DBF banning thread, part 2.

[Rhinestone]

OCCUPY MUMSNET continues......

Justine, that was a little topical joke, please don't ban me!

Sorry, my last was to lucystone.

noone - I don't honestly think it'd be very different from the threads now asking who got banned/deleted, really. People will always end up questioning what HQ decide. Clearly in this situation , DBF had been warned a lot. But the posters HQ says she really upset won't have know that, will they? Presumably they've either gone off MN or gone off the Doghouse. I doubt they'll come back just to see on the offchance whether things have changed.

Oh FGS.This is ridiculous. DBF said nothing on the thread that wasn't deserved and needed to be said.

lucy - It can only be a matter of time!

But IMO the assumption that posters who agree are out of line is a bit of a problem. Justine mentioned how she feels some posters end up trying to 'lay down the law'. I know HQ felt strongly that the feminist section must not be allowed to become a section that only feminists could post in (and I agree so it's easy for me I guess). But the thing is, I really don't think regulars always agree, and I think the current system actually stifles disagreement.

I know that there are certain questions I cannot ask in that section, because they will be innundated with trolls. And I will not get an answer or a discussion from the regulars - not because the regulars are all meanies who gang up to tell me I'm wrong, but because there are ccertain topics that I can guarantee will be hijacked. It gets very wearing. If I didn't constantly expect trolls to turn up, and rampage around for months pisstaking before they're banned, I would ask more of those questions. And more posters would have a genuine disagreement, and a proper discussion.

It may well have needed saying, Orm - but by saying it the way she did, she pretty much ensured that TLES wouldn't listen to the advice given - how is that good for the dog and her welfare?

LRD - true. Perhaps a trial run of visible warnings is the best answer. I still think they may be missed by the people who were most upset by a poster and decided to avoid the thread or topic etc, and they may present other problems too. But you are right, it would at least give them the chance to see that the person upsetting them and perhaps their complaints about it hadn't gone unchallenged or ignored.

You may well be right and I may be wrong. I just feel the current process isn't quite working.

Justine -

I am amazed by how much time, effort and energy so many people have spent on this thread.

I don't have any history of being offended by or personally helped by DBF, so have no axe to grind either way. As far as I can see, the majority of posters seem to want her to continue posting (should she in fact want to, after this). There is also dissent. As it should be.

The thing is, the comments that seem to have finished it for DBF don't seem particularly bad. I remember reading the first part of the thread and there is obviously history there. But nothing that has been quoted that DBF said on that actual thread seems to be anything to ban someone for: I have read far, far worse across the site. It is impossible for us to argue it accurately now, of course, because you have deleted it. So no one - apart from you - can actually look at how the thread went and how the things that were written stand in context.

From what I can gather DBF is not one of those posters who gets a kick out of coming on here and deliberately winding up, upsetting, and playing on vulnerable posters in a way that could cause harm. 'Words on a page' can be taken in totally different ways by different posters. I thought your comment to AF was aggressive and uncalled for, tbh, but others - who perhaps know more background - didn't think that and explained why. So I learn more and perhaps moderate my opinion as a result of combining all the posts on the thread. We are all adults (I assume) and mumsnet has been an enlightening and interesting place to (lurk) and read stuff from people we would never meet or speak so freely with in real life. I wish it could continue like that.

The doghouse and the feminist section have it in common that there is a very emotive background context that can be abused to wrongfoot dissenters: the the doghouse topic has as its background context the undoubted fact that dogs suffer enormously through irresponsible ownership and breeding. The feminist topic has as its context the fact that women in our society are subject to systematic inequality and attack on the grounds of their gender. And in both topics these background facts are sometimes used as the grounds for a posting stance that implicitly relies on something like "If you are not with me on this issue, then you are against me, and since I am for dog welfare/authentic gender equality, you must be against it." So someone who disagrees on a particular issue can find themselves having to prove that they are a feminist, or care about dog welfare, and resist an entirely unwarranted template that has been foisted on to what they actually said. It all just feels too sterile and hurtful. I've hidden the feminist topic for that reason. The only reason I haven't also hidden the doghouse is that it matters to me much less, so it is easy not to feel torn up about it.

I agree Calatlie

P.S. And there's always the off switch. These people aren't actually in my house.
(Sorry for long post)

**

I think we all need to get clear in our minds what the rules really are for and how they might work to everyones advantage ...

