Meet the MNHQ moderators. Live chat Friday 8th Nov, 1-2pm

[JustineMumsnet]

Hi all,
We promised you a webchat to discuss all things moderation (and anything else you fancy really). So, tomorrow lunchtime RebeccaMumsnet, RowanMumsnet and I (and possibly a few other team members - suspect that OliviaMumsnet might be lurking) will be on hand at 1pm to answer your questions. If you can't make it along, then do post your questions here in advance. Mind the guidelines at the top of the page now - only one question each and be nice .

Actually, I do have a question. A very prolific poster has recently namechanged. Under the new guise, this poster is questioning who the 'old' person is/was. This, surely, is sockpuppeting isn't it? And therefore banned under the talk guidelines. So is this a ban worthy offence, or will their prolificness precede them and it be allowed to continue, as I believe it will?

@Pagwatch

I am going to be horribly inarticulate but I'll do my best. Mnhq posted after the half a dozen bullying threads about regulars being 'hung out to dry'. That was exactly how I felt. The use of 'well known regulars/royalty/prolific mumsnetters is often just the language of a veiled attack. People pop up, often anonymously, make vague allegations about bullying regulars and special treatment and shit.then, in bending over backwards to be fair, all that is left to stand and exasperated responses are deleted.

Would it really hurt for mnhq, just occasionally to say 'if you see bullying then report it but endlessly complaints about members who don't name change and are therefore peculiarly exposed are a bit cowardly and not in the spirit etc etc...'

Because I could name change - we all could and then it would be poster437 talking to poster6653 which would have a very different feel.
Is that what people would prefer?

OK. As we said before we're really sorry that some of you felt personally upset by this.

The whole area of personal attacks on groups is incredibly difficult. In general, unless we think it's pretty obvious which posters are being referred to under the guise of a general sweep of language, we tend to let things stand.

In this case we just genuinely didn't feel that the attacks were on identifiable posters - we definitely weren't reading things things thinking 'well they're talking about Pag there'. We have hundreds - actually probably thousands - of posters we'd regard as regs, so when someone moans about 'the regs' we don't have a list of people we think they're talking about.

Sorry to drone on but just wanted to explain the difference in perception - it wasn't that we were thinking 'they're def having a massive go at Pag there, but because they haven't named her we'll let it stand'.

I dunno if that's answered your point really?

forthemods there is a problem defining bullying on here

like I said before, it is used so frequently, almost as soon as a well known (for want of a better word) poster disagrees with someone.

I'd rather have gin than but thank you.

And I agree with BIWI - you do a pretty good job here.

I can't hear myself think above the axes grinding here.

Thanks MNHQ for doing this. I bet you think this place would be just perfect if it weren't for us lot .

@LittleBearPad

Can there be something noted next to a poster's name that shows when they joined - maybe a month and year or even just a year. It wouldn't break anonymity and people could still name change but having November 2013 next to a username might help other posters. It could be linked to a poster's email address so that goady fuckers who were banned when reregistering would never appear to be long term posters unless they played a really long game and registered names months before using them. In light of Chipping's posts above I doubt any I them would have the patience or intelligence to do so.

I know lots of forums do this but it's always been something we've been a wee bit nervous of. I think the best forums have less heirachy and more equality between posters. Obviously some posters will be widely known and loved - usually because of the amount of great advice they give - but in general we think posts and opinions should be taken at face value and newbies welcomed. I worry that highlighting newbies might lead to more troll-hunting and to Mumsnet being a less friendly place (though I can see the obvious attractions in reassuring folks that name-changers are legit).

Why should bullying have a different definition on MN than anywhere else in the world?

... it still is brilliant to have a place to chat to others, btw - sorry for slipping into the past tense! Just that I'm at work now, in a real office with real colleagues, so have lots of other people to talk to as well

There's a big old elephant in the corner and as no-one else seems to want to brave bringing him into the middle of the room, I will.

When AF was banned/suspended it was on a thread where C F D was being a goady fucker (and had previously been reported as being a GF).

Later on, after it all 'kicked off' C F D was banned - for being a goady fucker.

AF was not unduly rude - she said that the poster might want to think about the way they wrote their posts as they could come across as bullying and that their posts came across as passive aggressive.

AF was helping the OP, the GF was just derailing the thread.

The OP was very upset and didn't wish to post anymore (because of the GF not AF).

AF was banned/suspended? Irrespective of what came before/who she is/her posting history does this seem even remotely reasonable?

@HepsibarCrinkletoes

Actually, I do have a question. A very prolific poster has recently namechanged. Under the new guise, this poster is questioning who the 'old' person is/was. This, surely, is sockpuppeting isn't it? And therefore banned under the talk guidelines. So is this a ban worthy offence, or will their prolificness precede them and it be allowed to continue, as I believe it will?

We'd have to take a look at this specific case, please report.
In general, that's really not on and we would certainly have a word at the very least.

