Dating Thread 63- disappearers, wedding bells and dodgy eye candy, all are welcome

[hostesswithleastest]

Oops that title may have put off newcomers :D

Anyway.... the old thread is dead long live the new!

The deleted comment wasn't purely about not engaging; it did also contain a veiled personal attack.

Truly, truly staggered. MN, if you seriously consider that to be a veiled personal attack that warrants a ban I am amazed you have any posters left.

But rowanMNHQ it seems to me that the person who may or may not (...) be complaining as been equally guilty of 'thinly veiled attacks' against regular posters on this thread... It's just that they haven't been reported...and whilst I don't expect MNHQ to be all seeing with regard to unreported posts...& that two bans don't make a 'right', it looks one sided and vinictive

I'd like you to review your decision, please. :)

Gah. vindictive you got that.

@OhWesternWind

Interestingly, I've reported several posts of Watch's on recent threads today and have had no response from MNHQ.

Apologies OhWesternWind - it's a busy evening and our inboxes are slightly on fire. We'll respond to everyone as soon as we can.

@OhWesternWind

There's no equality of treatment here. How can someone be banned for making a general comment that some people don't take criticism well and the best tactic is not to engage, whilst other people make deeply unpleasant comments on a regular basis and yet are free to post more of this crap whenever the fancy takes them?

There is no parity of treatment here. There has been disgraceful behaviour on this thread, but it's not come from me or Bant. It's come from MNHQ.

Shame on you.

Well, obviously we're really sorry that you feel like that.

As we said in one of our previous posts, the remark that got Bant banned wasn't purely general; it did contain a veiled personal attack.

And nobody is 'free to post deeply unpleasant comments on a regular basis' - not if they break our Guidelines, anyway. But, again, we do need these things to be reported so that we can deal with them.

So when Bant was accused, directly of being a strutting peacock, that warranted what? 36 minutes on the naughty step?

Also, while we're on decision explanations, what about the malicious personal messages that a number of us complained about ? How is that poster allowed to stay on the site and Bant gets booted off for nothing ?

Rowan,
It's really simple. Uber-Needy Poster 'A' posts incessantly regarding private life and lack of success with the opposite sex. Years of non-success in fact. Poster A seeks nothing but tea and sympathy and agreement from strangers.
But Lo! Poster 'B' replies and opines in a contrary manner and Poster A gets all aggressive and defensive. In fact, A is nearly always the instigator of nastiness and when anyone replies in a like manner, A is straight on to MN Towers baying for blood. Which, invariably, you provide.

You are banning the wrong people. Open your eyes.

@Snapespeare

But rowanMNHQ it seems to me that the person who may or may not (...) be complaining as been equally guilty of 'thinly veiled attacks' against regular posters on this thread... It's just that they haven't been reported...and whilst I don't expect MNHQ to be all seeing with regard to unreported posts...& that two bans don't make a 'right', it looks one sided and vinictive

I'd like you to review your decision, please. :)

As we said in one of our previous posts - if Bant wants to contact us to talk about anything, he's very welcome to do so. (As is anyone else whose ability to post has been suspended.)

We're sure you'll understand why we can't go into great detail here about our dealings with Bant or with any other poster.

We like to think we have very few posting rules on MN, and that they're pretty clear. 'No personal attacks' is one of the most important. We do have to take steps when any poster repeatedly breaks the rules - otherwise there's not much point in us having them.

@Secretservice

So when Bant was accused, directly of being a strutting peacock, that warranted what? 36 minutes on the naughty step?

Not quite sure which post you're referring to here, or whether it was reported - but if you want to report it now (or email in with further details) we'll take a look.

I think we all understand that Rowan the problem is the outstanding injustice - unless you go running to teacher every time someone gets a bit snidey - you're a sitting target for PA posters. It's not fair and it's not just

Another mainly lurker, though I have posted before - and another who thinks the ban was incredibly unfair.I actually think that Bant has been remarkably calm and self controlled in the face of provocation.

It should be possible for posters to disagree and move on, but it seems that some people just don't accept that.

MN it seems that you just look at the reported post. You don't look back to see whether someone has been goaded and goaded. It takes the willpower of a saint to ignore, ignore, ignore when posters are repeatedly posting about how bloody victimised they are, it's not fair, everyone's mean to them etc. When a child is standing in the middle of the room screaming you cannot continue to ignore, even if you should.

Also I think you have to acknowledge that Bant has had it particularly tough with constantly having to deal with claims that "all men on OD are X,Y, and Z". Now, I'm the last person in the world to defend the rights of menz, but I would have been bloody offended with some of the sweeping generalisations that he, DFU, Bill and others have had to put up with, and that does add another dynamic when they're dealing with those posters.

Also posters not being here to defend themselves equally means not here to see what's written about them. If someone is actually searching for something to take offence with that's their problem.

