Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk

Back to thread
Original poster

DBF banning thread, part 2.

16 replies

Rhinestone · 08/11/2011 00:05

OCCUPY MUMSNET continues......

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

Go to post
MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 08/11/2011 00:10

@SacreLao

Linking to thread one in case anyone misses it and wants to go back.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/1337851-to-want-to-know-if-DogsBestFriend-has-been-banned-from-mumsnet

That was a strange comment from Justine as to AF hating their name?

Yes it's probably time for me to hit the sack - am going loopy. Thanks everyone for your input and time.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 08/11/2011 08:05

@nooka

I image that AF was originally 'quite cross' because of Justines's really crass comments about the feminism section made in response to complaints about MNHQs very very slow response to some pretty nasty trolls there and how that didn't fit with the banning of DBF/Valhalla essentially on the grounds of making sure the the dogshouse is nicey nicey. I'm (obviously) not AF but I would be extremely pissed off if someone dismissed my perfectly righteous anger in such a snidey way.

Morning all. I apologise for being a bit flippant last night re AF's name - we do have a bit of history with leg-pulling about it and I hope she took it in that spirit. But it was late and no doubt I should have kept schtum - I should know by now never to make jokes in the middle of a serious discussion.

I do think we need a good discussion about the feminism section. We are not closed-eyed to MRA trolls - they actually take up a hugely disproportionate amount of our time and we have banned quite a few. But from a free speech perspective we are not going to ban anyone just for having a contrary opinion and in any case I think tactically it would be a mistake to do so - it would merely encourage further invasion.

I'm going to move this thread to site stuff (where it belongs Wink) so everyone can add their thoughts.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 08/11/2011 10:15

@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.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 08/11/2011 10:17

@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 Smile.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/11/2011 12:27

@LRDtheFeministDragon

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

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.

Morning all.

LRD, I sincerely hope no one at MNHQ every responded to your reports using phrases such as "just a little bit of rape-joking". We would, frankly, be astonished if anyone had.

MNHQ

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.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 08/11/2011 16:32

@silverfrog

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)

If we banned people for being critical of us, half the bleedin lot of ya would be gone!

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/11/2011 16:41

@zippadeedoodaa

See I could probably list half a dozen inflammatory twats who post the most awful stuff on here, get the odd deletion amd carry on posting Confused . I also know of at least 1 banned poster who was utterly vile but has been back. I think it's the inconsistency that galls people.

Have you reported them to us, zippadeedoodaa?

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 08/11/2011 17:08

@silverfrog

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)

If we banned people for being critical of us, half the bleedin lot of ya would be gone!

@catsrus

**

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".

I think this is a very interesting and helpful post Catrus. Thank you. I largely agree with your analysis as it happens. We ought to be able to be flexible and pragmatic. My worry is that that if we don't enforce the rule then nothing will change in the Doghouse and we think that in order for MN to be "the best, most supportive parenting site it can be" etc etc the Doghouse very much needs to change.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 08/11/2011 17:08

oh sorry i did two posts in one...

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 08/11/2011 17:22

@UrsulaBonfirey

Pan I was going to type 'imagine my opinion is that women deserve to be raped'. Would that do you for hate? You are creating a semantic argument and frankly shitting on my point.

We would always delete a comment like this though and most likely warn the poster.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 08/11/2011 17:26

@GrimmaTheNome

>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.

I see what you're saying here, Grimma, but actually I think it's also our responsibility, which is why we have got involved in this case.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 08/11/2011 17:33

@CalatalieSisters

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.

That's not quite our recollection, think the aggressive tone was already underway but maybe diluted by the tortoise owners?

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 08/11/2011 17:49

@JessieLeGrund

Actually, pictish, it would appear that MN lifts bans on posters, so it isn't final and nor should it be.

Last year they accused a recently bereaved mother of being a troll and banned her. Not their finest hour.

I think we'd say that we re-banned someone who'd been previously banned 4 times for trolling actually Jessie.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 08/11/2011 17:51

@pictish

I had no idea that banned posters have been unbanned on here before. I think that makes things very complicated.

It's pretty rare tbh.

MNHQ

RebeccaMumsnet · 08/11/2011 21:42

@ColdSancerre

MNHQ are googling responsible tortoise purchasing and ownership as they've decided to get an HQ tortoise. They will call it Mitmoo.

We are still very much here

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