Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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

JustineMumsnet · 08/11/2013 14:35

@reelingintheyears

And WIT Justine, where would we be without the WIT and the humour and the banter? Grin

Ha yes but that's your job, not ours.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 08/11/2013 14:41

@kotinka

Justine, are there plans to implement blocking by IP for bans / suspension?

We do this sometimes, where we think there's a need. Obviously it's not failsafe [says no more].

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 08/11/2013 14:56

@ButThereAgain

Do you sometimes feel that expectations of what moderation can achieve are too high, especially on a mass site in the public eye, and especially given that you have to maintain a fairly arms-length status in order to control your liability in relation to libel?

You often put yourselves in the position of apologising for outcomes that seem at least partly a function of certain impossibilities involved in moderating a site like MN, rather than being a function of failings on your part. It is lovely to apologise so frankly but I wonder if it creates a false impression of incompetence. Would it be better to just say that some of what is expected can't be achieved?

I think you make a good point here, but then again there's always things we can do better and just occasionally we are pretty incompetent Grin.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 08/11/2013 19:10

@trish5000

I have only just got in, so have not had time to read this thread in any detail.

As far as I can see, having scrolled twice, my post mid evening yesterday, fairly near the beginning of the thread, has not been answered. [not sure though that you are answering everyones posts or not].

I asked whether it was possible to have examples of what constitutes a pa and what does not, and put them in the Talk Guidelines so people can refer to them, and refresh their memories from time to time. As there are many posters who seem genuinely confused[especially new posters] of what is and what isnt a pa. Thanks.
And it might save your workload!

Argh, sorry if we missed that one - we did mean to answer it!

We pretty deliberately keep the Guidelines general, because in the end we're trying to create the conditions that allow the values Justine talks about to flourish - rather than trying to create a space in which everyone adheres to an extremely precise set of rules.

And we really do try to consider each case on its merits, so in all honesty there are some contexts in which a post would be deleted, and other contexts in which almost exactly the same post would be left to stand.

So, to sum up... no. Wink

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 08/11/2013 19:23

@TheDoctrineOfWho

I really like the idea that posters can release names they don't want - no auction or publicity or anything.

But I suspect it would still be a tech nightmare.

Yes, every time we've brought this up in the past the Techs go quiet and start gently rocking back and forth. BUT you've given us renewed impetus to raise it again. I refuse to believe something - even a fudge - is not possible.

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