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 .

Would it be possible to have a long list, perhaps incorporated in the Talk Guidelines, of examples of what is a personal attack and what isnt.
[I do see examples quoted by mumsnet from time to time, but they are dotted all over the forum]. Then new posters wouldnt get so confused, and it would clarify the situation a lot better for everyone else, who couldnt then say they dont know if something is a pa or not, as they could refer to the Talk Guidelines before posting!
Hopefully then there would be less pas! Which would then hopefully decrease your workload!

An example at the moment is that a lot of posters dont seem to know if calling someone a racist is a pa or not.

Can we have access to info? Eg

Number of joiners per month/ number of members to date

Number of unique users per month

Number of posts/ month

Number of posts reported/ deleted/ month

Actually seeing the numbers would put things into context, & might even neutralise the ' it's gone to hell in a handcart' perception.

Also I was wondering if the inconsistencies in format and capability between MN versions for different devices could be ironed out. I have worked out that people post type icons, but I can't see them so it makes posts difficult to interpret. Communicating seems to be hard enough, without us not talking the same emoticon language on different devices.

Thank you.

I would like to know if the mumsnet mod teams looks at threads generally to police them, or do you wait for reports before you look at things?

Hully

I think new people should go through an initiation process/quarantine period.

like only lurking for a week. and no posting on AIBU for a month.
and there should be a MNers guide to newbies they would have to read and sign.
not rules, but things like:

• use fucking paragraphs
• don't expect people to agree with you
• we swear & talk about sex
• we can be lovely, helpful and supportive
• banter is allowed and it's not bullying
• if you feel ignored don't take it to heart, post again or rephrase your question
• MN is fun

etc.

I think that would eliminate a lot of moaning...over and over and fucking over again!

No one wants "special treatment" Shredded, what I want is consistent treatment, the point I am making is that posts are deleted because SOME people object to them whereas if no objection is raised, there is no problem with them.

It is not that some posts by some people deserve "special treatment," it is that posts should not be deleted just because SOME people NEW OR OLD, don't like them.

The newbie point is a separate one. Any newcomer to any form of social interaction should not be surprised if present incumbents object to being told to change to suit the new person.

I do hope I have clarified sufficiently. It would be awful to go over and over the same old ground, wouldn't it?

I have been suggesting (for quite some time now) that MNHQ does not permit namechanging for the first year (without going through MNHQ and having you do it for them if there is a really good reason for it).

(I know people can sign up multiple accounts but surely there is a limit to how many one person is able to do?)

Can you please tell me why you don't think this would help? Or if you agree it would help - why you don't want to or can't do it?

I won't be around for the web chat tomorrow, so just wanted to add my opinion now.

I like the tone of the site and the way it is moderated.

I do think it needs investment to iron out speed of response issues.

I think all the mods tread a fine line very well. When they screw up they admit it and apologise. This I respect.

I believe that if you don't like a thread, as long as that thread is within the rules of the site then you should shut up and not read it rather than whine.

All whingers should have their posting rights revoked for a week and then a large whiney emotion permanently placed next to their posting name.

OK, maybe not the last one, but the problem with the very open nature of MNHQ moderation is that people see it as carte blanche to try and get the mods to do what they want. Give people an inch and they'll try and run off with the map. I personally think a few reminders that it's their site and they'll do what they want to wouldn't go amiss. After all, they've done it pretty well up to now.

Can you explain why PAs are deleted straight away and yet attacks that are aimed at groups of people are allowed to stand?

Chipping
I think some NC is fine - like your current one - coz it's fun and you are still recognizable.
and some people have to completely NC if they have been "found" out in real life etc.
that should be fine to do without HQ.

it's the NCs for malicious intentions that we all wish could be a better monitored/culled.
I don't know how though.

I really think deleting posts just doesn't work. maybe highlighting them so people know that MNHQ consider the post inappropriate, but with deletions it can be impossible to know what on earth a thread is about, and so the deletions derail it, or spawn a flurry of pms. I think it would be so much better to just let everyone make their own minds up,but to be aware of MNHQ ruling on them.

In a sense this also applies to deleting threads. If there is a bunfight on a thread, I would like the chance to go back in a calmer frame of mind, and see what really happened, evaluate my own contributions, and even apologise if I feel I need to.

Another problem with deletions is when posts and posters are subject to abuse about bunfights that are no longer visible. I know the thread about a thread should in theory sort that out, but we all know it is a tool to use lightly. I really the feel the fundamental 'unspoken rule' that you leave a fight on a thread. You should be able to disagree on one thread, and agree heartily on another. There is a worrying emergence of a culture of grudge bearing that I feel is not in the spirit of the site.

And as a last point of the general deletion thing, I think on extremely contentious threads, of which there are relatively few and far between, I do believe that hard cases make bad law. But here I believe MNHQ have to be really proactive in laying their cards on the table about what they consider appropriate or not. It would save a lot of fighting and name calling.

And if posters want to hound other posters off threads and MN itself they need to dealt with very firmly.

A personal attack would be against a single person.
Racist, homophobic, disablist and sexist attacks are also deleted.
Is that the sort of groups you mean?

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.

I am another who would like to know if MN mods look at threads generally to police or wait for reports. Sometimes it takes ages to respond e.g last week many people expected a thread to go and it took over 12 hours after being reported to go.
I agree with Goatmint that statistics would be interesting. I get the impression the sheer number of posters make policing it consistently difficult.

What about stalking posters who never quite cross the line but pop up within a few posts of a poster and are generally damning and rude and bring up previous posts they have disagreed with. Have never reported one because it doesn't quite cross the line but it is disconcerting.

Do you flit around the site looking at threads and topics and generally keeping an eye on things, or are you too busy responding to individual posts that are reported? Or a combination?

How many posts that should be deleted actually are deleted, and vice versa (in your opinion) - is this something you think can even be measured or tracked?

I guess what I am really asking is - what is the objective of your moderation: is it to delete every offensive post, to have a site that is 100% "clean" - or is it to remove only the bare minimum, only the ones that are reported or that you notice, and let the boards be open and free-form?

How do you track posters? Bullying behaviour might only be witnessed by looking at tons of threads and posts, often with no reports, but leaving a hurt reporter. What might have been reported could be quite small- a slap on the wrist type thing- but it could add up to a very large, upsetting series of incidents. Could there be an option to report poster (which might also be useful for the variety of troll threads, started in a short space of time)?

Following on from Satin- I have previously reported posts, then searched the other posts by that poster to find that they're spamming the boards... but until I report the other posts too, it seems that HQ haven't done that other bit, and mopped up spammers before posters notice they're there (IYSWIM).

Just wondering what the protocol/process is for mods when they act upon posts that need deletion.

Thanks HQ- I do really like it here When it's good, it's very very good!

Do you have a shared list of "this person reports at the drop of a hat" and "this person skirts the edge of allowable behaviour"?

MaryZ

it has to work.

especially when they are trying to ruin my fun!

And a list of who constantly reports the same person?