I'm assuming that they exist so that this can be the best, most supportive. parenting site ever etc etc. fair enough. That's technically I suppose a Utilitarian stance, wanting the best outcome for the most people.

you can take two approaches to this
Rule utilitarianism and Act utilitarianism

Rule U says - " set up the rules that generally have the best outcome for the most people and stick to them". This leads to situations like the one we have here, she broke the rules and should suffer the consequences - and to situations in the USA where the "three strikes and you're out" policy means people going back to prison to serve life sentences when their third offence is dropping litter

Act U says " take the action in each situation that has the best outcome for the most people" - which means take circumstances and situations into account. Is it really for the benefit of the MN community to ban this or that person? is it really best for the community to put someone away for the rest of their life? etc.

Rule U is relatively easy and economical to enforce - Act U is hard and time consuming. A site this huge has to have rules that are enforceable and clear, I know that - but if it really is to be a place that is a genuine community then I think sometimes there is the need to ask the question "will enforcing this rule in this situation have the best outcome for this community of people?" I would suggest that in this situation the answer to this question might be "no".

cala - but the same emotive context can be used by trolls, which is rather more damaging. That's where I came into this debate - DBF, for all her possible faults whatever you think they are, is not cynically winding people up. Yet she is banned. Bob/Edd were, and the ban took a very long time coming.

And let's not forget that when someone started a thread trying to say that, for her, this 'if you're not with us you're against us'' thing was rubbish, it got completely sidetracked by someone persistently saying 'well, I'm not a feminist and disagree with you all ... but you are all bad feminists if you don't hate men, you really should hate men'. That is clearly a pisstake. But what you're saying seems to be just about blaming the regulars?

CalatalieSisters - I dont see so much of the attitude you describe in FT, though I know its something that has been mentioned many times, so I accept maybe I just dont see it.

But actually, just wanted to say, that was a very eloquent post

But as rhetoriticians (which we are being when posting here) it is self-defeating to castigate and abuse those people who's opinions you are attempting to alter. Once you start doing that you are indulging your ego and anger. Not a bad thing sometimes, ( and have done it myself), but the issue ( here doggie welfare) becomes secondary.
That may sound a bit poncey and analytical but that's where we are when folks get banned. imo.

catsrus (how ironic ) - I agree.

Blimey catsrus, and I thought I was being analytical and poncey! Kidding.

I'm not sure that the trolls are more damaging, tbh. But even if they are, that does nothing to soften the damage done by the posting stance I mentioned, so trolling should never be an excuse for it. I don't doubt that trolling is a problem in feminism, but that is a distinct issue. It may well be that the trolling partly caused the posting stance I mentioned, but that doesn't make it any less bad.

Thank you Jeremy.

Catsrus - ya big nerd.

Pan - ya big ponce.

Re blaming the regulars, LRD. No, its blaming whoever posts like that. I've no idea who is a regular on the topic and who isn't.

I do wonder whether, if this wasn?t a well-known poster, people would still say the banning was unjust given previous warnings and posting style.

Ultimately you can?t have it both ways ? either you want posters to be called on their behaviour, or you don?t. Not only want the posters you don?t like to be called on it while the rest are left to their own devices.

And even if you?ve seen the results of puppy farming doesn?t give you the right to criticise anyone whose dog happens to have puppies. I personally wouldn?t breed from my dogs if I had dogs that could be bred from, but equally I wouldn?t not buy a puppy from someone who happened to have a dog that had had puppies. When we were growing up that was far more the done thing, not least because professional breeders were so prohibitively expensive, and we ended up with nice, well-socialized dogs.

So while I personally wouldn?t want the responsibility of having to find homes for puppies (or any other animal for that matter) I think to suggest that everyone who buys a puppy from a home rather than a breeder/adopts from a rescue, or that anyone who allows their dog to have puppies is essentially a bad person is extremely patronising and insulting.

I think what we need to remember here is that this isn?t a first incident ? dbf has been given numerous warnings and one ban already over her conduct.

And I think that a visible system is a really bad idea tbh. If you start labelling individual posters over their warnings it?s only a matter of time before this starts to be used against them with links to threads where warnings have been issued etc. I can already see the posts: ?well, poster x is already known for their posting style, just look at even mn hq have seen fit to warn her about the way she behaves...? and so on. I think you run the risk of a warning system creating a bullying culture on the boards..

thanks Pan - Analytic and poncey are my middle names, ingrained in the very core of my cold and logical self! Ah yes Grimma the irony is not lost on me - but my cats are well aware that they are superior beings to the resident dogs so we can afford to be magnamamous magmanamus smug