DBF banning thread, part 2.

[Rhinestone]

OCCUPY MUMSNET continues......

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

SecretNutellaFix - I absolutely agree that the welfare of animals is extremely important, and that stopping puppy farming is vital. And yes, if no-one buys from the puppy farmers, then they will go out of business and no more dogs will be used in this way.

But I do think there is a fine line between 'strident and vocal education' and aggressive, bullying tones that will frighten people off without teaching them the vital and central points. It is my belief that the original TLES thread went way over that line - as proved by the fact that she left the thread and was, I think, actively put off from seeing or accepting any of the advice on it.

The lady whose JRT was expecting puppies might have needed help to home those puppies once they were born, or might well have benefitted from advice on how to ensure that they went to the best possible homes, but there is no way she was going to come back and look for that advice or help after the original thread, was there.

Jesus. I'm orf. (For real, not a pretend one where I post again in 3 posts time...)

silverfrog- you know, but how many more don't?

Incidentally I frequently disagreed with DBF but wouldn't post as I didn't want to incur DBF wrath

What did you think would happen? She'd arrive on your doorstep with a slavering pack of GSDs?

Having one poster rule an area of a board does not promote free speech
the answer to that is, don't be a coward. Sorry, but if the DH isn't as it should be, its the responsibility of those who don't post as well as those who do.

A d plenty or people work in jobs where they see horrible things every day - paramedics, A&E nurses, fire service etc etc

If "gay men deserve to be beaten" is hate speech (and I'm assuming it would, am i wrong?)

Then "wearing a skinmpy dress means she deserved to be raped" would have to be hate speech too, wouldn't it?

Yes, many more don't, SNF - but they need educating not attacking - the latter is counterproductive and will turn people away from the information that they need to see.

The main issue as I remember with the widowed lady who rehomed her puppy was not that she was unable to cope with the pup and needed to rehome (I'm absolutely sure no one would have flamed her for this, especially once they knew her circumstances), but that she chose to sell the poor thing to what sounded like quite an unsuitable, unchecked home rather than approach rescue, i.e. she put money ahead of the welfare of her pup.

That may seem like a fine distinction to some, and I know many people will say there was nothing wrong with what she did anyway. Just wanted to clarify as I think that situation is being a bit misrepresented here.

Of course the ideal outcome in that situation would have been for the puppy to go back to the breeder. That's one good reason why you should only buy from responsible breeders who will have their dogs back if a home doesn't work out.

LeBOF - okay, but those letters in newspapers are printed at the editors discretion and are written by people who haven't been banned from the newspaper.

That's the difference. A currently banned member of MN is still finding ways of posting on MN boards.

MNHQ should be the people to decide if that should happen or not.

It matters not what DBF sees on a regular basis. It is not a licence to be obnoxious and rude.

And i dont think anyone would excuse the former with an 'ill advised' tag.

fwiw just reported the letter-post. DBF has maanged to effectively unban herself.

I'm not sure she actually meant anyone to do that - but anyhow, I think you're correct to report and let MNHQ decide whether to let that stand or not.

I do think the key is in how you respond after you know someone is upset/has mitigating circumstances.

I've been on threads where I said something people really found offensive - I think most people do this in AIBU in the early days - and it was really upset. But when I admitted that, it was ok and people calmed down.

What annoyed me most about the feminism thing was that many posters were admitting they were getting really upset, and they knew they needed to take time out, and so on. And the response wasn't 'oh, oops, I'm so sorry' from the trolls who were eventually banned, and the response from some of the fem-bashers was 'oh, well, it's all your fault you're upset, you shouldn't post here if you can't take it'.

I don't know what we are meant to do?

SecretNutellaFix - that's not the point, and you know it.

if educating needs to be done, then aggression and forceful hectoring are not the way forward.

there are, of course, always shades of grey wrt tone within a conversation (especially an online conversation) but there is little need to jump in aggressively from the very first post (not just talking about dbf and the doghouse here - aibu is prime example of this most of the time, and chat oftne goes the same way).

if a thread escalates through discourse, that is one thing, and might be treated very differently (due to heat of the moment thoughts) to a poster always being in the heat of the moment, iyswim?

innocent enquiries, and genuine queries shoud not ever be met with aggression.

I think that the open letter should stay. Otherwise it leads to another round of chinese whispers and "PM me please, what was in the letter".

I agree with Catalie that Val is misremembering the rehoming thread by the woman recently widowed. It was both before and after she "revealed" that she had lost her husband that she was flamed. And why should she have to defend herself to such an extent?

As far as I remember it, she was obviously far from happy at having to rehome the dog, but was at the end of her tether.

Val/DBF
I agree with you that the post yesterday was not worthy of being banned, but you know yourself that you have had warnings, and have admitted that the JRT was below the belt.

If you had been banned for that thread, then there would have been no 1000 post thread defending you.

I do hope that MNHQ lift the ban as I would like to see you back on the boards, but only if it is clear to you and to the ohter posters in the Doghouse that further posts of that ilk will not be tolerated and will lead to a permanent ban.

innocent enquiries, and genuine queries shoud not ever be met with aggression.

yes - and even downright ignorant enquiries too.

Well said Jeremyvile and lrd. sorry, we've got two topics running in one, really...

I thought it was requested to be posted if anyone was prepared to take the flak- that's how I read it anyway. MNHQ can ban me if they think it's warranted and I've undermined them. I feel it's a bit shit for so many gloating posters, including new ones who have a one-sided view of this, to just pile in and slag off a person who can't respond.

If that offends the more officious among you, you can report me too.

Silverfrog- mentioned aibu on the previous thread and WWYD. Both are ostensibly the same topic, but the attitudes are polar opposite.

Perhaps a less negative name for the dogs section would bring about a less aggressive tone?

Interestingly the poor tone started to develop at the point when we first had a dog topic rather than just an overall pets topic. No idea what conclusion to draw from that, but it was quite a striking change at around that point.

Perhaps a less negative name for the dogs section would bring about a less aggressive tone?

I am optimistic that the message has got across. Todays DH threads that I've seen are constructive (though I guess there hasn't yet been a hackle-raising OP).

The ban was fair.
She was warned repeatedly about her abrasiveness, recently banned after many complaints about her aggressive manner, then was allowed back on the understanding that she would stop being so aggressive.
She didn't stop, so she was banned once more.

What part of that, are so many of you finding so difficult to understand?

The fact that TLES may, or may not be a trouble maker or troll, is neither here nor there. The fact that TLES was hugely irrreponsible matters not. DBF was warned about being aggressive and did not stop. That she has written posts that are not aggressive is nothing to do with anything, and neither is her popularity. The conditions were set and DBF broke them.
That, as they say, is that.
The ban is fair.

It hasn't offended me LeBOF, but I don't think posting the letter has helped the situation. In fact DBF has opened herself up to more criticism now the letter has been posted because it is claimed she continued to berate the woman who was widowed even after she knew her circumstances, which is not what DBF says happened in her letter.

Forwarding the letter to MNHQ is one thing, it means they can read what DBF has to say and it puts the decision to publish it into their hands. Other people on here were reading it on Facebook anyway and the people who you feel are gloating are hardly likely to change their minds based on what she has written there.

I have reported the posting of the letter. If MNHQ decide to let it stand now it is posted then that will be good enough for me. But I strongly feel that the decision to post communication from someone who is banned from the site should always be made by MNHQ and nobody else.