Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk

Back to thread
MNHQ

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

55 replies

JustineMumsnet · 07/11/2013 11:09

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 Wink.

Go to post
MNHQ

RebeccaMumsnet · 08/11/2013 13:44

@MarshmallowGuzzler

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)?

Hi MarshmallowGuzzler,

Just keep reporting. You can explain that this specific post may not break the guidelines but this poster does seem to be bullying/posting to inflame and it all helps us to build up a picture.

We do send mails to folks who are reported a lot but not necessarily deleted and remind them of our Talk guidelines and that our overall aim is to make parents' lives easier.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 08/11/2013 13:46

@reelingintheyears

Fuck the gin, can't we just try and sort out the bloody trolling. The thread from the other night was horrible, 'Pie and shite' or something?

Truth is we've always suffered forum invasions from various (mostly men's) sites - Pistonheads, ShankleyGates, ARRSE, SingleTrackWorld etc. And dare I say I believe MNetters have been responsible for a few wholly unsanctioned invasions themselves .

They happen, and are irritating (although sometimes can be diverting) but they don't tend to last too long.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 08/11/2013 13:48

@ShreddedHoops

So my question to HQ would be - does it annoy you when some posters ask for special treatment (being allowed to break rules) because they've been members for a long time, and do you treat old / new posters differently when they are reported?

Well, we don't think this happens very often tbh (regs thinking they should be allowed to break the rules). Obviously when we look at a report, if it's a post by someone with an established posting history/someone we at MNHQ know of, then our knowledge of them (good, bad or indifferent) may play into our decision. But ultimately we take things on a case-by-case basis and do our utmost to apply the rules consistently to everyone.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 08/11/2013 13:49

@BIWI

But Justine:

"Whilst I see the logic in leaving posts for others to see how unpleasant a poster is, I think there's quite a lot of things we just don't want to host on our forums tbh - racist, homophobic, sexist, disablist stuff etc."

There is a lot of racist stuff being left up at the moment, on that immigration thread. It's revolting and deeply unpleasant. Yet you are 'just watching'.

I don't understand the logic behind allowing that thread to stand.

Well tbh we disagree with you that it's racist - cos if we thought it was, we'd have zapped it. But we'll take another look.

MNHQ

RebeccaMumsnet · 08/11/2013 13:51

@magimedi

I also think that threads should be locked, but not deleted.

We do lock threads from time to time but generally if they are deleted. What do you think the benefit would be of leaving threads locked and visible as opposed to removing them?

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 08/11/2013 13:52

@HoneyDragon

Justine

So what do you really think when journalists publish factually incorrect observations of Mumsnet in the broadsheets and then whine at you on twitter because we didn't like it?

It is tiresome - I thought Mumsnetters' reaction to the Telegraph media request re sextalk on Mumsnet pretty much summed up how we at MNHQ feel. Fair dues to the journo though; she took account of it and wrote a completely different story from the one she was originally asked to write. If only they all did!

MNHQ

RebeccaMumsnet · 08/11/2013 13:57

@magimedi

Re the threads locked & not deleted - I've changed my mind & agree that a lost of the stuff is better gone. I have been persuaded by the posts on this thread.

hoorah!

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 08/11/2013 13:58

@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?

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 08/11/2013 14:00

@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).

MNHQ

RebeccaMumsnet · 08/11/2013 14:02

@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.

MNHQ

RebeccaMumsnet · 08/11/2013 14:03

@magimedi

I'd rather have gin than Cake but thank you.

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

Wine ? Grin

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 08/11/2013 14:04

@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.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 08/11/2013 14:08

@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.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 08/11/2013 14:10

@forthemods

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

This is from Dept for Education's guidelines to schools and pretty much sums it up for us:

Bullying is behaviour by an individual or group, repeated over time, that intentionally hurts another individual or group either physically or emotionally.

The problem of course is when people have different interpretations of intentional, repeated hurt.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 08/11/2013 14:11

@HeartsTrumpDiamonds

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?

