Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

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

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

DBF BANNING THREAD: 3

617 replies

oldqueenie · 08/11/2011 22:56

are we allowed to carry on discussing this?

OP posts:
ChippingInNeedsSleep · 09/11/2011 13:35

Rhubarb - I missed all that before. Please don't ban her MN she's just a twat... oppps I mean she's behaving like a twat.

Grin

I still don't think that DBF, or anyone, deserves to be banned for calling someone a liar.

Nor does it explain why people have been allowed to be really nasty to and about her on these threads.

MmeLindor. · 09/11/2011 13:36

Grimma
All the tea drinking will mean that we shall be obliged to allow loo going as an alternative

RustyBear · 09/11/2011 13:39

Someone has probably linked to this already, but fear of repetition doesn't seem to be stoppng anyone else on these threads, so what the hell....

BecauseImWorthIt · 09/11/2011 13:39

ChippingIn - she wasn't banned for calling someone a liar. She was banned because she was on her last warning. And the personal attack on TLE was the last straw/the final reason why she was eventually banned.

TheRhubarb · 09/11/2011 13:41

It's clear you all think highly of Val, but for someone to receive so many warnings ... well that only happened once before to DaftPunk. I think because you all know her, you can understand why she loses her temper or understand her fire, but to others who don't know her, perhaps she can come across as being rude and aggressive? In any case, lots of different people have reported her so she was obviously upsetting and offending many different posters.

Look, custy is my best mate but recently she disagreed with me on a thread and actually gave me a telling off for getting too emotional and personal. What I'm trying to say is that you can be great friends with someone but still see their faults and be honest enough to tell them when they've overstepped the mark.

She clearly overstepped the mark not just on this occasion but on others too. And she is carrying on making personal remarks on her facebook page. If what she has said on there is anything like what she posted on Mumsnet then yes, I can see why she has been banned. And that is not anything personal against her as I don't really 'know' her (although Valhalla caused controversy once before did she not? Has she not already been banned under that name? Or am I confusing her with someone else?), she could be the kindest person in the world, but if she is making personal accusations or repeatedly getting her posts banned then it's up to MNHQ to act. She was given a warning was she not? Several by the sounds of things. Sounds as though she just pushed it too far and her time was up.

The other poster was also banned so I don't get the big hoo-ha now? What, did you want MNHQ to give her another chance? What if she blew that? How many chances can you give someone? What about those posters who complained about her? Not just one, but several, what about their complaints? Is it fair to them to keep overlooking her temper and her posts?

It's all very well to have fire in your belly but you need to keep it there sometimes.

There, that's me on a serious note. Is that any more helpful? I'm still not arsed about dogs though, sorry.

ChippingInNeedsSleep · 09/11/2011 13:50

BIWI - I stand by what I said earlier.

Either what someone says is worthy of a ban or it isn't.

It shouldn't matter who says something, it should be about what they say.

Other people were far nastier and far more personal (to TLES) on that thread, none of them got banned. Other people called her (TLES) a liar, they didn't get banned.

DBF had done what MNHQ asked of her, she had 'toned down' her posts, a lot. She called TLES a liar. Calling someone who has been proven to be lying a liar is really not like shooting your mouth off randomly at a poster asking a question about rehoming their dog.

BecauseImWorthIt · 09/11/2011 13:53

Yes, ChippingIn, but those other people weren't on a final warning, were they? From the sounds of it, MNHQ had actually been pretty generous to DBF, and she'd already come back once from a temporary ban. They do have to draw the line somewhere.

LadyBeagleEyes · 09/11/2011 13:56

Wow, that has got to be the most annoying song ever. Does it actually end?
I couldn't listen any more.
And is nobody thinking of the alpacas?

GrimmaTheNome · 09/11/2011 13:57

I think its a pity they drew it at this particular, non-clearcut point.
Given how many posters on that thread think the decision was wrong, I think MNHQ should have reviewed it, debanned DBH but made it clear to everyone that this really was the last chance - then I'm sure people who valued her expertise but sometimes deplored her manner would have tried to keep a lid on things. I'm sorry we've not been given that chance.

TheRhubarb · 09/11/2011 13:57

Surely it should be merino sheep on Mumsnet?

