DBF banning thread, part 2.

[Rhinestone]

OCCUPY MUMSNET continues......

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

@LRDtheFeministDragon

darkness - I do see that it's a problem. But I know I and others begged MNHQ to do something about trolls and repeated attacks, and they insist they can't do anything.

I don't think that's quite right. We have done loads - banned quite a few MRA posters and sent very many "behave" mails. But, as said, we won't ban people just for having different opinions.

Ooh I got deleted - that's a first - I assume I made a personal attack, if so I apologise (although I must admit I have seen far worse on here, and been subject to worse IMO without deletion - oh well, onwards and upwards)

DBF/Val has explained to a few people on FB how she feels, and has apologised for any upset. She believes that she had toned down her posts, and that the TLES debacle was restrained on her part. She accepts that she was OTT on the JRT thread, and would have held her hands up had she been banned for what she said there - but being banned after the TLES thread, where she was more restrained than many others, doesn't make much sense.

I get that posters find Val aggressive etc, she is, certainly. I can only imagine how she feels seeing the fruits of backyard breeders, irresponsible re-homers and dog dumpers day in day out. She lives and breathes her work - it is a vocation, not a job and something that she is passionate about. It is hard to 'turn off' that side of you, but amazingly she does it all the time - across the boards I find her helpful, funny and compassionate - but she blows a fuse where dogs are concerned. She has given many many more posters advise and assistance than abuse - but of course it is only the worst posts that stick in our minds. I was greatly amused on the thread where she posted as DBF giving calm, measured advice before another poster came along and said "oooh just you wait until Val gets here" . A lot of it is persona, how she is perceived by others, not how she is all the time.

I am a soldier, I live and breathe the Army. I read on here and MN FB posters comments about how all soldiers are nothing but trained killers, baby killers, thick as mince and how female soldiers shouldn't have babies.....it's bloody upsetting and infuriating at the same time (especially when MN wont delete). For that alone I can empathise with Val.

TLES would have tried the patience of a saint during this case - she was warned again and again not to do what she did, and I'm not surprised that MANY POSTERS (not just Val) were appalled with her.

I too think she should be given one last chance due to the FORCE OF NATURE that is this thread.

It would be kind, it would be 'just', and we ALL now know that DBF is both respected and may need to be tempered a tad - so we can all keep an eye on her.

@Northernlurker

I think that there is certainly room for change in the tenor of the Doghouse. What I really don't like though is the number of people both on this thread who have come on to effectively say 'oooh DBF has been banned. What a good thing, I didn't like her' That's petty and mean. Disagree with the view, point out that she could hector with the best of them but don't gloat. This is not a happy situation.

Just to inject a note of caution btw - we've filled up one thread in just a few hours, Justine has abandoned her family to take up residence on the boards and Christmas is coming........anybody else got deja vu?

Oh no, NorthernLurker, don't. If it's turmoil come Christmas Eve we shall be down for site maintenance .

I've just read the first quarter of the thread and have to post - so excuse me if its moved on since....
But, FOR FUCK'S SAKE, will you all fucking well grow the fuck up!!

All this utter crap about Justine's personal attack towards AF, yes carry on trying desperately to be offended.
Carry on trying to force a schoolmarm/naughty pupils dynamic
Carry on being utterly ignorant to the fact that most of us FUCKING WELL LIKE the fact that we can communicate with mnhq on a pretty much equal footing.
If youd rather be treated like princesses by some anonymous company then FUCK OFF, you'll find plenty of sites more than happy to operate in that way.

Jesus christ! I think Justine should sack the lot of you off. Fucking ungrateful dullards.

I think I might have done the odd swear there.
by accidental.

Don't worry Jezza, no one will notice

I don't buy the argument that someone is 'allowed' to behave in a certain way because of the traumatic things they see in daily life. I'm sure there are plenty of mumsnetters in the emergency services/ social work/ teaching/ nursing/ police/ lawyers/ journalists who experience traumatic events, some repeatedly and yes there will be anger to deal with. They may go home and drink a bit too much or run 10 miles or take up cage fighting. But they don't do it on a forum that is supposed to be supportive of parents.

Justine - I do appreciate that, don't think I don't.

But all of this is invisible to those of us posting. We don't get to know when someone is banned (or do we? I didn't, anyhow), and there still seem to be loads of trolls. It is really nice not seeing Edd or Bob doing their stuff and I can imagine that was as annoying for you as anyone. But I'm sorry, it hasn't really changed very much.

I can see that must be depressing for you to hear - but it was pretty depressing to be constantly reporting posts or threads about being told that 'just' a few wind-up threads, just a little bit of rape joking, just a few (hundred) deleted comments weren't really enough reason to ban. Meantime, a load of shy posters look, think 'argh, this is scary', and run away. I don't see who it helps.

Sorry, I know I've said it before, but could you consider on-thread warnings? All we got at the time was the point that rather like hully's peace-n-love approach, which (all due respect to hully), was a bit upsetting. Surely if posters are on the verge of a ban, it is actually ok to admit we're upset by them?

We have never asked for anyone to be banned for a difference of opinion, Justine. even though we're the many headed monster in your eyes, it seems, we don't agree constantly. if we asked for everyone with a different opinion to be banned, then hell, there's times we'd be hitting the report button every other post. we have every shade of feminism over there, but people insist on painting us as clones.

apologies if this has already been raised on the previous thread.... (don't have time to read the whole thing right now).
I very much support the unbanning of DBF for all the reasons posted.... but am particularly -incensed- concerned about the apparent -hipocracy- inconsistency adopted by Mn in relation to different posters / topics.
Not sure who else saw this last night but there was a Doghouse thread which was started up by someone asking for help finding an allegedly stolen show dog, a gordon setter. MNHQ decided to delete the thread after a while as it seemed there was some serious dispute re ownership and the matter should really involve the police.... before it was deleted there were numerous posts making "jokes" on the thread, puns on the issue along the lines of "expect she'll be HOUNDED off here" etc. MNHQ were amongst the posters joining in with this "fun". I appreciate these were not personal attacks on the op but surely, since no one could possibly have known the reality of the situation, was it ok to make fun of and mock the op's distress?? She was asking for help re a stolen dog. she got teased and mocked, sanctioned and abetted by MNHQ. Why is that OK??
FFS.