I think we've answered a lot of this with stats elsewhere (though we'll check afterwards and post up more stats if we've missed any), but in general, our aim is to respond to all reports as well as we possibly can. There's no way, on a board this size, we'd be able to make it completely 'clean' - although of course if every single MNer upped their reporting rate by 1000%, to the extent that every single guideline-busting post was being reported, that would be great (and we'd find a way to deal with it).

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 08/11/2013 14:12

@Pan

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

The problem with that is when folks have a legit, burning issue and need advice/support there and then. We'd be loathed to deny them that.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 08/11/2013 14:16

@bsc

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 Smile When it's good, it's very very good!

thanks BSC Grin

We should definitely look into a poster's posting history when they're reported for spam and delete any other spammy posts they've made. We'll send a reminder around the team

MNHQ

RebeccaMumsnet · 08/11/2013 14:17

@HepsibarCrinkletoes

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

Thanks Hepsibar. We are very much dealing with this now, apologies for another generic response Blush

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 08/11/2013 14:18

@ChippingInBatshitArse

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?

Well we don't think it is very elephant-like tbh - has felt at times over the last couple of weeks as though nobody's talking about anything else

As far as we're concerned, the bottom line is that AF's posts broke Guidelines, and she was on a very clear warning about what would happen next if she broke Guidelines again.

MNHQ

RebeccaMumsnet · 08/11/2013 14:20

@reelingintheyears

The question about PBP's, do you check their history if they get reported again under different names? The ones who return to wind up old adversaries?

We sure do - it can take time but we have a good dig.

Although, if they have been banned and they appear again, we will reban unless they have mailed in and then we'll explain/ make a decision depending on the specifics of the initial ban.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 08/11/2013 14:21

@Pan

I'd disagree Maryz..whether someone is a nether-region is a matter of perspective (which the mods will differ on individually), and even if the genuine qualifiers remain identified as such, it sets a culture and tone that it's okay to fling abuse around, and that HQ think it's okay.

Question: can we slow down on the gratuitous swearing please? A vital issue compared with others, I know.Hmm

Interestingly I had a meeting with reps from a load of other big community sites recently. We were trying to come up with a list of universal forum guidelines. We agreed on everything - no hate speech, personal abuse etc except one. All of the others had no swearing policy. Only Mumsnet differed. I felt quite foul-mouthed [shame].

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 08/11/2013 14:21

@Shakey1500

I'm interested to know why the latest (last week?) threads on Madeline McCann were "allowed" to stay when many threads previous were zapped pretty quickly.

I'm not passing comment on the content, just curious as to why these latest ones were deemed different to others.

Our long-standing aim with threads about the McCann case is to allow one thread to run when there seems to be a 'need' for it, so that's probably the quickest answer to why these ones stayed up. Some posters do want to discuss it, and while we definitely don't want to host nasty speculation or CSI-style forensic details, we do accept that it's a massive news story and some posters do want to talk about it.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 08/11/2013 14:23

@RoxanneReidsChafingFishnets

Do you have any Windows Phone app things in progress or to make.mobile site more friendly to them?

Righto - we're not actually aware of this being a problem: we didn't realise Windows phones don't work well with the mobile site. If you mail in to [email protected] or start a thread in Site Stuff about it, we'll see if anyone else is having the same problem.

MNHQ

TheOnlyOliviaMumsnet · 08/11/2013 14:26

@Sunshineonsea

When or are we ever going to have a username amnesty I've got bloody loads I don't want that I only used for chat so have no convos under them And maybe do the usernames in a diff colour for old posts where the username no longer exists Tis so bloody hard trying to think if usernames when they're all used up!!

Am lurking (with feet up) but can fairly reliably say that this is highly unlikely.
Last time we did it for charity (pre DC1 and I'm now due DC3/4!) it was V V complicated tech wise rocks at memory

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 08/11/2013 14:32

So we've overrun a bit - can't believe it's almost dark outside

Watch this thread for updates

Tap "Watch" to get all the latest updates