@KinNora

Also, while we're on decision explanations, what about the malicious personal messages that a number of us complained about ? How is that poster allowed to stay on the site and Bant gets booted off for nothing ?

Again (and we do know this is hair-tearingly annoying), we can't go into detail about our dealings with other posters.

But please rest assured that anyone sending abusive PMs would, at the very least, get a warning that further behaviour along those lines would be likely to lead to a suspension.

@Secretservice

I think we all understand that Rowan the problem is the outstanding injustice - unless you go running to teacher every time someone gets a bit snidey - you're a sitting target for PA posters. It's not fair and it's not just

Well, we really don't think of it as 'running to teacher' - obviously!

In the end, this is how MN works: people report, we take a look.

If it doesn't get reported, we're pretty unlikely to see it - unless it's on a thread that has already been drawn to our attention as containing a massive bunfight.

We know lots of you don't like doing it, but reporting is the only way to be completely sure that we'll be aware of something.

I understand entirely that the rules are there for a reason & that personal attacks are unacceptable. But I think the issue here is how on earth you can regard the vague remark made yesterday by Bant as an attack heinous enough to warrant kicking him off the site? Particularly in light of the completely "unveiled" attacks the other poster in question has made against others quite a few times in the past. And yet she's still here? It's the lack of even handedness that people are aghast at.

Bant, if you're reading, please contact MNHQ and talk to them about this. It is genuinely valuable to have you on this thread (and the others of a male persuasion) and you'd be welcomed back with a very gratifying fanfare if that is at all possible.

And maybe just contact MNHQ to ask them to stop the innuendo about "other incidents". Unless you are a secret sex pest who's been sending cock shots via PM.

I agree with the others who are bewilderd that the comments made could be construed as a personal attack and yes I do lurk on this board and thread a lot!

So, can we expect vast amount of bannings and deletion of threads as a matter of course from now on across all boards due to paranoid posters reading slights that are not there

No I won't report the peacock post, because it was aimed at Bant, who, because he's a grown up shrugged it off and made a joke of it. Second hand tittle tattle is even worse than first hand

@ALittleStranger

MN it seems that you just look at the reported post. You don't look back to see whether someone has been goaded and goaded. It takes the willpower of a saint to ignore, ignore, ignore when posters are repeatedly posting about how bloody victimised they are, it's not fair, everyone's mean to them etc. When a child is standing in the middle of the room screaming you cannot continue to ignore, even if you should.

Also I think you have to acknowledge that Bant has had it particularly tough with constantly having to deal with claims that "all men on OD are X,Y, and Z". Now, I'm the last person in the world to defend the rights of menz, but I would have been bloody offended with some of the sweeping generalisations that he, DFU, Bill and others have had to put up with, and that does add another dynamic when they're dealing with those posters.

OK - we do understand that posters can find other posters wildly annoying. And that sometimes it takes nerve-shredding self-control not to respond.

But we can't, in the end, give posters carte blanche to launch personal attacks on anyone they find annoying.

What people can do - to their heart's content - is dispute, argue, and otherwise attack the content of another poster's post. That's fine.

But we need posters to play the ball, not the woman (or the man).

So let's get this straight. You can send abusive PMs and just get a slap on the wrist. Write a completely inoffensive post (veiled personal attack my arse) on the back of a long history of goading from the-poster-that-must-not-be-named and you get booted off the site.

Yep. That's fair.

Yes, but we did report the PMs, which were not just 'thinly veiled attacks' they were downright malicious, shit-stirring, vile attempts to turn people against another poster.

You seem like an intelligent reasonable group, the overwhelming majority are telling you you've made the wrong decision.

Dear MNHQ,

I have reported a post on dating thread 37 that calls me 'holier than thou' as I consider this to be a personal attack. I hope you take appropriate action.

Thanks now.

(& thank you for engaging with us tonight, even if it's not exactly what we want to hear)

(But thread 37 gives you a good background)

@BringBackBant

I understand entirely that the rules are there for a reason & that personal attacks are unacceptable. But I think the issue here is how on earth you can regard the vague remark made yesterday by Bant as an attack heinous enough to warrant kicking him off the site? Particularly in light of the completely "unveiled" attacks the other poster in question has made against others quite a few times in the past. And yet she's still here? It's the lack of even handedness that people are aghast at.

Well - again - and with apologies - we can't discuss our dealings with other posters. Which probably partly explains why our decisions can sometimes look unfair from the outside; nobody beyond the poster in question and MNHQ knows the full story about what has been said and done behind the scenes. We do know this is frustrating for those looking on.

We do, genuinely, bend over backwards to be even-handed. We may sometimes cock up, but it's honestly not because we're playing favourites.

Another lurker...

Staggered. I read the thread(s) in question as they were happening last night. Either I'm clearly stupid or there has been a gross injustice.

Not sure what I'll do if you all stop posting. This thread has been invaluable since I stepped into the murky world of OD.

Thank you. I feel like I know you all.