LRD that's a good point. Maybe an on-thread comment by MNHQ along the lines of "poster x has been warned re their tone/attitude/comments/whatever would help because at least then people would see that MNHQ aren't ignoring reports?

IDK

apologies. my crossings out failed. and obviously my point is that surely it WASN't ok....

I agree entirely but I think traditionally the issue of feminism is so shrouded in myth/reputation and alot of it can be negative and re-enforced by the situation. Fear of the unknown I guess.

If you promise to be gentle will pm you the question... I know it is a bit subjective but hopefully fairly straight forward.

However, I do sit on this whole issue from the wrong side. I am not a dog lover, I do not understand why dogs are put before children and why what were bread to be working animals to achieve specific roles are being put in situations which are totally dissimilar to that. But then again that is not the issue.

People are picking on ONE poster, ONE poster who had the misfortune of not stepping away from the computer and the thread of another poster when it might be concluded the situation was not all that it should be. To be banned on that alone is unnecessary.

However, I really don't give a shit how much good she did or didn't do. Clearly her approach was wrong even if her goal was worthy. This is about a much much much bigger issue. And there are two aspects:

1. Perhaps sometimes self moderation is over come by emotions and there needs to be a few more posters who have the ability to step away and say the tone is going to far (be it abiu/bf-ff/DH or feminism or anytopic)
2. The rules for banning are inconsitantly applied.

attack on individual not ok, but attack on a group of individuals is more acceptable because of no attacked not the attack itself

Emotional vampires imo are trolls and should be treated as such, but admittedly this is harder to prove. However, they can do more damage then the outright trolls. However, atm this doesn't seem to be the case. And it is breeding a lot of ill feeling.

There needs to be more consistency of the rules. SImple. This case was a problem because of the inconsistency, and the final straw not being a clear cut serious breach of the rules (only in that she said what a lot of posters have wanted to say but not necessarily had the guts nor spur of the moment ability to actually type)

It is clear we need to have two Dog House topics. Rabid Mutts and Poochie Woochies.

MmeLindor I absolutely was not taking about you or anyone else who posted sensible, measured posts. I was referring to the very small minority who were using this as an excuse to say really nasty things like she was "deranged" and other things.

I happen to agree with Reality including about the feminism topic - I don't post there as often after a couple of posters used "liberal feminist" as an insult and after i was compared to a Nazi sympathiser for my views on the veil mainly because it is a much quieter board recently.

I really am off now. RL beckons but I will be back on my break looking for a nice, calm boring thread to post on.

fluffy - that's what I'm getting at. With the situation in Feminism I'm thinking about, it would have been great. Because unless you actually ask other posters, you've no way to know if MNHQ thinks you're a lone weirdo who cares about strange things like rape jokes, or whether pretty much everyone at HQ agrees and is just looking for a reason to ban the poster in qestion. And that's pretty depressing.

It would also be really good, because it there were a warning like 'LRD your post has been reported by several people and your tone is very harsh', these posters who're saying they'd post more if they weren't so scared would presumably be less scared.

Meanwhile .... I'm not refraining from posting elsewhere, and there's someone who would like a recommendation for a good rescue in the Kent area. If someone can tell me I'll pass it on. Thanks. (the poster asked for rescue info, to be clear - breeders also being openly discussed !!!)

yes, JV, I posted what feels like yonks ago that I'd ban the lot of them. (realising the existential conundrum attached to such a proposal).

Glad to see LemonDifficult's posts are well-received. MN have 'warned' her, apparently, and for her own reasons she has chosen, yes made a choice, to ignore those warnings. Because she is a wonderful advocate for doggies/other animals this doesn't make her bullet proof on a parenting website. To not keep the ban would be giving a very mixed message. Poor behaviour would then just become a dialogue.

And again, Justine wasnt blaming the FS for attracting trolls. To accuse her of that is plain barmy (nice old fashioned word) and a leetle bit paranoid and precious.

I have spoken.

darkness - cross-posted, but sure PM me.

I don't really get the myth/reputation thing, but I have seen so many posts by people saying 'ooh, I never post there, it's too scary', and it makes me feel as if they're talking about a monster. It is pretty crappy.

I've also found that when I post for support there, the support I get from most people (feminist regulars or not) is lovely, like you'd expect for MN. But a few people seem to think (and say) that if you're a feminist, you should be more able to take harsh criticism. That's not on. I think that's part of teh inconsistency in HQ's attitude: it feels as if they decided we coulld take it, and it wouldn't really upset us to get trolled. But it does.

am heading off to the feminist section. liking the sound of it from what I've gathered on here!

Would visible on-thread warnings help though?

Or would they encourage some people to make comments to bait or provoke the person on a warning on purpose, hoping to make them snap or over-react and say the final straw thing that gets them banned?

And if they only take place on the thread, many people wouldn't see them anyway and still be surprised to find someone had been banned if and when it happened.

Or conversely, if they had been so upset they were avoiding certain parts of the site because of someone behaving badly, not see them and continue to think that that person hadn't been dealt with and was still active elsewhere on the site.