Deletions - These are ludicrous

[Hullygully]

Ok, that's enough now MNHQ

Stop it with the mad deleting.

Exactly, Maryz. Totally agree with you and BIWI.

I don't understand the current approach at all. I was a newbie when I found MN, everyone is. It was robust, challenging and instantly engaging. I wasn't put off by the kinds of posts that are routinely deleted now, nor were the thousands and thousands of others who've joined over the years. Why would it be different now?

There are, Maryz, and they are the ones who benefit from this kind of stuff. They also encourage, for ment and exploit it.

I agree with BIWI and Maryz.

It would be a shame if the noticeable increase in deletions were connected to any revenue issues, such as demands from advertisers for the site to have a certain atmosphere.

One of the best things about MN is that conversations can be robust and challenging, but when the chips are down, it's a supportive, pro-active and vocal community.

x post with Hester - esp re "robust & challenging"

Someone just called me sour faced. Can I get her deleted? You don't get more personal than that!

"And and and - if a post along the lines of 'welcome to Mumsnet' gets deleted, it has been deleted because someone has reported it (give that we know that MNHQ are not reading all the posts on every thread).

I wonder who reports posts like that?"

Like I said further upthread before Justine came on. I think we have a band of Trollhunter hunters.

My concern is that I'll have to spend a lot of time trying to word my posts. I'm a slow typer anyway and now I'll have to not post an initial reaction/thought in case it breaks guidelines. It'll be like trying to compose cryptic crossword clues! By which time the entire thread will possibly have been deleted.

MrsSnaplegs, unfortunately it's one of many, especially at certain times of the year. It does get so very boring at times. I suppose the only good bit is that I am able to remember some of the most horrible posters and avoid them. I shouldn't have to, MN should follow their own rules, but they don't seem to want to, so

Yes ABF - the ultimate. Not just Pos but Extra Super Joyless Pos. They probably have a shiny badge on the hoiky bosom of their polyester cardigans.

No they didn't Seeker, why are you stirring?

They did on a diff thread poss, Lt.

Yes, apparently you should report seeker.

See that's it, us old regs don't report...

Ahh now Hully, I think saying someone's 'particular brand of sourfacedness' is different to calling someone 'sourfaced' To me the first is relating to the style of posting, the second is personal.

I suppose a good example of the nuance that MN was trying to explain last night

I think that is a split hair and a red herring.

After a mega 12 hour sleep to try to get my temp back down, I am really impressed at the amount of time justine took last night discussing this!

Don't get that on many sites neither you do.

Hummphhhh... why is it just as I find my 'spiritual' home on the net.... it goes belly up on me..... s'not fair!!! I found that the frank and open discussions to be useful - there is no substitute for plain speaking!!

I don't do Glitter so not going over to the darkside but I am going to miss those updates on Mortimer et al, the sage advice re pus and boils....
pah!!

I once had an e-mail from MNHQ asking about a thread that had been posted about me. It was a very definite personal attack ('snobby cow', I seem to remember ). MNHQ asked me if I wanted them to delete it. I said not to - I had already dealt with the poster on the thread ( which had moved on apace by then), and I thought it said a lot about the other poster, and therefore be left to stand.

I think that it should be to the 'attackee' to decide if a post should be deleted, and not left up to the opinion of someone else, or MNHQ.

No no, absolutely, but that is kind of my point. The rules are too ambiguous, you and I (and obvs Seeker) see the same words, but with different meanings, and therefore different outcomes.

I'm not joking (or being purposely antagonistic), when I say that I absolutely don't see that line as a personal attack. But you do. So for eg OliviaMN might see it my way, and JustineMN your way - and therein lies the confusion.

Sorry, above post was to Hully

@pinkpyjamas

I agree with BIWI and Maryz.

It would be a shame if the noticeable increase in deletions were connected to any revenue issues, such as demands from advertisers for the site to have a certain atmosphere.

One of the best things about MN is that conversations can be robust and challenging, but when the chips are down, it's a supportive, pro-active and vocal community.

Good morning all. As I may have caused some confusion last night by my unfortunate omission of the "not" can I state again:

Deletions - if they are occurring more frequently, as many here contend - are not doing so because of revenue issues/ advertisers' demands/ marketing strategy etc. There has been no change in policy/ direction/ expectations of the mod team. Zilch, nada, none.

So if things have changed then either:

1. More things are being reported
2. There's a different interpretation of the rules going down

We are going to investigate this.

Wrt to troll hunting and our policy of zero tolerance - this has always, always been a contentious issue ever since ye olde days of Judge Flounce and you all know why we think troll hunting is pernicious but I do take the points raised by BIWI, Hester and others lower down the thread that things may not be working optimally. We will have conflabs here at HQ this morning and I'll be back.

Er- you do realise that I didn't really mean that should be deleted, don't you? You do, don't you?

yy agree Lt.