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

Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

DBF banning thread, part 2.

999 replies

Rhinestone · 08/11/2011 00:05

OCCUPY MUMSNET continues......

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

OP posts:
LRDtheFeministDragon · 08/11/2011 12:33

Justine has herself said jokes weren't very appropriate, didn't she? It was really late.

cameltoeinlycra · 08/11/2011 12:34

YaMaYaMa if you wnat to read DBF letter just C&P Vallhala MN into the search bar on FB

GrimmaTheNome · 08/11/2011 12:39

[Someone is brazenly asking for a lab breeder and so far has not been recommended a TVRD! ShockGrin)

...actually not that uncommon an occurrence in the DH.

Hullygully · 08/11/2011 12:39
HelenMumsnet · 08/11/2011 12:40

@LRDtheFeministDragon

I know it's not easy for you and you don't always have time to reply with more than standardized responses. But it does sound dismissive if I get the same reply for reporting something like that as I get for reporting someone on a bad day resorting to 'you twit' type stuff.

Thank you for that, LRD. And, tbh, we do always try to reply as personally as possible but, sometimes, we have to be careful what we say.

We can't say, for example, although we'd often rather like to "Thanks for that. We've deleted. That poster is a PITA and has already had a warning." because our words could then be C&P'd onto a thread. And that's not going to help at all.

We do appreciate how frustrating it must be to report posters and not know what has happened. But we do believe in looking into things properly and then, if necessary, giving people an opportunity - through warnings etc - to change the way they're posting.

GalaxyWeaver · 08/11/2011 12:42

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

YaMaYaMa · 08/11/2011 12:43

Thanks CamelToe.

LRDtheFeministDragon · 08/11/2011 12:43

Thanks Helen.

Glueberties · 08/11/2011 12:53

I was warned (Blueberties) and ameliorated my posting style.

However continued by email to let MNHQ know how crappy and inconsistent their moderation is, knowing what goes on on the feminist, sn and vax boards. So I was banned anyway.

Strangely when I was stroppier I wasn't banned: but then a certain quality of popular poster made a complaint and bam.

Their moderation is crappy and inconsistent.

UrsulaBonfirey · 08/11/2011 12:54

I've got bored of reading, so I'm sure this post won't fit in where it's posted, but I just had to say that although I agree that it is Justine's forum, it is up to her and the team to make decisions and rules and for us to abide by them. But the crux of the matter, what unites the issues in TDH & FWR forums is the matter of 'free speech' and allowing alternative opinions. Fine in theory, however imagine your opinion is that no one should be raped. Imagine my opinion is that if they're dressed provocatively then they're asking for it. SURELY that crosses the line into hate speech and is totally against everything that MN as a primarily women's and mothers' forum stands for.

That is what is exasperating.

LeBOF · 08/11/2011 12:55

I have just noticed that DBF actually requested her open letter be posted, so I am going to bite the bullet and C&P it here...

LeBOF · 08/11/2011 12:55

*Vallhala MN
Message to MNHQ:

Dear Justine et al,

I am GENUINELY AMAZED and humbled by the support on here, though I appreciate that it's not unanimous. And, I take on board the criticism though I can defend most of it. Perhaps that's for another time though. I DON'T think that my TLES posts warranted a ban. Honestly. Sorry to those who do but I fail to see it. Other posts sure, though as has been noted I HAVE toned it down recently but NOT this one. TLES lied. I proved that. She denied it and in doing so attempted to discredit me. I provided further evidence of a lie. I said she was foolish - other posters, rescuers, dog owners, non dog owners and a respected and reponsible breeder have said the same. NO-ONE supported TLES and many were far more outspoken than I. I said that she was a disgrace - I meant that she was failing her dog and putting the animal's life at risk AND that if unchallenged her post would encourage future readers to do the same. I could have put that better and explained what I meant by "a disgrace" and I am sorry for the offence caused to MNHQ and other readers by not doing so. I said I was appalled. I am. I cannot apologise for how I feel.

I am grateful to those who pointed out to Justine that the lady who wanted to get rid of her dog and whose DH had passed away only stealth like (albeit unintentionally) mentioned that well after I had spoken out... as had others. And to those who pointed J to the recent rehoming thread and who stuck up for me when I told the person who was breeding JRT pups why they are adding to the unwanted dog population. I WAS OTT and out of order to the readers in that latter post... but they do not see the dead dogs, the unwanted dogs and the dogs with genetic health problems caused by such breeders until they themselves buy one, by which time it is all too late and I am left with other rescuers to pick up the pieces and to sob our hearts out.

And yes, I HAD been warned. And I had promised to tone it down. And I HAVE toned it down, others have acknowledged that. I may have been guilty of not doing so on the JRT breeding thread though I still maintain that I have a justifiable point, albeit badly put, and had I been banned then I would have held my hands up to that. But I have been banned for comments which were factual and which were far less offensive than some others on the TLES thread. I did not criticise her personal appearance as someone else did. I did not refer to unrelated topics or past threads, only past threads which proved her lack of consistancy to the matter in hand and which, I hope, went towards refuting her insinuatiion that I had fabricated her inconsistancies and which as a result called into question my honesty and transparancy.

