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
Original poster

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

16 replies

hostesswithleastest · 05/09/2013 23:36

Oops that title may have put off newcomers :D

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

Go to post
MNHQ

JulieMumsnet · 10/09/2013 18:11

Hello

Thanks for the reports about this thread, and we're sorry to see that many of you are upset about our decision to ban Bant. We do understand that he was a popular and long-term MNer.

Obviously we can't discuss the details of our dealings with other posters, especially if they're not around to speak up for themselves. But in general, we never take the decision to ban lightly, especially when someone has been around for a while. Posters will receive at least one (and sometimes more) clear warning that further breaking of Guidelines will lead to a suspension of their ability to post before we implement a ban.

We do know that there is history here, and some bad blood between a few posters on this thread. But we can't allow repeated breaking of the Talk Guidelines.

If Bant would like to contact MNHQ to discuss anything, he's welcome to do so.

And many apologies that we failed to delete his post earlier - we do see that this was confusing. It was an oversight on our part, and we've zapped it now. Blush

Please also rest assured that we do really try to deal with all posters equally and fairly, and that quite a lot goes on behind the scenes. Anyone on these threads who has been brought to our attention for repeatedly breaking our rules will, at the very least, have heard from us. But if there's any particular posts or posters you'd like to bring to our attention, please do report them to us

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 10/09/2013 19:54

@BringBackBant

MNHQ - I am truly struggling to see why a remark about not engaging with an unnamed thread started by an unnamed poster - in response to a remark made by someone else - manages to break any guidelines, let alone earn a deletion/ban.

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

And (we hope you all know) personal attacks on identifiable posters break Guidelines, whether the poster in question is on the thread or not.

Again - we do see that you're angry and disappointed about this - and we're genuinely sorry that so many of you think we've taken the wrong decision. We didn't do it lightly. But ultimately, we have to suspend people who cannot abide by our rules - otherwise there's really no point in having them.

We know that there is history here; over the past few months we've contacted quite a few posters (past and present) associated with this thread to remind them of our posting rules, and in some cases to take further steps.

That said, if there's something you think we're not aware of, we'd really like you to let us know about it. (Thanks to those of you who've done that already.)

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 10/09/2013 20:00

@Flipper934

I'm not in favour of the bans or warnings, by the way. From what I can see, certain posters don't like the opinions of others, and complain bitterly (and with personal attacks) when they are posted. It upsets me that these personal attacks are not apparently responded to, whereas the reactions they provoke are.

Double standards from MNHQ in my view, which is a shame. I assume it's because they can only investigate those posts which are reported.

This is an important point actually: we do really need MNers to report anything they want us to look into. If you think someone is repeatedly posting personal attacks, please report them to us; we won't necessarily find out about it otherwise.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 10/09/2013 20:06

@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.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 10/09/2013 20:10

@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.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 10/09/2013 20:14

@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.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 10/09/2013 20:16

@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.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 10/09/2013 20:19

@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.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 10/09/2013 20:24

@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).

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 10/09/2013 20:34

@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.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 10/09/2013 20:36

@KinNora

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.

Yes, we did get those reports - and we did take action. Suspending someone's ability to post (unless they're an outright pervy troll or other blatant ban-candidate) comes at the end of a long-ish line of actions we take.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 10/09/2013 20:38

By the way - we do need to be careful, please, to ensure that this thread doesn't itself become an extended personal attack on another poster.

Very specific questions are probably best dealt with off-board - you're welcome to report any post on this thread to ask us about something, or just email us on [email protected]

But we can't let this turn into an extended picking-apart of an identifiable poster.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 10/09/2013 20:42

@ALittleStranger

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

Right but this is the problem. Let's say, for example, someone says "all men on OD are crap, I have been ODing for five years and nothing has come off it, therefore the problem is every man I've encountered in the past five years". Now, lots of us might disagree with that, lots of us may have observed aspects of that poster that point to other reasons why they have been single. Now, how is any comment that challenges their world view and suggests the problem is with them, not going to be seen as a personal attack?

This is the problem of trying to moderate a relationship board. People ask for advice, they ask why something is going wrong, they ask people to look at the profiles and critique their appearance and personality. These are personal things. The content of a post about this is going to be personal, can you not see that sensitive posters will take any criticism of their behaviour as a personal attack? Which is why you are left ignoring, which sometimes, just sometimes, becomes difficult. Any apparently any frustrated aside to this effect is a banning offence.

Yes, we do see what you're saying - but we don't automatically delete posts that are reported for being personal attacks; we do look at them fairly closely. And we won't delete something if we think that the reporter is just being over-sensitive.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 10/09/2013 20:43

@BoreOfWhabylon

Another one who has lurked intermittently on these threads for a long time now and joining in to say you really really have got it wrong this time MNHQ.

Given there is a lot of backstory unpleasantness that has obviously not been drawn to your attention and you really do appear to have been given only one side of things, is it not possible to issue an amnesty just this once? Unless, of course, something really beyond the pale has occurred.

Those posters who received vile PMs perhaps, if you haven't deleted them, could forward to MNHQ as corroboration.

We would absolutely love and generally appreciate it if you could all fill us in on anything you think we've missed - particularly 'vile PMs' that we didn't know about (or indeed vile anything else).

If we think we've made a mistake, we will hold our hands up to it.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 11/09/2013 09:13

@Snapespeare

Does MNHQ have access to PMs? I know I've reported some in the past and not quite sure what the outcome was.

(Can you tell I'm a negotiator?)

Yes, we can see PMs - but please report those you want us to look at (or we wouldn't know where to start)

And - arf Grin

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 11/09/2013 09:54

@KinNora

MNHQ, Bant is unable to access his account and PMs to bring to your notice the personally insulting messages he was sent and wishes to bring to your notice.

Noted - thanks. We will take a look.

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