@magimedi

I'd rather have gin than but thank you.

And I agree with BIWI - you do a pretty good job here.

?

forthemods for the reason I stated in my previous post

@MadameDefarge

ok so an add on. Would MN HQ like us to report but then not say we have reported? Clarity of that would be good too.

Weeeelllll aargh sorry it's just not possible to be definitive about this. In general, it's fine to say 'I've reported that post' - eg to say 'don't worry, I've reported it so that we don't all report it and end up flooding MN's inbox'. But in some circs it might be troll-hunting by proxy; in others it might be inflammatory.

So we have to do it on a case-by-case basis. Sorry.

JustineMN

"I think the best forums have less hierarchy and more equality between posters"

This - I'm so reassured that you think this No to dates joined, hiding posters, hiding or highlighting posts, and any more info other than the username someone chooses to use. Simpler = better.

Thanks Rebecca, I have reported, with absolute proof (highlighting a classic schoolgirl error) and have a generic sort of response.

Chipping, surely to goodness that elephant in the room is yesterday's chip paper. How many times to MNHQ have to justify the same decision?

forthemods
As I said earlier, people's perception of bullying is coloured by their experience.

I can't say that I have been proper nasty bullied in RL (although there was some unpleasant behaviour from a group of boys when I was 10yr old).

I have also never felt bullied on MN. I have had a couple of nasty comments, but I shrug them off. We are allowed to have differences of opinions.

Some people see any kind of disagreement as bullying, especially when more than one person disagrees with them. As long as the tone is civil and there isn't too much 'Oh, FFS, get a grip' kind of posting going on, I don't see that as bullying.

"Why should bullying have a different definition on MN than anywhere else in the world?"

Um, define bullying then, in a way everyone agrees on? Not easy! You'll find people have different views of what it means. And every time the bullying thing comes up, people disagree on what it means, particularly online.

A mumsnet definition would be very useful I think.

Please don't take away the nc function, or introduce 'member since' dates or any of that stuff.

When I first found MN I was AGOG that you could change your nickname just like that, I'd never known that on any other forums.

I really like the anonymity aspect of it, and that there can't be a hierarchy as such ie 'we've been here longer than you have so ner'.

And finally, for a massive site such as this, I don't think there's an awful lot wrong with the moderation as it is. I think MNHQ do a pretty good job.

Dunno why I'm on this thread really.

I can see the 'up' side of having 'joined in xxxx' but I can see the 'down' side too, personally I think the 'down' side outweighs the 'up' side.

Maybe a 'joined this week' would be handy though

Looks like quite a few of us are asking for a Mumsnet definition of bullying. Makes sense.

@SecretNutellaFix

I've said it before and I will say it again.

Relationships and Feminism need a full time dedicated mod.

AIBU should be removed. A lot of the issues start on there- there are a number of posters who only ever seem to post on AIBU, there are also a number of posters who will use it as a fight club.

There is a section called What Would You Do? People could use that if they were looking for genuine advice/feedback and then chat for the rest of the non AIBU threads that get posted.

If you are not considering shutting down aIBU, then that also needs a full time mod.

Yes I think you might be right about more resource. We've only just dug out the mods response time stat for this chat, and it has increased.

The AIBU topic was started because so many threads begun AIBU - ie it's not the topic - but we may well need to encourage more reporting of AIBU threads. We did some analysis of AIBU a little while back - Becky has figs - and results showed it wasn't as fighty as you might think - post for post. It's just incredibly huge now, so it seems that it has a lot of fights... It is a bit of a mystery to me btw, as to why WWYD is so much less used but I imagine it's self perpetuating. Would be good to think of a way to promote it as it's a slightly more gentle way of asking for advice.

Hope I've made it in time. i understand why you don't want to leave posts to stand, but also why people want them to stand. Could there be a compromise where the post was edited by HQ (only in some cases, not all) and if its a long post, only the "bad" bit deleted? Or more info on each post as to why it has gone, like the info now available for poofed threads?

And re poofed threads, at the mo only people who posted/watched see the reason. Could you keep the thread on the chat list, but with just the deletion message? Because a lot of people post "to see the deletion message" on threads that are about to go (I do this myself...) which then bumps the thread...

Any mileage in pausing the right to post for 48 hrs after joining?

Thanks Rowan

I honestly wasn't thinking you should apologise at all - I m a bit that it may have seemed like that.

I do understand that it seems too vague to be hurtful but when 'well known regulars' is used on a thread where there are two or three posters who don't name change and have been around a while then it usually is.

Yes, I'm sure you have loads that fit that category/description but it's when it is used in a context, in an disagreement.
I don't often feel its me (although it clearly was in a couple of the recent threads) but could you just look at how that 'you are a regular/you get special treatment/regulars are bullying...' insinuations keep being used.

Sorry - that took hours - at home with ill boy.