GalaxyWeaver · 09/11/2011 13:57

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Elibean · 09/11/2011 13:58

Rhubarb, doens't matter - its not really about dogs now (DBF is, but this thread isn't). I like you serious Grin

I think the thing is that lots of us who do appreciate DBF/Val, and have seen the funny, generous, kind posts, feel we could have done more to help her 'tone down' to acceptable levels but didn't: at least, I do. She could (quite easily) have ignored me or told me to get stuffed, but a heads up from pals as opposed to authority figures can sometimes help. Because warnings are done discretely, and not posted on threads/forums, I had no idea she was on a warning already - neither will loads of others who, like me, are just DogHouse regulars rather than close, close buddies.

I didn't even read, let alone contribute to, the Last Straw Thread.

So I'm left with the feeling that the current system is between MNHQ and individual posters, whereas maybe if some of the suggestions made (SilverGhost?? Can't remember now) yesterday were actually implemented, they could be helpful and allow MN to avoid exclusion except under more extreme circumstances.

DreamsOfSteam · 09/11/2011 13:58

Gawd! This is going round in circles!

yes, but... no, but.. yes, but... Confused

and its not going to make a blind bit of difference either way.

GrimmaTheNome · 09/11/2011 14:01

DD did a project on Peru in about yr4 and came home insisting to view that Llama song - I just took a peek without the sound on ...arghhh, too much its still infiltrated my brain!

Pinot · 09/11/2011 14:02

I am a bit bored.

GalaxyWeaver · 09/11/2011 14:03

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

TheRhubarb · 09/11/2011 14:06

Elibean - MNHQ cannot and should not make warnings public. DBF would have have communications with MNHQ and she would have known why she was being warned. She might have even entered into a conversation with them about it, but it is all done privately. So when someone is banned it does look quite spontaneous but for all we know she might have received emails from MNHQ about that very thread and reminding her of her warnings.

If someone has received that many warnings, been temporarily suspended, then warned again - are you really surprised about the banning? And what's this about a poster's dh dying and her saying some dismissive remark about that?

I note that no-one has answered my question - was the original Valhalla banned? Or do we not know?

As I said, I only know of one other banning and she fully admits that she was given plenty of warnings and chances before that happened.

TheRhubarb · 09/11/2011 14:08

Now let's turn our attention to

ChippingInNeedsSleep · 09/11/2011 14:08

Rhubarb - DBF may have over stepped the mark at times, she doesn't deny that. She, & we, have also said had she been banned for something 'ban worthy' this would not be an issue. The fact is, what she said to TLES was not a 'banning' offense and yet because it's her she's been banned. No one else got banned for calling TLES a liar. People said far far worse on that thread and weren't banned. She's been singled out because it was her and it's not right.

Other posters that have been banned have been deliberately causing trouble, their aim was to cause trouble, that has never been DBF's aim, not at all.

GrimmaTheNome · 09/11/2011 14:10

was the original Valhalla banned?
that was mentioned somewhere on one of these threads - no, she namechanged because of stalking under that name.

TheRhubarb · 09/11/2011 14:11

Don't take it up with me Chipping. I'm just posting as I see it. Life isn't fair at times, just deal with it. Mumsnet is not the be all and end all. Look out the window from time to time.

Right, half an hour more of intense work then kid pick-up, home and tea.

CalatalieSisters · 09/11/2011 14:11

Yes, rhubarb, I think valhalla (i.e. dbf) was banned before. I think she had had more than enough chances.

GrimmaTheNome · 09/11/2011 14:12

Oh no, not badgers - might inflame my dachshund if I let images of those in the house!

GrimmaTheNome · 09/11/2011 14:14

To clarify - DBH had been previously banned but then allowed back. She didn't get banned as Valhalla and then re-incarnate under a different name - she didn't break that sort of rule.

ConstanceNoring · 09/11/2011 14:14

I agree with a lot of what you've said, Rhubarb, but the thing that's unfortunate here is the way in which the ban has finally stuck on this occasion - kind of 'it wasn't her time to go' , not over this, she was not as much to blame for what was being said to TLES as some others on that thread and frankly TLES herself. Against good advice she got it wrong, and then asked for sympathy. Yes it was red rag to a bull for her, and she bit.

It is a pity that no-one stepped in to remind her to tone it down, in fact the opposite happened, many posters who had tired of TLES in the past (history which I admit I do not know but on that thread they clearly did) did jump in to add to the attacks on her which were far worse than the ticking off DBF was giving out.

But yes this will go round in circles, some think she deserved the ban, others don't - well at least not for this one.

Swipe left for the next trending thread