only going to answer questions about his cookery book then fine, but you need to tell us from the off so we don't waste our time hanging around here waiting for him to talk about the thing we are actually interested in.

I don't disagree that this thread went too far, though I am detecting a whiff of hypocrisy here given how bullying Gok himself can be in his interactions with women who are at his mercy on tv. But I AM very uncomfortable with what your post implies about the new regime for webchats. It doesn't really seem to be in the spirit of the Mumsnet I know and love.

Not everyone's as polite to their guests as you, Turnip Smile. Obviously we will use our discretion. I think this chat crossed a line from robustness into nastiness. That's what would trigger a response from us in future.

And I can't say enough times that there was never a plan that Gok was not going to answer anything other than cookery stuff. He didn't address the tougher questions because he didn't want to interact with what he saw as bullying behaviour.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 16/10/2013 14:07

@PeteCampbellsRecedingHairline

This thread is going to turn into a bantering/derailing thread isn't it.

Anyway, Justine is on the next webchat. I'm looking forward to that one.

Wah! You're all going to bully me Sad.

Second thoughts, [lightbulb], I can just delete the tricky stuff...

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 16/10/2013 14:08

@MarmaladeBatkins

But how could he have seen questions from me, MmeLindor, LeStewpot and others as bullying?

If bullying now means 'not what someone wants to hear' then maybe we are guilty of that.

As I've said a few times, those questions weren't the problem. It was the hectoring/piss-taking/sarcasm that was.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 16/10/2013 14:17

@MarmaladeBatkins

I know, I know but... you've also said " He didn't address the tougher questions because he didn't want to interact with what he saw as bullying behaviour."

So that makes me feel like my questions were bullying.

I am so confused. And probably being thick.

Ah, I see the confusion! Yes I think he felt that the same people who were asking the tougher questions were also taking the piss/doing the sarcastic asides etc and that if he addressed them he'd be rounded on by the mob. I'm not saying that the best response but it was a natural response and a likely outcome, I think, of folks not following the guidelines. Hence our need for the guidelines.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 16/10/2013 14:19

@ZingDollyChops

hmm, maybe I should get upset that Justine's ignored both my apology and my question.

Grin @ I can just delete the tricky stuff

Wah - you're not allowed to get upset if I don't answer a question - it's in the guidelines.

I'll ask RachelMumsnet about the book - think she's confiscated it Wink.

(And thank you for the apology.)

Watch this thread for updates

Tap "Watch" to get all the latest updates

End of posts

There are no more MNHQ posts on this thread

Back to thread