I RELY on that mutual trust and honesty to save canine lives. That's why I have often given MNers my phone number and checkable references off the forum, so that they can see who I am. For those who are confused about the DBF/Vallhala thing, I must explain - I namechanged as I was, as a result of being trackable, being "stalked" as Vallhala. I've given up caring now, as you can see! There was and has never been any attempt to deceive or to act as a troll or sock puppet on MN and I have made it clear to many MNers that I am one and the same, often posting as DBF on unrelated to DH parts of the forum to those who knew me as Val and adding "it's Vallhala, btw). Several MNers know me from my usual FB page, several have my email address and phone number, some are members of the dog forums I frequent, including the one for which I am a hands on volunteer and which know me in RL.

I can only say this: Neither MNHQ or I will lose out from me being banned. They can do without the work and god knows so can I! For every 5 posts on the forum to which I respond there are 2 or 3 pms and emails where I try to help off the board... I'm knackered and overworked! Sadly. :(

MAYBE... just maybe... the ones to lose out will be the unwanted dogs and the families which will in innocence take on a dog from a pound without any support or assessment of that dog to check that he won't hurt them or break their hearts. And end up dead as a result. That IMHO would be a tragedy. And no, I'm not the only rescuer, I'm not the be all and end all and I'm NOT a ruddy expert and I am always at pains to say that but sometimes it seems that when I am criticised it is alleged that I think I am. I will say it now... I am NOT nor do I think I am. But I DO have some experience to offer which could help and I do enjoy MN, all parts of it.

My world won't collapse without MN nor theirs without me. I can see that they would hang the flags out! I apologise from the bottom of my heart for offending MNHQ and for causing them extra work, I am willing to tone it down and only post facts and advice if thats what's required but I stand by what I said - that being banned for the post in question is "unreasonable" (see what I did there?!). I am also troubled to read that Justine says that she is unsure if I can do this - Justine, I know me better than you do!

What else is there to say? As usual I have gabbled on too much. All I can end with is a plea that others don't risk getting banned by being kind enough to speak out for me. I love so many of you (PINOOOOOT! Ahma talkin' about YOU, girl!), and would hate to think that this situation had repercussions for the nice folk on MN and take away their virtual support network.

Whether MNHQ decides that I stay or whether they decide that I remain gone, thank you all, I REALLY am humbled by not just your responses tonight but by your support to me over dog things, my health, DDs schooling (gotta mention PR47bridge and Minx here, can someone highlight that and tell them so please) and the way you've made me laugh from the depths of my soul. To those who have said I'm funny and/or witty... REALLY? Bloody hell! A twit, yes, but funny? That's made me beam. To those who are not happy with me - sorry.

DBF/Vallhala/call me whatever you like (oh God....!)*

UrsulaBonfirey · 08/11/2011 12:56

Oh and re DBF I agree with LemonDifficult.

silverfrog · 08/11/2011 12:57

I htought I hadn't seen you around recently, glue

so, you got banned, huh? because of complaints? (you had very definitely moderated your posting style) or because you were so critical of MNHQ, do you think?

consistency is the key issue here. and clear guidleines (or clear guidelines on how the guidelines will be applied)

Pan · 08/11/2011 13:01

oh dear. Posting by another means.

Ursula - Idon't think that posting an opinion that to dress provocatively is an enticement to be raped IS hate speech. Massively ill-informed about the trigger for rape, yes, requires challenging and explaining why it's just not true, yes.

SixStringWidow · 08/11/2011 13:02

A very gracefully typed message.

CalatalieSisters · 08/11/2011 13:04

Given that Val has explicitly commented on the thread with the recently bereaved OP, I do want to say that Val has misremembered it. She showed absolutely stunning aggression and lack of empathy towards the woman whose husband had just died (and who had rehomed her dog as a result), and did so after the woman mentioned the bereavement (as well as before). That was the point at which I felt she ought to have been banned.

Pan · 08/11/2011 13:04

Just because she asked for it to be posted doesn't mean it should be. If she is banned, then sneaking in by proxy is utterly inconsistent with her status.

LeBOF · 08/11/2011 13:04

I think that one post as a kind of right to reply is reasonable, is it not, Pan, given that this and the other thread has discussed DBF in exhaustive detail?

And if DBF is to remain banned, it at least serves as a courteous farewell to posters who will greatly miss her. After the years of support she has given many, I don't find that outrageous in the least.

StewieGriffinsMom · 08/11/2011 13:06

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SixStringWidow · 08/11/2011 13:07

agree wholeheartedly with LeBOF

Pan · 08/11/2011 13:07

didn't say it was outrageous. Just massively inconsistent with being 'banned'. But I guess this will now re-ignite the thread ( as if it needed it).

Time to be off.

VivaLeBeaver · 08/11/2011 13:09

ive been the subject of one of val,s attacks bfore. it was nasty and yes i felt upset and bullied, it was ddefinetly a personal attack. however shhe wasnt doing it to be nasty but because sshe was concerned. id type more but am off my head on morphine. id like her back. big difference in val and someone who gets a kick out of attacking

Tortington · 08/11/2011 13:09

SoupDragon Tue 08-Nov-11 10:27:22
"It is clear we need to have two Dog House topics. Rabid Mutts and Poochie Woochies."

awesome

Pan · 08/11/2011 13:09

SGM - ok. Lo's of people believe this. Doesn't make it 'hate'. Makes it ill-informed.